Grammar Schools Statement BBC Parliament on BBC Two

based on evidence.

Can the Secretary of State tell us what evidence she does have

that the reintroduction of selection would work?

All the evidence I can find shows that it does not.

Areas that have selection have a wider attainment gap

than those that do not.

Disadvantaged children do not get into grammar schools and poorer

kids do worse in those areas with selection.

The highest performing with the gap has been closing dramatically,

particularly under the weather Government or comprehensibility.

Perhaps the Secretary of State would be better focusing on how

we can spread the good practice of somewhere like London compared

to importing the poorer practice of somewhere like Kent?

It is not clear to me, and I think it would be helpful

for the Labour front bench to set out exactly where they stand

on the issue of removing any existing grammars,

which as I understand it, is the Liberal Party proposal,

and perhaps from our comments, we can assume she wasn't

all existing selection as well.

-- Labour Party.

If she is not prepared to make the argument, I think it is hard

to argue against the status quo, whilst then also arguing

that we are wrong to look at reforming it.

Which I think is the position that she is taking.

The reality is that there are many grammar schools that are doing

important work, for example Bournemouth Grammar prioritising

children on pupil premium getting into grammar schools.

We know that when children on free school meals get into grammar is,

they disproportionately do well.

There is evidence from the Sutton trust that shows that children

outside of the grammar system, there was no discernible lessening

of their attainment more easily.

And we're not in a binary system now, we are in a system

were overwhelmingly our schools have improved over the last six years.

There are no many more all kinds that are good or outstanding.

So this sense that somehow if children are not in a grammar

that they are consigned to an education system

that is failing them is simply wrong.

But we do have to accept that there are still some schools

where children do not have access to a good school place.

The proposals and the debate we are starting today is one aimed

at looking how we can tackle it.

It sits alongside a much broader series of policy reforms,

but we are going to make sure that we push on and change

in circumstance, unlike the party opposite, which seems to not even

want to have a debate on the first place.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Can I welcome what my right honourable friend has said today

about greater collaboration between universities

and independent schools and those in the state system.

I also agree with what she said about faith schools,

this does need to be looked at.

Over the past six years on the side, we have consistently

challenged the soft bigotry of low expectations.

It says that academic education is not available to all.

She is right to save that we have great schools and great teachers,

but we do not have them everywhere.

Could she explain how the Green paper proposals on selective

education will benefit those pupils in areas where expectations

are still too low, where results are too poor, can't you tell us

when she is going to announce the first of the achieving

excellence in areas?

She is right to point out that too often, the past,

I don't think governments have had high enough expectations

were children growing up in my disadvantaged parts

of our country.

I think that is totally unacceptable.

There are talented children growing up all over our country and we must

make sure we have an education system that can enable them to make

the most of their talents.

Also right to point out that if we want to see new grammars open,

we have to walk to work with local communities but I would like to see

more of those disadvantaged communities get the chance

to have a grammar.

At the moment that is not an opportunity for them,

even if local parents want it.

We know that 20% of children who are at grammar schools come

from outside the immediate catchment area.

That clearly suggests that parents in those broader areas also want

the choice of a grammar for their children.

Finally, on the points she stepped out in the White Paper,

which I thought was quite right, the achieving excellence areas

were about saying, actually, we need to look systematically

at places where there is systematic letting down of children,

where they do not have access to good school places,

and look at what it will take inside and outside schools to make

sure we change that over time.

So I can assure her that all that work will continue

and I would like to pay tribute to her for the White Paper

that she set out that put in place the building bricks of what I hope

will be a successful approach.

It is simply not true to save that on the side

of the House we are in favour of levelling down.

Schools that work for everyone and all families is exactly

what members on this side are in favour of.

I want to press the Secretary of State on this question of evidence.

Where is the evidence that any of the improvement we have seen

in the last 15 to 20 years has come as a result of selection?

In particular, can she name he schools as elsewhere in the world

that succeeds on the basis of selection at 11?

Our proposals are clear, we do not want to see a test did --

tested 11 be the main way that children get into grammar schools,

we want more flexibility in the system.

This is about having a 21st-century education system but also a 21st

century approach to grammars.

I think it is wrong to say we should freeze grammars in time and never

come back and look at how they could work more effectively.

The test is surely the fact that 99% of grammar schools are judged to be

good or outstanding by Ofsted.

These are schools that have outstanding leadership,

outstanding teachers, a strong and rigorous curriculum,

they deliver the children who are of lower attainment

and disadvantage but also stretched those who are better attainment

and that is why they are rated as good or outstanding.

It would be wrong not to look at how we can all those features

into the broader school system.

But we should be enabling where there is choice and wear

there is demand for more grammar schools to open up.

Back in 1944, of course, there were three types

of school proposed, grammar, secondary modern and technical.

By 1959, only 2% of any Eurogroup could expect to get

a technical school.

The problem is sometimes in delivery and the mechanism

for the fermentation.

My question is, what plans has she got to make sure

that the changes she's talking about in the green paper

will actually be implemented in such a way that we do reach every

community, that we do reach every and that we can be sure

that we are giving every child the best possible opportunity

in a grammar school, or another school of some different type?

Because it is the mechanism and it is the brokering of that

mechanism and the checking that the mechanism is working that

will actually count for a lot in this whole policy.

I pay tribute to all of his work as chair of the education

Select Committee, this is about loading capacity

fundamentally about having more good school places the children around

Britain, and I think what you will see is a test

of its success is the continued improvement in attainment,

very much following on from what my right honourable friend the member

for Surrey Heath has said, but particularly focusing on those

children who do not get as far as they should and have not been

able to enjoy and benefit from the broader reforms that

so many more children now are.

Can I tell the Secretary of State that this country has made steady

progress in education over the years, under all parties.

There has been real improvement in our education system.

Is she aware that sending a message that it has been a history

of failure is not very encouraging, that teachers and people

who deliver education?

But can I please beg her not to start what we have seen

in the chamber already, a bitter war about comp

offensive against grammar?

Grammar schools, if you like them, provide the evidence,

provide what is best for our students and kids in this

country, do not start this ideological turf war

that is going to be very damaging to our country.

Well, I agree with him.

I think we need to open up a measured debate that is based

on evidence about what it is going to take it to improve our school

system and particular for those children don't have access to a good

school place, what it will take to enable them to have one.

We believe selection can play a role in that and we should look at how

that should be done more effectively, and he was at

the urgent question we had on Thursday.

I recognise how emotive this issue is across the House.

That is because it matters.

It matters for all of our children.

But I think the wrong thing to do would be to simply to see the kind

of concerns that the members opposite express, and simply put

them in a box over here and not be prepared to look at how we can make

grammars work more effectively for disadvantaged children.

In doing so, we should also recognise that every

child is different.

For those who academic, they need schools which can help

them stretch themselves.

Theresa Villiers.

My anxiety with some of these pose oils is the Secretary of State

rightly focuses on areas of economic disadvantage but without any kind

of local catchment area, how can we guarantee that

new selections schools will benefit the communities in

which they are situated?

Well, we are setting out a number of conditions that new grammars

would have to meet, frankly, for them to be able to open

in the first place.

Part of that would be working with local communities

and demonstrating local demand.

It could also involve setting up a nonselective school or sponsoring

one that is there.

It could also involve sponsoring a primary school that feeds

the grammar school that is in a more low income area, so that it

absolutely reaches into some of those communities

that we want to see benefit most from good or outstanding grammars

that are being established.

I would encourage her to look at the consultation document.

It opens a lot of questions about how we can do this effectively

and then I have no doubt I would be interested in her response.

I listened to the Secretary of State carefully.

I'm quite sorry for her in a way because I am sure this is not

directly her policy.

Could she tell us confidentially whether she was as surprised

as we were when informed of this policy and to do with government

spats in Downing Street?

I think on behalf of the children of Britain I think that was a totally

pointless question and I will not bother answering it.

Look, I don't want any child to go to the sort of school I went

to in the last five years of my secondary education.

The Hartland comprehensive was more like a Borstal than a school,

and unfortunately, there are still too many comprehensives

like that in our country.

But, and it is a big but, the schools in my constituency have

done so well, notably George Spencer becoming an outstanding academy,

because of the Academy programme.

I think in my constituency, there is no desire for us

to have selection.

So can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents,

that the Academy programme which is delivering,

will still be supported by this government?

Yes, of course, and indeed this is about providing...

In many parts of the country we have seen academies

transform prospects already.

It may be that local communities are happy with the existing schools

and they want to see them get better.

Discussing education with parents and teachers,

issues which come up time and time again is the need for more primary

places, teacher recruitment and the North-South funding gap.

Not one person has ever raised new grammars with me.

Where is the evidence that this continuing obsession with structures

will resolve the real issues facing education?

She is right to highlight the need for more primary places and indeed,

we have put billions into ensuring those places other.

Part of the challenge is insuring that democratic board is passing

into secondary schools.

We have to ensure the secondary system has a number

of places our children need, but we have to ensure

they are good places which is why we want to open up this

debate on selection, open up the debate on ending

the ban on grammars.

This is not to say there is not the rest of the agenda in education

that we need to carefully push on with.

She talks about teacher recruitment, she talks about making sure

education funding is fair around the country and absolutely,

all of those things will be once I continue to focus on.

May I welcome my right honourable friend's commitment to greater

freedom for faith schools.

In my constituency we have the best performing competences in the entire

country and it forms part of a diverse mix which includes

part selective schools.

Does she agree with me that it is that diversity

which is driving up standards and issue committed

to maintaining that diversity?

He sets out the case very well in terms of how parents have got

more and better choice in his own local community.

It is important and it is how we seek standards rising

and we are committed to that continuing.

I also listened very carefully to the words of the Secretary

of State and she did say we don't want to see a test at 11

for access to grammars.

So is it her intention to abolish the 11 plus for existing grammar

schools, and if not, why not?

The point I was making to him was that many people feel

there is a cliff edge in terms of the entry into grammar schools

as it stands in terms of age 11.

We are consulting on having the chance for children to go

into a local grammar, perhaps at an older age,

or indeed if they are particularly capable at one or two subjects

that they could perhaps go to a grammar to study those.

I'm sure he will read the consultation

document with interest.

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that when lifting

the statutory bar, we are not returning to a two tier system

of the 1950s, in circumstances where our education system has moved

on, where we have choice of UTC, free schools, academies

as well as apprenticeships, and when striving for educational

excellence, we should continue to look at all forms of education

for our children?

She is quite right.

We have moved from a system where there was a one size fits

all approach on schools for children and we now have a system

where there is so much diversity and choice,

but we do think it is wrong to have one kind of school in that system,

unable to respond to parent demand, and that is the need

for more grammars.

We need to open up that debate and look at what we can do to enable

parents to have more of a choice around the country.

The minister says she wants to get views from everywhere.

The Education Minister will be aware that exam results schools

in Northern Ireland were some of the best in Britain and Northern

Ireland.

Has the Education Minister had the opportunity to strategise these

results for the benefit of the UK mainland?

I know the system of grammars in Northern Ireland is one that

people would point to to say an average attainment has increased.

I was invited to Northern Ireland in the urgent question last week

to look for myself and I am sure that I will be able to visit

Northern Ireland shortly.

I welcome the Secretary of State's Green paper on the wider

aspects of education, I have to say that I have severe

reservations about introducing more grammar schools.

I was at a grammar school 50 years ago, and I have often wondered,

if I had failed the 11 plus, where I would be.

I wouldn't be here today.

I know the educational system has moved on,

but I have to say I think it is not a question of introducing more

grammar schools, if people want grammar schools,

that is fine.

It is what is happening in the main part of the system.

The main question we have to deal with this not just about access

to schools, it is about the poverty of many of the parents,

the dysfunctional families, and I'm sure that my right

honourable friend will be looking at this and if she could perhaps

give me some reassurance that this is going to be done.

Very much so.

As I just replied to my right honourable friend for Loughborough,

this issue of looking at specific areas where there is a persistent

and long-term lack of educational attainment and a gap

in good school places, absolutely has to sit alongside this

consultation document, and the rest of the Government

reforms that we now have under way, that have delivered so much

for the children of Britain have to continue.

The Secretary of State's statement is deeply divisive.

Will she say to the House what the differences

between the selection criteria for a grammar school

and the selection criteria for a free school, and will she say

to the House what the evidence base is available to her for not

prioritising the needs of the young people who are not

going to be selected?

I would encourage him to look at the Green paper consultation

document that we have published today.

It very much not only talks about how we think grammars can play

a strong

role and selection play a strong role particularly improving

the specs for disadvantaged children who are academically able,

but it also sets out our expectation that grammars can do a lot more

in their local communities to raise attainment more broadly,

and as I said to the honourable lady opposite, the challenge is that this

is not a reform that has been engaged with grammars before,

and it is time that we asked them to do more, but in return we should

also be prepared to enable them to open up in other parts

of the country.

Mr Speaker, I have no ideological hang-ups in letting the brightest

children do well, I think it is crucial that we allow

the poorest to come through to do so.

I welcome this as the beginning of a debate and as one method

whereby we can increase the diversity of the school system.

Can I discuss the role that universities play.

We see the results that Norwich players and teachers

are dressing issues hard.

Norwich is an area where we can see attainment is raised particularly

with the work of the University of East Anglia is doing

in the local community.

I think we are at the beginning of the understanding of how

universities can work effectively further back

in the education system.

We see it can dramatically improve the prospects for children

so that they get the levels of education and attainment say that

going to university becomes an option.

The Government was serious about social mobility,

it would be focusing on the early years and technical

and vocational provision.

One thing I do welcome as the Secretary of State's

acceptance of the Labour Party's 2015 manifesto commitment

to independent schools and they should be doing more

to earn a charitable status.

But rather than going down the blind alley of the charitable commission,

can I urge the Secretary of State to amend the 1988 local government

act so that private schools business rate relief is dependent on a hard

partnership as determined by the independent

schools Inspectorate.

It remains a scandal that our sixth form colleges are paying VAT

and private schools have business rate relief.

This has two end.

As I understood his policy was to simply scrap

charitable status.

What we have to do is make sure our independent schools earn

that charitable status and truly deliver more public benefit perhaps

than some are doing at the moment.

Although it is fair to say that overwhelmingly many independent

schools already do much in their local community.

As the competence of schoolboy, can I commend my right honourable

friend for this bold new departure.

Will she, however, at all times are sure that the language used

by the Government focuses on pupils' aptitudes rather than solely

on their academic ability.

I believe that way there are no losers instead all talents are

champions and all roles fulfilled.

The attainment gap between poor and rich children is unacceptable.

It holds them and our country back.

But the Secretary of State is simply wrong to say expanding grammar

schools will help the most disadvantaged children,

who are less likely to get into grammar schools and fall

further behind better off children than those in areas

without selective schools.

Can I ask the Minister to instead focus on what we know

from the evidence makes the biggest difference to disadvantaged

children, high-quality early years services, getting the best heads

and teachers in the school 's and relentlessly driving up

standards in academic and vocational qualifications.

Two points.

We are doing all of those things and the reality

is that our proposals are aimed at ensuring the grammar schools do

take more disadvantaged children, and all I would say is Labour had 13

years to look at this and failed to do so.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the community I represent

in Bournemouth and Poole already has access to high-quality

local grammar schools.

But can I make her aware of the change in the admission

policy from 2018 for a Bournemouth School headed

by Doctor Dorian Lewis that we are going to put

a geographical limit prioritising Bournemouth pupils, we're

going to prioritise looked after and formerly looked

after children, prioritise those on free school meals and combine

this, and this is critical, with an ambitious programme

of outreach to the primary schools to raise the aspiration of both

primary school pupils and their parents about sending

their children to these schools.

Would she agree with me that this is an ambitious thing

that is totally in line with the prime minister's excellent

new policy, and would she agree to either come to Bournemouth School

to see at first hand what they are doing,

or to meet Doctor Dorian Lewis the headteacher, we bring him

here to London?

I'm very happy to meet his local head teacher.

What he sets out in terms of what that head teacher is doing,

is exactly what we want to see replicated across schools

in the country, and also in terms of conditions we'll set for existing

grammars to extend and to open up new grammars.

We want them to be engines for social mobility.

I hope we do have a debate because it's important because none

of us should be satisfied that our children aren't getting

the best out of, what is it these days, 18 years before too long

of compulsory education.

When I spoke in a debate led by my former colleague Joe Cox,

we spoke about the lack of educational attainment

in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Three things came out of that.

So many are behind their peers by the age of three,

Doncaster and other places, we can't attract the best

teachers for love nor money.

And, the choice at 14 isn't good enough for those who want to follow

a vocational route.

Can I ask the Secretary of State please do not abandon those areas

that I feel are the greater importance to achieving the outcome

she wants than the debate that could be divisive

on grammar schools?

I can absolutely assure her that I won't ever abandon that agenda

of looking at some of our more struggling areas in terms

of educational attainment and seeing what we can do to lift them.

I grew up in Rotherham, went through the state

school system there.

I'm personally committed to making sure that that area does better

in the future than it's done in the past and for me,

to be able to have a role now where I can actually help build

the education system that enabled me to be successful,

I think that's a chance and opportunity that I'll make

the most of.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

If the minister is indeed going to search for evidence.

Will she try and find out why the OECD have said educational

outcomes in England are far higher than in Wales where we had 17 years

of Labour Government?

I think it's almost certainly because the Labour Government

in Wales has failed to learn from the reforms that we've made

here in the United Kingdom and it's interesting,

we are having a debate about grammar schools.

The reality is that many parents want the features of grammar schools

that often make them successful, which is excellent teachers

and outstanding leadership, a stretching, rigorous academic

curriculum and excellent extracurricular activities as well.

Those are the things that parents want across the school system.

Discipline too.

Our reforms have largely embedded them across the school system.

That's why we are seeing standards going up.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I am proud to represent a town which is ram packed

with what she calls ordinary working class people.

We are also a town - I'm using the Secretary of State's

words - it's also a town which has grammar schools.

I just called them people.

Those people are very frustrated that their kids can't get into local

grammar schools because people with much more resources are able

to drive miles from West London and get into grammar schools

on the basis of the 11-plus.

Now, I'm beginning to not be sure what she means by a grammar school

because when I talk to the heads in the grammar schools,

they say they cannot make a test for admission

which is a tutor proof.

The point is, my constituents, those who can't afford tutors,

are not getting places in the grammar schools.

Therefore, grammar schools do not serve, as her statement implies,

those ordinary, in her words "ordinary" working class people.

Unfortunately it serves those people who can afford to tutor their kids.

I think in that case it's all the more reason for us to be

bringing forward the reforms that we are doing today.

I find it nonsensical to make an argument in the way she's just

done then say we should do nothing about it.

Unparalleled talent, unprecedented access.

BBC Two takes a sneaky peek behind the celebrity curtain.

One piece of advice...

Go out there, grab it with both hands and stick it in your mouth.

Job done!

Easy peasy, get yourself a catchphrase.

And baaaaaake!

Think of an idea, anything will do,

tweet it, Instagram it.

Get it on Facebook.

Teeth. They're your passport to success, darling.

All new comedy on BBC Two.

PLAYS FANFARE

It's a bang.

Whoosh!

SINGS STRICTLY THEME

You're getting grumpy.

Ah-ha.

What next?

You know it's good.

Perfectly harmonious.

It's completely breathtaking.