# data[].attributes.body
Thomas clipet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Grammar Debate (19/10/2016), Julia George - BBC Radio Kent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do we need more grammar schools? Call on 03459 81 11 11.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the wonderful things ImeldaElliott has made

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The idea that poor children will benefit from a return of grammar schools is "tosh" and "nonsense", says the outgoing chief inspector of Ofsted.

Sir Michael Wilshaw said a return to selection at 11 years old would be a "profoundly retrograde step" that would lead to sliding standards.

He spoke out after reports that Prime Minister Theresa May favours changing the law so new grammars can open.

England's Education Secretary Justine Greening is looking into the issue.

Supporters of grammar schools say that children from poor backgrounds are helped to make the most of their potential because entry to such schools is on the basis of raw ability.

But many argue that, in fact, the vast majority of those doing well in entrance tests are children whose parents have paid for them to be privately tutored outside school.

In a speech to London Councils' education conference, Sir Michael praised the success of schools in the capital saying they had undergone an "amazing transformation" and lead the way in "narrowing the attainment gap between rich and poor".

"It has maintained its status as the top performing region across all key stages when it comes to the performance of children eligible for free school meals," he said.

The soaring success of London schools made "a mockery of the claim that opening up many grammar schools is the key to unlocking the potential of disadvantaged children and to boosting social mobility," he said.

'Pretty woeful'

"If grammar schools are the great answer, why aren't there more in London?

"If they are such a good thing for poor children, then why are poor children here in the capital doing so much better than their counterparts in those parts of the country that operate selection?"

He said he appreciated that many grammar schools did a "fine job", but added that their record of admitting children from non-middle class backgrounds was "pretty woeful".

"The notion that the poor stand to benefit from the return of grammar schools strikes me as quite palpable tosh and nonsense - and is very clearly refuted by the London experience."

He cited figures showing the under-representation of poor pupils in grammar schools.

In Bexley, he said grammar schools had 9% of pupils on free school meals, compared to 28% in non-selective schools.

In Sutton, where five out of 14 schools are grammars, the proportion is about 7% in grammar schools and 25% in non-selective schools.

In a BBC interview this weekend, Mrs May did not answer directly a question about whether she planned to bring back grammar schools.

But she said Ms Greening was looking at the issue of new grammar schools as well as other areas of education policy.

Labour banned new grammars in 1998 amid concerns they were dominated by middle-class pupils whose parents gave them a head-start with private tutoring.

England's first "new" grammar for 50 years in Sevenoaks, Kent, was only approved last year as an "annexe" to an existing school using a loophole in the law.

Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner described Sir Michael's comments as "an embarrassing rebuke" for the Conservatives.

"The Tories should be concentrating instead on raising standards in all schools and improving education for all our children, regardless of their backgrounds.

"They are failing to do so. But they want to return to a system in which children were branded as failures at the age of 11 and which only increased division in our society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The idea that poor children will benefit from a return of grammar schools is "tosh" and "nonsense", says the outgoing chief inspector of Ofsted. Sir Michael Wilshaw said a return to selection at 11 years old would be a "profoundly retrograde step" that would lead to sliding standards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every f***ing grammar school in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland." The authenticity of the quotation, attributed to Tony Crosland by his wife Susan, is contested but there is no doubting the determination that the socialist intellectual and Labour politician brought to his goal of eliminating the nation's grammar schools. Only 164 remain today, compared with more than 1,200 beacons of academic excellence that predated Mr Crosland's ruinous reign.

If they weren't so mindful of their public relations, the likes of Eton, Winchester and Harrow might well have erected statues of the former education secretary in recognition of his unintended services to the sector from which he emerged too clever by half. Because today,...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smarter grammar schools can be fair to all

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every f***ing grammar school in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland." The authenticity of the quotation, attributed to Tony Crosland by his wife Susan, is contested but there is no doubting the determination that the socialist intellectual and Labour politician brought to his goal of eliminating the nation's grammar schools.

# data[].attributes.body
4th October 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The government's social mobility tsar has warned that expanding the current grammar school system would be a disaster, a day after it emerged Theresa May was considering the idea.

Alan Milburn, the former Labour cabinet minister who chairs the government's social mobility commission, said ending the ban on building new selective schools risked creating an "us and them divide" within the education system.

He said pupils at England's remaining 163 selective state schools were four or five times more likely to have come from independent prep schools than from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

"This is not selection educationally, it is selection socially. If [more of] that is what is being talked about, it will not provide a social mobility dividend, it will be a social mobility disaster," said Milburn, although he said the government could be planning for a different form of selective school that focused more heavily on the disadvantaged.

His comments came as the prime minister defended the plans to roll out more selective schools to cheers from Conservative backbenchers. "We have already got selection, haven't we - it's called 'selection by house price'," May told her MPs, according to people who were at the meeting of the 1922 Committee. She told her colleagues that she wanted these schools to be "inclusive" grammars.

Milburn said earlier that social selection did stretch beyond grammar schools, with parents paying steep prices for homes in catchment areas or piling money into private tuition. But he argued that "two wrongs don't make a right" and said areas with large numbers of selective schools saw poor pupils perform below the national average.

On Tuesday, an official document indicating that the government was planning to end the moratorium was photographed in the hands of a civil servant outside Downing Street.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, Milburn called on May to take urgent action to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, and warned of an overwhelming and "festering sense of social resentment" across Britain.

"The history of our continent tells us when a majority feel their ambitions being thwarted and that a minority are forging ahead, things can turn ugly," he said, arguing that the scale of the Brexit vote underlined the challenge.

Milburn pointed out that of the 65 areas of the country highlighted by his commission as the worst for education and employment prospects, only three voted to remain in the EU.

He warned of a growing geographical divide, suggesting ministers had to act quickly to avoid a "tsunami of people moving from the north to the south". That would result in "whole tracts of the country that don't just feel left behind - they are left behind," he said.

The former health secretary urged the prime minister to publish a 10-year plan for social reform that set out "big levers" to tackle inequalities in education, career progression and the north-south divide.

He recommended a series of policies, including:

A significant pay premium and discounted housing for teachers who move to disadvantaged areas and remain there for a number of years.

A Ucas-style system to shake up the vocational education system, which Milburn said was in "chaos".

Intervening to improve parenting skills, which he described as the "last taboo in public policy", by funding a drive through successful websites such as Mumsnet or others.

Milburn argued that those - including many Conservative politicians - who claimed grammar schools were the best path out of poverty for bright, disadvantaged children were wrong.

He said the problem could be seen in Kent, the county with the highest proportion of selective education. "It is in the bottom 20% for free school meals children in the country," he said. "Only 27% of kids in Kent schools on free school meals get five good GCSEs. The national average is 33% and in London, where most areas are purely comprehensive, it is 45%."

The memo accidentally revealed on Tuesday, written by the Department for Education's permanent secretary, Jonathan Slater, said a policy for new selective schools would be presented as one option in a consultation paper, which is expected within weeks.

However, Slater added that Justine Greening, the education secretary, wanted to see "various conditions" put in place for expansion and for it to be pursued only once existing grammars had been reformed in ways that avoided disadvantaging those who fail to get in.

This month, Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, also warned that the idea that poor children would benefit from a return of grammar schools was "tosh" and "nonsense". He cited figures showing the under-representation of poor pupils in selective schools such as in Bexley, south-east London, where they take in 9% of children on free school meals, compared with 28% in non-selective schools. In he London borough of Sutton, the figures were 7% in grammars and 25% elsewhere.

Milburn said his criticism was of expanding the existing system, but said government plans had not yet been unveiled and seemed likely to focus on helping the poorest pupils, a move that would amount to a different policy and, as such, mitigate concerns.

"So we would want to take a look at that but, frankly, I still remain sceptical about the social mobility dividend," he said, adding that such reform would reach only a minority of people.

Milburn argued that governments had for too long focused on the bottom and top 5% of society, and the EU referendum had revealed that whole sections of society felt their ambitions were being thwarted.

He welcomed comments from May on social mobility, including pledges to avoid creating an "us and them society" and to improve community cohesion.

He said policy had to aim at a majority of people, taking in what he called "treadmill families" who were working hard but standing still and whose social prospects were "frankly going nowhere". Their children were often not in struggling schools but coasting ones, he said.

Milburn was born in 1958, which he said academics had called the peak year for social mobility. "Bingo," he said, arguing that people like him had risen from council estates because of the dramatic policies of the post-war Labour government, such as the welfare state.

"It wasn't micro - a little pilot here or there," he said. They used "big macro levers". Milburn said that while there had been social policy successes in recent years, including record numbers of working class children achieving good GCSEs and entering university, there were still huge problems.

"It would take 30 years before the attainment gap in schools between the poorer kids and their better-off classmates even halved. It would take 50 years before you close the gap between those parts of the country that send most kids to university and those that send the least. We've got to get out of the slow lane. This is the time to move up a gear."

He said a social reform plan ought to aim to halve the attainment gap in schools between the poorest children and better-off classmates and halve the number of workers living in poverty within 10 years.

On schooling, Milburn said the most important factor was teacher quality.

"The difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher for a disadvantaged child is one year's worth of education," he said, arguing that the current system lacked planning about where teachers ended up, with many drawn to London.

He called for teachers to be offered financial incentives to move into disadvantaged areas and proposed a "right to buy" scheme for the profession. "They would be given financial help by the state to buy a home, and in exchange give a commitment that they remained in that area for a period of years," he said.

Milburn said he was angry that the school system "consistently failed the poorest children", who faced a "triple whammy of disadvantage", slipping behind at ages five, 11 and 16.

He called on May to take radical steps on career progression, arguing that German retailers were much better at placing staff on a career path by offering them different opportunities to boost their skills.

He said big employers were ready to talk to the government about such reforms, but in return they wanted action on what "we laughingly call the vocational educational system".

"We don't have a system, we have chaos," he said.

Milburn said the numbers of pupils applying for sports and recreation courses were six times higher than those applying for construction and three times engineering. "Where are the shortages? Not in bloody sports and recreation but construction and engineering," he said.

He has advised Downing Street to introduce a Ucas-style system for further education. "It is a bizarre irony that for what we regard as the most able students we make life incredibly simple - you fill in one Ucas form and you are in the higher education system.

"For those who we regard - wrongly in my view - as the least able kids going into further education, there is no system, there is no form or transparency on employment outcomes," he said, claiming there were 1,100 providers.

Milburn said parenting was the more "fundamental thing" that influenced a child's life far more than any government minister or even teacher. He said four out of five better-off parents regularly read to their children, while only two in five less well-off ones did.

"We can't just stand back and say that is OK because we know that reading leads to language and cognitive development and that has a massive influence on [a child's] starting point in life and in education," he said.

Responding to May's comments to the 1922 Committee, Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary, said: "Tory education policy can be summed up in one word - shambolic.

"The prime minister talks about social inclusion while at the same time advocating social segregation through grammar school selection.

"No child's life chances should be defined by a test they sit at the age of 11. The priority for our education system should be investment to raise standards not investment to create social exclusion."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More grammar schools would be a disaster, says social mobility tsar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government's social mobility tsar has warned that expanding the current grammar school system would be a disaster, a day after it emerged Theresa May was considering the idea. Alan Milburn, the former Labour cabinet minister who chairs the government's social mobility commission, said ending the ban on building new selective schools risked creating an "us and them divide" within the education system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How very depressing it is to discover that Theresa May shares Michael Gove's lip-curling disdain for experts. She may claim to be someone who likes to evaluate all the available evidence before reaching a decision, but there seems to be at least one, glaring exception.

She is a huge fan of grammar schools. Despite there being no evidence at all that they improve social mobility or educational outcomes, she wants more of them. Experts? Who needs 'em?

Sir Michael Wilshaw, outgoing chief schools inspector for England, who says creating more grammar schools would be a 'profoundly retrograde step'? Huh. What does he know?

Alan Milburn, who chairs the government's social mobility commission and says more grammar schools 'will not provide a social mobility dividend, it will be a social mobility disaster'? He's an expert. Ignore him.

Even the pro-grammar school commentator Tim Montgomerie is forced to concede that 'there is some evidence that the remaining grammar schools disproportionately benefit better-off families and are not the great engine for social mobility that proponents claim.'

It's funny, isn't it? No one says: 'Let's bring back secondary modern schools.' (Note for younger readers: In the days when all children had to sit an exam at the age of 11, those who passed the exam went to grammar schools, and those who failed went to secondary modern schools. Most of the 'failures' left school at the age of 15 with few if any qualifications.)

It is not difficult to find evidence to disprove Mrs May's contention that grammar schools improve social mobility. Take Kent, which has the highest proportion of selective state schools in England. According to Alan Milburn, only 27% of children in Kent who receive free school meals (which is the standard measure of poverty) get five good GCSEs. The national average is 33% and in London, where most areas are purely comprehensive, it is 45%.

Conclusion? Children from less well-off backgrounds do worse, not better, in areas with grammar schools. It is exactly the opposite of what Mrs May says she wants. In the words of former Labour Cabinet minister Alan Johnson, one of those rare working class boys who made it to a grammar school - but who then left at the age of 15 without a single qualification: 'My argument against selective education is that it wastes more talent than it nurtures; destroys more potential than it realises; ruins more young lives than it enhances.'

There are still more than a hundred secondary modern schools in England, and 28% of them have been officially judged 'inadequate'. (The equivalent figure for grammar schools is one per cent.) According to the National Association of Secondary Moderns: 'With grammar schools come secondary moderns, lots of them. For every grammar school created there will be an extra three (or more) secondary moderns.'

The proponents of more grammar schools seem not to understand this. If you create separate schools for children who are more academically gifted, it stands to reason that there will then be fewer academically gifted children in the non-selective schools. Less will be expected of the pupils who didn't make it, the best teachers will shun them, and their exam results will be unimpressive.

When Michael Howard was leader of the Conservative party, he famously told the then prime minister Tony Blair: 'This grammar school boy will not take any lessons from that public school boy.' It was an effective bit of parliamentary point-scoring, but when I asked him some time later if the secondary modern schools in Llanelli, where he was educated, were as good as the grammar schools, he was not much amused.

(Full disclosure: like Lord Howard, I went to school before comprehensives were invented - my school was half grammar, half secondary modern. My own children both went to a comprehensive school.)

If Mrs May is serious about wanting to improve educational standards and social mobility, which she should be, she should leave the secondary schools alone and focus on early years education instead. All the evidence suggests that it is in primary schools that the really important work is done, which is why I spend two afternoons a week in a local primary school as a voluntary reading helper. (If you'd like to do something similar, you can contact the childhood literacy charity Beanstalk by clicking here.)

Pay teachers properly. Fund schools properly. Improve the training of teachers and ensure that they get the support that they need from ancillary staff who can help with children who need extra assistance. According to one recent poll, nearly half the state school teachers in England are planning to leave the profession within the next five years. That's what Mrs May should be worrying about - not turning the clock back to an inglorious past when 75% of children were branded 'failures' at the age of 11.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wanted: Lot More Secondary Modern Schools?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How very depressing it is to discover that Theresa May shares Michael Gove's lip-curling disdain for experts. She may claim to be someone who likes to evaluate all the available evidence before reaching a decision, but there seems to be at least one, glaring exception. She is a huge fan of grammar schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
grammar schools ? BBC  NEWS 8TH SEPT 2016

# data[].attributes.subject
grammar schools ? BBC  NEWS 8TH SEPT 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BBC News answers some of the key questions about grammar schools and poses some 11-plus questions for readers to tackle.

What is a grammar school?

Grammar schools are state secondary schools that select their pupils by means of an examination taken by children at age 11, known as the "11-plus".

There are only about 163 grammar schools in England, out of some 3,000 state secondaries, and a further 69 grammar schools in Northern Ireland.

Under the grammar school system, pupils who pass the exam can go to the local grammar, while those who do not go to the local "secondary modern school".

More common across the UK is the "comprehensive" system, in which pupils of all abilities and aptitudes are taught together.

There are no state grammars in Wales or Scotland, and although some retain the name "grammar school", they are non-selective and have no special status.

When were they first introduced?

Grammar schools have existed since the 16th Century, but the modern grammar school concept dates back to the Education Act 1944. This made secondary education after the age of 14 free.

At the same time secondary education was reorganised into two basic types:

grammar schools, which focused on academic studies, with the assumption that many of their pupils would go on to higher education

secondary modern schools, which were intended for children who would be going into trades

There was a third type of school, the technical school - but very few were established.

So the system effectively divided pupils into two types - those destined for university and better jobs, and those deemed more suitable for less celebrated professions.

Why did the system change?

During the 1950s and 1960s, it was said, mainly by Labour politicians and egalitarian educationalists, that the selective education system reinforced class division and middle-class privilege.

In 1965, the government ordered local education authorities to start phasing out grammar schools and secondary moderns, and replace them with a comprehensive system.

The quickest changes were made in Labour-controlled areas, while strongly Conservative counties moved slowly or not at all.

A handful of counties and local authorities in England have kept largely selective schools systems, including Kent, Medway, Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, while others such as Gloucestershire, Trafford and Slough have a mix.

In other places, a few grammar schools survived in areas that were otherwise fully comprehensive, such as Birmingham, Bournemouth and some London boroughs.

In 1998, Labour's School Standards and Framework Act forbade the establishment of any new all-selective schools.

It also made provisions for local ballots on the future of existing grammar schools.

Only one such ballot has taken place since then. In 2000, parents in Ripon, North Yorkshire, voted by 67% to 33% in favour of keeping Ripon Grammar as a grammar school.

How do grammar schools select their pupils?

Grammar schools select their pupils by means of a test, known as the 11-plus, which is taken by pupils in the last year of primary school.

It is designed to see if they are able enough to learn in a grammar school environment with peers of a similar standard.

But many complain about the nature of the test, as it often features types of questions not usually adopted in regular state primaries.

Grammar school entrance exams can consist of all or a subset of the following:

* Numerical reasoning (maths)

* Verbal reasoning

* English comprehension, punctuation and grammar

* Non-verbal reasoning

* Creative writing

They have traditionally used questions based on verbal reasoning and non-verbal reasoning, and it is argued that those who have been intensively tutored tend to do much better in these tests.

Recently there have been attempts to make the tests more accessible and closer to the kind of word problems children face in primary schools.

Some grammar schools admit successful students by ranked order - all candidates are ranked by their 11-plus score - literally creaming the best pupils off the top.

In other areas, pupils who pass the test are then ranked by admission criteria, which can include the distance they live from the school or whether they already have a sibling there.

There are numerous companies that offer specialist 11-plus tutoring to children from an early age.
Some examples of 11-plus questions (Answers at foot of page)
Marco, Laura, Peter, Ben and Sally are out shopping for jackets. Ben and Laura want waterproof jackets, Peter and Sally want brightly coloured jackets with hoods, Laura and Marco want lightweight jackets and Marco and Ben want brightly coloured jackets but with a warm lining.

Out of the following statements, which one must be true? Write your answer in the answer box below.

A. Sally and Peter want different types of jackets.

B. Only two people do not want brightly coloured jackets.

C. No one wants a lightweight jacket with a hood.

D. Sally wants a coat with a hood and a warm lining.

E. Four of them do not want waterproofs.

Identify which, if any, of the above shapes have been rotated to form the shape below.

Select the option (A, B, C or D) which has the sentence with the most suitable grammar

A. Was it he whom had a house burn down?

B. Was it he whose house burnt down?

C. Was it he that had a house burn down?

D. Was it he who's house burnt down?
Sample questions reproduced with the kind permission of ElevenPlusExams.co.uk
Where do the main political parties stand on grammar schools?

Labour oppose the creation of more grammar schools saying that instead of improving equality, they make it worse.

The Conservatives Party support for grammar schools was lukewarm under previous Prime Minister David Cameron, but its manifesto states it will allow all good schools to expand "whether they are maintained schools, academies, free schools or grammar schools".

The Liberal Democrats would maintain the status quo, not opening any more or closing any existing ones.
Quiz answers (in order of question appearance) C, E, B

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BBC News answers some of the key questions about grammar schools and poses some 11-plus questions for readers to tackle. Grammar schools are state secondary schools that select their pupils by means of an examination taken by children at age 11, known as the "11-plus".

# data[].attributes.headline
BBC  NEWS 2015 WHO WENT TO SELECTED SCHOOLS

# data[].attributes.subject
BBC  NEWS 2015 WHO WENT TO SELECTED SCHOOLS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Almost a third (32%) of MPs in the new House of Commons went to private school, according to an analysis by an education charity.

Of these, almost one in 10 went to Eton, suggests the Sutton Trust study.

Among Conservative MPs, nearly half (48%) were privately educated, the report indicates.

The figures show "a big challenge still remains" to help "those from less privileged homes to fulfil their potential", the charity says.

"If Parliament is truly to represent the whole nation, the best people should be able to become MPs, regardless of social background," said Sutton Trust chief executive Dr Lee Elliot Major.

Social mobility

The data is based on information on the schooling of 599 of the 650 MPs elected to the House of Commons last week.

Female MPs were less likely to have been privately educated (24%) than their male counterparts (35%), the figures suggest.

Among Labour MPs, some 17% went to private schools, among Liberal Democrats the figure was 14%.

The figure was far lower among Scottish National Party MPs, at just 5%.

However, almost a quarter of the MPs from the other smaller parties elected to Westminster on Thursday were privately educated.

The Sutton Trust says the new House of Commons is marginally more representative of the general population than the one elected in 2010, when 35% of MPs had been to a fee-paying school.

But only 7% of the general population has been privately educated, the trust says.

MPs educated at comprehensive schools now make up 49% if the House of Commons, an increase from 43% in 2010.

Almost two-thirds of Labour MPs and a third of Conservatives, 57% of Liberal Democrats and 90% of Scottish Nationalist MPs went to comprehensives, the analysis indicates.

Some 19% of the new House of Commons went to state grammar schools, down from 24% in 2010.

Some nine out of 10 are graduates, and more than a quarter (26%) hold degrees from Oxford or Cambridge, with 28% having attended another Russell Group university.

The report urges the new House of Commons to adopt policies that increase the life-chances of able young people from low and middle income backgrounds.

"The make-up of the House of Commons may have changed a lot this week, but the members of the new House show little change from those who preceded them in one significant respect: where they went to school and university," said Dr Elliot Major.

"Today's figures remind us how important it is that we do more to increase levels of social mobility and make sure that bright young people from low and middle income backgrounds have access to the best schools and the best universities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Almost a third (32%) of MPs in the new House of Commons went to private school, according to an analysis by an education charity. Of these, almost one in 10 went to Eton, suggests the Sutton Trust study. Among Conservative MPs, nearly half (48%) were privately educated, the report indicates.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/grammar-school-plans-lead-boom-11902323

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This House Would Bring Back Grammar Schools | The Cambridge Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the Government's program of education reform well underway, the Union questions the continued existence of grammar schools in the United Kingdom, and whether they should not just be tolerated, but be allowed to expand once more. This debate was sponsored by TeachFirst.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PMQs Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn on grammar schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Become an FT Subscriber.

Keep abreast of significant corporate, financial and political developments around the world. Stay informed and spot emerging risks and opportunities with independent global reporting, expert commentary and analysis you can trust.

Choose the subscription that is right for you

For 4 weeks receive unlimited Premium digital access to the FT's trusted, award-winning business news

MyFT - track the topics most important to you

FT Weekend - full access to the weekend content

Mobile & Tablet Apps - download to read on the go

Gift Article - share up to 10 articles a month with family, friends and colleagues

All the benefits of Standard plus:

Lex - our agenda setting daily column

In-depth analysis - on trade, emerging markets, M&A, investing and more

ePaper - a digital replica of the newspaper

Gift Article - share up to 20 articles a month with family, friends and colleagues

All the benefits of Premium plus:

The FT delivered to your home or office Monday to Saturday, including the FT Weekend paper and supplements

Learn more and compare subscriptions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Become an FT Subscriber. Keep abreast of significant corporate, financial and political developments around the world. Stay informed and spot emerging risks and opportunities with independent global reporting, expert commentary and analysis you can trust.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3776054/Will-lea
rn-official-carries-uncovered-papers-No-10-revealed-new-grammar-schools-backed-Theresa-s-government.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Proposals for new grammars will be put out to consultation, leak reveals

The schools will be presented as an 'option' in the public study of the plans

Leaked memo warns of problems getting the policy through the Lords

Theresa May's Cabinet is split over plans for new grammar schools, an accidentally revealed memo has exposed.

The document, photographed being carried uncovered into No 10 yesterday, reveals Education Secretary Justine Greening wants a consultation to present new grammar schools as an 'option' only to be pursued after existing selective schools are reformed.

Mrs May is thought to be planning a wave of brand new grammar schools as part of her social mobility agenda, reversing a ban on creating new selective schools that was imposed in 1998 by Tony Blair.

The memo, written by the senior civil servant at the Department for Education, admits it is not clear whether Mrs May would back an initial reform programme.

But Jonathan Slater, the department's permanent secretary, warned it could be the only way to get a change to the law on grammar schools through Parliament.

A significant minority of Conservative MPs would be likely to oppose a new wave of grammar schools and further problems would be likely in the House of Lords.

Labour seized on the revelations as letting the 'cat out of the bag' about Mrs May's plans for a new wave of grammar schools amid a row over whether the new Prime Minister will reverse a ban on new selective schools imposed by Tony Blair.

Mr Slater's memo, who is also thought to have been the official who was carrying the documents, insists the plans to reform the 163 existing grammar schools first are 'reasonable'.

Following the release of the image, the Mrs May's spokeswoman said: 'Both the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary have spoken in recent weeks what our approach is, which is building a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

'That's why we are looking at a range of options to make sure that children can access a school that lets them rise as far as their talents will take them and we'll set out policies in due course.'

Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said: 'The cat is out of the bag: behind closed doors the Tories are planning a return to the bad old days of grammars, ignoring all the evidence which has told us time and again that they do not aid social mobility.

'As Michael Wilshaw said yesterday, with every grammar school you open you create three more secondary moderns with it.

'It's a policy which reveals the truth of this Tory Government: caring only for the few at the expense of the majority.

'The Tories have overseen a school places crisis, the highest rate of teachers leaving the profession in a decade and over half a million pupils in super-sized classes.

'These issues should be her priority, not harking back to a golden-age that never existed.

'Labour is committed to an education system for everyone, not just a select few.'

Mrs May backed the expansion of a grammar school in her own Maidenhead constituency while she was Home Secretary.

It was reported after she entered No 10 she would end the existing ban on new selective schools.

But in her first major TV interview since becoming PM on Sunday, Mrs May refused to be drawn on whether she would push through a new wave of grammar schools.

Opening new grammar schools would be politically highly controversial and there is sufficient resistance amongst Tory MPs to make passing new laws in the Commons a challenge.

Asked three times by the BBC's Andrew Marr whether she would back new grammar schools, Mrs May said: 'What I'd like to see Andrew is ensuring an education system, regardless of where people are, regardless of the school they're going to, that is ensuring they're getting the quality of education that enables them to take on those opportunities.

'Because when I talk about a country that works for everyone it's about ensuring that whatever people's talents are, it's about how far people's talents can take them.'

The memo leaked today reads: 'The con doc says we will open new grammars, albeit that they would have to follow various conditions.

'The SoS's clear position is that this should be presented in the con doc as an option and only to be pursued once we have worked with existing grammars to show how they can be expanded and reformed in ways which avoid disadvantaging those who don't get in.

'I simply don't know what the PM thinks of this, but it sounds reasonable to me and I simply can't see any way of persuading the Lords to vote for selection on any other basis.'

A string of Government plans and secrets have been revealed on Downing Street in recent years.

In January, an event on Syrian refugees due to take place in Davos involving the Queen of Jordan was exposed to photographers.

Perhaps the most famous example of all was Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin being photographed disposing of papers in St James Park.

It was reported last year a new sign had been put up just inside the famous No 10 door warning people Downing Street was a 'public highway' frequently inhabited by press photographers.

As recently as last year, a 'sensitive' document about the possible privatisation of Channel 4 was snapped as an unnamed official arrived in Downing Street.

The revelation of the document caused embarrassment for the Government after ministers have repeatedly denied it is being considered, makes the case for 'extracting greater public value' from the channel 'focusing on privatisation options in particular.'

Revealing the latest gaffe, photographer Steve Back - who has repeatedly snapped secret documents over the years - said: 'I've lost count of the times I have told people to get folders in No10, this seen this morning as Cabinet underway.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Tim Sculthorpe, Mailonline Deputy Political Editor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uncovered papers at No 10 reveal new grammars WILL be backed by May

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proposals for new grammars will be put out to consultation, leak reveals The schools will be presented as an 'option' in the public study of the plans Leaked memo warns of problems getting the policy through the Lords Theresa May's Cabinet is split over plans for new grammar schools, an accidentally revealed memo has exposed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mélaine Gobert M2 Didactique des langues

# data[].attributes.subject
Mélaine Gobert M2 Didactique des langues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In today's Spectator, Rachel Wolf, the former head of the New Schools Network, cautions Theresa May against derailing everything that's been achieved by education reformers since Margaret Thatcher first granted state schools more autonomy in the late Eighties.

Her concern is that a large number of new grammar schools would undermine successful academies and free schools. "It's worth remembering," she writes, "that academies exist because the ban on academic selection forced schools to innovate, and to offer better teaching for all abilities."

That's my concern too and I suspect it's why a sizeable number of Conservative MPs have expressed reservations about new grammar schools.

Few of us doubt that those children lucky enough to get into grammar schools receive a first class education and we're willing to be persuaded that various mechanisms could be introduced to make sure more disadvantaged children are admitted, such as insisting that new grammars accept a quota of children on free school meals.

It's the impact of increased selection on those children who don't get into grammars that's the worry. Earlier this week, the IFS published some research showing that in those areas that still have grammars, the children who don't get in fare worse than they would have done in comprehensive areas. This is the research that Corbyn referred to in PMQs yesterday.

Theresa May and her team are clearly aware of this problem and have included various proposals in the Green Paper to encourage high quality providers, such as existing grammars, independent schools and universities, to set up new non-selective schools.

That will certainly go some way towards allaying the fears of the Tory rebels, but will it be enough to get a bill lifting the ban on new grammars through the House of Commons? And what about the House of Lords?

I suspect not, if there's still a risk that lifting it would lead to an explosion of new grammars. I can anticipate at least two ways in which the government could reassure the doubters on this front.

First, it could agree to a cap on the number of new selective schools. Rachel Wolf suggests that the system could cope with about 100, although that number may strike some of the rebels as too high.

Perhaps if the government could guarantee that these schools wouldn't be set up next door to high-performing selective schools, so there was little risk they'd cream off the most able pupils in the area, that would offer further reassurance.

Another possibility would be to cap the number of places that new selective schools could reserve for pupils passing the eleven-plus, allowing more partially selective schools to be set up, but no new fully-fledged grammars.

I recently wrote an article making the case for more of these types of school, which generally perform well and admit higher numbers of children from disadvantaged backgrounds than wholly selective schools. This would satisfy the need to create more selective school places and grant parents more choice, but without some of the negative effects of new grammars.

One of the reasons grammars penalise neighbouring schools is because they attract so many good teachers. That means children of average or below average ability don't have the opportunity to be taught by these teachers, and the evidence suggests that these children benefit more from good teaching than children of above average ability. That wouldn't apply to partially selective schools, where the good teachers attracted by the bright kids could also teach children in lower ability sets.

Just re-read the grammar consultation. Never seen a policy document so focused on mitigating the ill-effects of its own proposals.
- Sam Freedman (@Samfr) September 12, 2016

Another reason grammar schools harm children lower down the ability spectrum is that you don't get the positive peer effects you get in comprehensives - a transfer of intellectual capital - whereby the presence of a high-ability cohort lifts the entire school. Again, that wouldn't apply to partially selective schools.

Finally, you wouldn't have the difficulty of transferring children from selective to non-selective schools, and vice versa, after the age of 11. In a partially selective school, movement in and out of the grammar stream at any point between the ages of 11 and 16 is easy.

Grammar sceptics on Tory benches telling me 'not much enthusiasm' for selection, but not suggesting it's all-out war either...
- Paul Brand (@PaulBrandITV) September 12, 2016

No doubt these and other ways of watering down the Green Paper will be discussed over the coming weeks and, to be fair, the government seems more than willing to compromise on its grammar school proposals - one reason they're being brought forward in a Green Paper rather than a White one.

May and her people are stressing that they're just "consulting" on these ideas and are open to suggestions as to how to improve them.

I suspect it won't be difficult to persuade the proponents of new grammars to make some concessions. After all, if the bill is defeated and the Prime Minister humiliated, it's difficult to see any government going near this issue again. And from their point of view, some new selection, however limited, is better than none.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theresa May may see off Tory grammar school rebels, but her plans won't survive unscathed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In today's Spectator, Rachel Wolf, the former head of the New Schools Network, cautions Theresa May against derailing everything that's been achieved by education reformers since Margaret Thatcher first granted state schools more autonomy in the late Eighties. Her concern is that a large number of new grammar schools would undermine successful academies and free schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
Camille Campos M2 Didactique des langues

# data[].attributes.subject
Camille Campos M2 Didactique des langues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The psychology of Mrs May and her grammar school crusade | Andrew Rawnsley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The prime minister has perversely picked an unnecessary battle with the odds stacked against her. Here's why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most people who want more grammar schools admit that less academically able children would be better off in a comprehensive system
With the schools debate dominating the government's political agenda, new research from YouGov finds that grammar schools are seen by the majority of people to be good in one way - that is, at giving a high standard of education to academically able children.

The flip side of this is that the majority of English people also think that selective school systems are bad for academically less able children. Selective school systems are also seen as much more beneficial to children from better-off families than to those from poorer families.

Six in ten (61%) think that smart children would do better in a selective system than in a comprehensive system, and although the number falls by 10 points, a majority thinks the same is true for academically able children from poorer families.

Likewise, a solid majority of 59% think a comprehensive education would be better for less able children from poorer families, dropping slightly to 55% for less able children from rich families.

Even amongst those who want to see the creation of more grammar schools, there is acknowledgement that selective school systems are bad for less able children. Whilst 85% of those who want more grammar schools say they are good for able children, this drops to 26-24% for less able children. Around six in ten who want more grammar schools think that less able children would be better off in comprehensive areas.

This begs the question - do people back grammar schools because they think their own child is smart enough to get into one? The answer seems to be yes.

Asked to imagine that they had a child who could pass the 11 plus exam, 48% of people said that they would prefer to live in an area with a selective system, whilst 32% said they would choose a comprehensive area. These figures flip when asked to imagine their child would fail the 11 plus exam, with 50% saying they'd prefer to live in a comprehensive area and 27% saying a selective area.

The research also finds that people's attitudes to what type of school system they would prefer their children to be in is highly influenced by what type of school they attended themselves.

Among those who attended grammar schools themselves, as well as the privately educated, the proportion of people who would want to live in a selective system shoots up to 73% and 63% respectively if their child could pass the 11 plus. A selective area would also be the favoured option for those who attended secondary moderns themselves at 46%. Those who attended comprehensives are split 40%/40% between selective and comprehensive areas.

When asked subsequently to imagine they had a child who would fail the 11 plus, however, those who attended grammar schools themselves would still prefer to live in a selective area, albeit narrowly at 47% vs 42%. This potentially indicates a "they can't all be that bad" mindset regarding secondary moderns.

Those who went to secondary moderns themselves would seem to prefer to prevent their own child from doing the same though. Nearly half (47%) would rather live in a comprehensive area vs 29% a selective area. Comprehensively educated people are the most likely to prefer to send a less gifted child to a comprehensive school at 59% vs 20%.

Finally, just over a third of people (34%) say that the government should encourage more schools to select by academic ability and build more grammar schools - slightly lower than a month previously when the debate was just getting started. One in five want to keep the status quo - allowing current grammar schools to stay open but no more to be added - whilst 25% of people want to convert all grammar schools into comprehensives.
This blog first appeared on the YouGov website, and can be read here

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Even Fans Of Grammar Schools Think They Are Bad For Less Able Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most people who want more grammar schools admit that less academically able children would be better off in a comprehensive system With the schools debate dominating the government's political agenda, new research from YouGov finds that grammar schools are seen by the majority of people to be good in one way - that is, at giving a high standard of education to academically able children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theresa May has defended her decision to lift a ban on the creation of new grammar schools. Grammars select the brightest pupils after at test taken at age 11. But critics say they are elitist, socially divisive and that evidence shows they harm the prospects of those who don't make the grade. So why does the prime minster want to return to an education policy asscociated with the 1950s?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why does Theresa May want to bring back grammar schools? - video explainer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theresa May has defended her decision to lift a ban on the creation of new grammar schools. Grammars select the brightest pupils after at test taken at age 11. But critics say they are elitist, socially divisive and that evidence shows they harm the prospects of those who don't make the grade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the 11-plus?

The 11-plus is an exam taken by children in Year Six to gain entry to grammar school.

The exam is made up of four subjects: Maths, English, Verbal Reasoning and Non-Verbal Reasoning.
WHO IS THERESA MAY?

Why are grammar schools so controversial?

The grammar school debate dates back to the 1950s and 1960s, when a series of reports found that the system was failing children from working class backgrounds.

The Gurney-Dixon report of 1954 found that only a tiny proportion of the working class grammar school intake went on to university.

And in 1963, the Robbins report revealed that while the working classes made up 26 per cent of grammar school pupils, as little as 0.3 per cent achieved two A-levels or more.

Labour politicians argued that these reports proved that selective education only served to reinforce class division and hampered social mobility.

More recently, a study by The Sutton Trust found that just three per cent of students at grammar schools were eligible for free school meals. This is an "important indicator of social deprivation" and the national average stood at 18 per cent in 2013.

The report confirmed that children from lower income backgrounds were less likely to gain entry to grammar schools, while that those from wealthier backgrounds could afford private tutoring for the 11-plus test.

When were grammar schools banned?

In 1965, Harold Wilson's Government ordered Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to phase out the grammar school system.

Despite this many Conservative-ran councils retained the system, until more than 30 years later Tony Blair banned new selective schools from opening.

Last year then Education Secretary Nicky Morgan gave the green light to a new grammar school, Sevenoaks School in Kent. It sidestepped the ban by styling itself as an annexe of an existing school nine miles away.

Theresa May's political career in pictures
Tue, April 18, 2017
Prime Minister Theresa May has promised to 'build a greater Britain'

Why does Theresa May want to bring grammar schools back?

A government source has claimed grammar schools could be bought back to improve social mobility.

"If you're a really bright kid, you should have the opportunity to excel as far as your talents can take you," the source told The Sunday Telegraph.

Following the report, a Downing Street spokesperson said: "The Prime Minister has been clear that we need to build a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

"Every child should be allowed to rise as far as their talents will take them and birth should never be a barrier. Policies on education will be set out in due course."

The Campaign For Real Education praised Mrs May's decision, saying: "This country is becoming a basket case educationally and we are failing our children. We must teach youngsters in line with their ability."

Where do Labour and the Liberal Democrats stand on grammar schools?

Mrs May's attempt to overturn the 1998 ban on grammar schools has already prompted a fierce cross-party backlash.

Angela Rayner, the Shadow Education Secretary, said: "Selection belongs in the dustbin of history and has no place in modern society. There must be no going back."

Her predecessor Lucy Powell called the move an "incredibly backwards step", claiming that grammar schools are "the preserve of the privately tutored".

The Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron confirmed his party's opposition and said: "We will work to block any Tory attempt to create grammar schools."

Mrs May is also expected to face opposition from within her own ranks.

"The Prime Minister is fond of saying no silver bullet on immigration - it is clear to many of us that grammar schools are not a silver bullet on social mobility," one Tory MP told the Guardian.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are grammar schools? Why does Theresa May want to bring back selective schools?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 11-plus is an exam taken by children in Year Six to gain entry to grammar school. The exam is made up of four subjects: Maths, English, Verbal Reasoning and Non-Verbal Reasoning. WHO IS THERESA MAY? The grammar school debate dates back to the 1950s and 1960s, when a series of reports found that the system was failing children from working class backgrounds.

# data[].attributes.body
Maylis Roullin MEEF 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May have clashed in the Commons over government plans to expand grammar schools.

The Labour leader said it would lead to "failed segregation for the few and second class schooling for the many" in which children "could only lose out".

He suggested ex-PM David Cameron was among the many critics of the plans.

But Mrs May said she backed "levelling up, not down" in education and accused Labour of denying opportunities to others which they enjoyed themselves.

During exchanges at Prime Minister's Questions, Mrs May defended plans for more grammar schools and to allow existing state-funded schools to select pupils on the basis of academic ability.

'Ladder up'

She said 1.25 million pupils were currently in schools which were "failing, inadequate or in need of improvement" and the plans - allied to the expansion of faith schools and more obligations on private schools - would give every child the high-quality education they deserved to enable them to go as far as their talents allowed.

Noting that, like her, Mr Corbyn had himself gone to a grammar school, she accused Labour politicians of "stifling ambition and opportunity" and "taking the advantage of a good education for themselves and pulling up the ladder behind them".

"He went to a grammar school, I went to a grammar school. It is what got us to where we are today. My side may be slightly happier than his."

Mr Corbyn said it was not a question of pulling up the ladder, but ensuring all children, not just a few, were given a ladder up.

The Labour leader said the 11-plus test used to admit children to grammar schools was a "life-changing division" and cited statistics suggested children from low-income households performed more poorly in grammar school areas.

'Heading backwards'

Claiming the plans had united the entire education profession in opposition, Mr Corbyn pressed the PM to confirm how existing grammar schools in Kent and Buckinghamshire would be required to widen their admissions criteria.

"Why does the prime minister want to expand a system that can only let children down?

"Every child should have the best possible education they can have. We don't need and never should divide children at the age of 11, where the majority end up losing out.

"Isn't this a case of a government heading backwards to a failed segregation for the few and second class schooling for the many. Can't we do better than this?"

Speculating that it may be Mr Corbyn's last PMQs as Labour leader - this was the last session before the outcome of the current leadership contest is announced - Mrs May said that whoever won the contest "the country would lose out".

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it had been Mr Corbyn's most effective PMQs performance "for ages".

She said grammar schools were a risky and complex policy for the government, adding that Mrs May's "big problem" in getting it through the Commons was that Labour was "united" on the policy and the Tories were split.

During PMQs, Mrs May also paid tribute to her predecessor David Cameron following his decision to step down as an MP, praising his "tremendous" record of public service.

But Mr Corbyn, who welcomed the fall in unemployment during the session, suggested there was a rift between the two over grammar schools, citing comments the former PM made when he was opposition leader opposing the growth of selection education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PMQs: Corbyn attacks grammar school plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May have clashed in the Commons over government plans to expand grammar schools. The Labour leader said it would lead to "failed segregation for the few and second class schooling for the many" in which children "could only lose out".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
All schools in England are to be given the right to apply to select pupils by ability, under plans also allowing grammar schools to expand.

The prime minister's plans suggest schools becoming selective and new and expanding grammars will take quotas of poor pupils or help run other schools.

Theresa May says the ban on new selective schools has been in place too long and has held many pupils back.

But Ofsted's chief inspector said the changes would undo years of progress.

Labour says the plans will "entrench inequality".

In a major speech, the prime minister said: "For too long we have tolerated a system that contains an arbitrary rule preventing selective schools from being established - sacrificing children's potential because of dogma and ideology.

What will May's new grammars look like?

Grammar schools: What are they?

Grammar schools divide opinion

Grammar debate trumps expert consensus

"The truth is that we already have selection in our school system - and it's selection by house price, selection by wealth. That is simply unfair.

"We are effectively saying to poorer and some of the most disadvantaged children in our country that they can't have the kind of education their richer counterparts can enjoy."

She added that schools already selected on the basis of specialist disciplines like music and sport, adding: "We should take the same approach to the most academically gifted too.

"So I want to relax the restrictions to stop selective schools from expanding, that deny parents the right to have a new selective school opened where they want one, that stop existing non-selective schools to become selective in the right circumstances and where there is demand."

But Mrs May said the government would use the approvals process to prevent new areas of the country having a limited "binary" choice or schools.

She also said: "People get lost in the argument about whether the grammars schools of the 1950s and 60s improved social mobility or not. But I want to focus on the new grammars of the future: those that will be just one element of a truly diverse system."

The plans will also include the ability for bright children to join grammar schools, not just at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well.

The speech announced an end to the current ban on opening new grammars introduced by Labour in 1998. It is thought that an Act of Parliament would be needed for the ban to be lifted on new selective schools opening, but a change in the law may not be required for grammar schools to expand.

A consultation is to be held on ways to make new selective schools and expanding grammars more inclusive so that places are not limited to families who can "pay for tuition to pass the test".

The government also wants to raise the current maximum level of university tuition fees to £9,250 per year.

Ofsted's chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, said the idea that poor children would benefit from a return of grammar schools was "tosh" and "nonsense".

He told the BBC: "My fear is by moving to a grammar and secondary modern system - because, let's face it, that's what we'll have if you divide at 11 - we will put the clock back, and the progress we have made over the past 10 to 15 years will slow."

Education Secretary Justine Greening told the BBC the government wanted to create 21st Century grammar schools that would "turbo charge" the education and prospects of disadvantaged children.

This was not about returning to secondary moderns, she said, but about giving parents more choice.

'Regressive move'

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said his party would block the proposals in the House of Lords.

"Fundamentally, it's the same as the old 11-plus system, in that it is dividing children on the basis of their perceived ability at the age of 11.

"I don't think that's a good message for our children."

He added that comprehensive schools "help social mobility, help children develop at their own pace and bring communities together".

There are also plans to make tests for independent schools qualifying for charitable status more rigorous.

Private schools reduce their tax bills through this, and Mrs May said a consultation would be held on how to achieve a greater public benefit in return.
In summary: main proposals

Existing grammar schools in England to be allowed to expand, backed by £50m of new funding

All state schools in England to be allowed to select pupils by academic ability "in the right circumstances" and where there is demand

All selective schools will have to meet access conditions, such as taking a share of pupils from low-income backgrounds, setting up a new non-selective secondary or primary school or backing an underperforming academy

New grammars will be able to take pupils at 14 and 16, as well as 11, or take on students from non-selective schools for certain subjects

Universities will be expected to sponsor a state school or set up a new free school as part of an overhaul of fair access requirements

Catholic schools which are oversubscribed and want to expand will be able to choose 100% of new pupils on faith grounds, not 50% as now

All independent schools will have to support state schools in some way, in return for maintaining their charitable status.

Fee-paying schools will have to sponsor or set up a new free school or subsidise places for pupils from more modest backgrounds

Kevin Courtney, leader of the National Union of Teachers, said opening new grammars was a "regressive move and a distraction from the real problems" of funding pressures and teacher shortages.

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: "If the Conservatives care about our children's education they should reverse their cuts to school budgets.

"We need to improve all schools, not just let some become grammars.

"Too many pupils are let down by a divisive system that doesn't work."

Former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said increased selection by ability would be "at best a distraction from crucial reforms to raise standards and narrow the attainment gap and at worst risk actively undermining six years of progressive education reform".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All schools in England are to be given the right to apply to select pupils by ability, under plans also allowing grammar schools to expand. The prime minister's plans suggest schools becoming selective and new and expanding grammars will take quotas of poor pupils or help run other schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teachers and school leaders overwhelmingly oppose Theresa May's plans for a new wave of grammar schools, a survey has found.

Some eight out of 10 teachers and heads are against the selection proposals and also do not believe the tests taken at age 11 can measure academic potential, according to the research.

It also found 85 per cent do not believe the selection process can be designed to stop other factors, such as parental engagement or income, playing a part.

Most also said they believed there was no evidence to back up the Prime Minister's controversial policy.

The study was based on the responses of more than 2,500 teachers, school leaders and heads to a poll conducted by NAHT (National Association of Head Teachers), the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and charity Teach First.

Russell Hobby, general secretary of the NAHT, said: "Increasing the number of grammar schools will lower standards and restrict opportunity. We cannot afford such an elitist policy in the 21st century - as many students as possible need a high quality academic education. This is a terrible distraction from the issues that matter most."

Ms May pledged to make Britain "the great meritocracy of the world" as she announced plans to lift the long-standing ban on new grammars.

But the proposals are deeply divisive and face a rocky passage through Parliament.

Malcolm Trobe, interim General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "We don't need more selection in the education system. What schools desperately need is enough teachers and enough funding, both of which are in critically short supply.

"The Government should focus on these issues rather than obsessing about an education policy plucked from the 1950s. Our job is to work together to ensure the education system supports all young people to achieve."

The survey was carried out for campaign organisation the Fair Education Alliance, which has launched a petition calling for the grammar ban to be kept in place.

Teach First founder Brett Wigdortz said: "We are united in our desire to improve social mobility, but it's clear we must use proven policies to achieve this. We know great comprehensive schools and academies are delivering a stretching and ambitious education. We must aim to replicate this for every child, not selecting only a few to be supported to succeed, whilst leaving the majority behind."

Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It seems most teachers are against Theresa May's new wave of grammar schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers and school leaders overwhelmingly oppose Theresa May's plans for a new wave of grammar schools, a survey has found. Some eight out of 10 teachers and heads are against the selection proposals and also do not believe the tests taken at age 11 can measure academic potential, according to the research.

# data[].attributes.body
Mallory Ribeiro Esteves
M1 Recherche

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theresa May is planning to launch a new generation of grammar schools by scrapping the ban on them imposed almost 20 years ago, as part of her social mobility agenda The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Labour have accused her of taking an "incredibly backward step" if she reverses the ban.

The Prime Minister is facing backlash since The Sunday Telegraph reported Mrs May could announce a new wave of selective schools as early as the Conservative party conference in October. The move, which would reverse Tony Blair's 1998 ban, marks a significant shift from her predecessor and is likely to be greeted warmly by the Tory grassroots who have long campaigned on the issue.

David Cameron supported the ban during his time in office but Mrs May is ready to reverse the policy - a change that is believed to need a new law to passed.

One of the first tasks given to the new education secretary Justine Greening, by Mrs May who herself attended a grammar school is to examine the change in policy. Ms Greening said she was "open-minded" about the possibility of allowing new grammar schools."

Mrs May's plans could face difficulty in the commons as she faces opposition from the Liberal Democrats and Labour who are united to condemn the change.

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader said: "The Liberal Democrats are the party of education and I am utterly opposed to any plan that will bring back grammar schools."

"I am prepared to work with people in all parties from modernising Tories to the opposition parties to stop this plan. The government's majority is so small - they need to see the danger signs."

"I am committed to making sure this issue is Theresa May's first U-turn as Prime Minister. I will use everything at my disposal to stop this happening."

Angela Rayner, Labour's shadow education secretary, said: "Selection belongs in the dustbin of history and has no place in modern society. There must be no going back."

"Rather than harking back to a mythical 'golden age' of grammar schools, the Tories must work tirelessly to improve every school in the country, to work with teachers to drive up standards, and to give our schools the investment they need in the 21st century," she said.

Former shadow education secretary Lucy Powell said: "All the evidence tells us that, far from giving working-class kids chances, [grammar schools] entrench advantage and have become the preserve of the privately tutored."

"If this is the new direction of Theresa May's education policy, it's a bad move and shows us, yet again, why we need a Labour government."

What are grammar schools and why all the controversy?

Grammar schools are selective state secondary schools that require pupils to pass an exam, known as the 11-plus. Under the old grammar school system, pupils who failed the exam were sent to the local secondary modern school.

There are currently about 163 in England - out of some 3,000 state secondaries - and a further 69 in Northern Ireland.

But under a law created by the Labour government in 1998, no new grammar schools are allowed to open in England. Education policy is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The debate over grammar schools goes back to the 1950s and 1960s, when a number of reports found that the system was failing children from working class backgrounds. In 1954 the Gurney-Dixon report found that only a tiny proportion of the working class grammar school intake went on to university. In 1963, the Robbins report highlighted that while the working classes made up 26% of grammar school pupils, as little as 0.3% achieved two A-levels or more.

Labour politicians argued that these reports proved that selective education only served to reinforce class division and hampered social mobility.

More recently, a study by The Sutton Trust found that just 3% of students at grammar schools were eligible for free school meals. This is an "important indicator of social deprivation" and the national average stood at 18% in 2013. The report confirmed that children from lower income backgrounds were less likely to gain entry to grammar schools, while that those from wealthier backgrounds could afford private tutoring for the 11-plus test.

A government source has claimed grammar schools could be bought back to improve social mobility.

"If you're a really bright kid, you should have the opportunity to excel as far as your talents can take you," the source told The Sunday Telegraph."

Following the report, a Downing Street spokesperson said: "The Prime Minister has been clear that we need to build a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few."

"Every child should be allowed to rise as far as their talents will take them and birth should never be a barrier. Policies on education will be set out in due course."

The Campaign For Real Education praised Mrs May's decision, saying: "This country is becoming a basket case educationally and we are failing our children. We must teach youngsters in line with their ability."

The general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, Mary Bousted, said: "A government that is serious about social mobility would not allow the expansion of selective schools.

"All children deserve to have a first-class education, not just those whose parents can afford the private tuition to help them pass the 11-plus."
August 8, 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theresa May lifts ban on grammar schools - TLTP News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theresa May is planning to launch a new generation of grammar schools by scrapping the ban on them imposed almost 20 years ago, as part of her social mobility agenda The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. Labour have accused her of taking an "incredibly backward step" if she reverses the ban.

# data[].attributes.body
BARRE Justine MEEF 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theresa May has united the educational establishment in opposition to her plans for new grammar schools, Jeremy Corbyn told the prime minister during a boisterous prime minister's questions, saying the system would lead to "segregation for the few".

Using all six questions to press May on her plans to allow selective schools to be set up, the Labour leader said the prime minister had created "unity between Ofsted and teaching unions and former education secretaries on both sides of this house - a true era of unity in education thinking".

Corbyn challenged May to name an educational expert who would back her proposals on grammar schools and selective schools, asking her: "Why does the prime minister want to expand a system that can only let young people down?"

May insisted that new grammars would not lead to poor standards in schools for children who did not get into selective schools.

Corbyn "needs to stop casting his mind back to the 1950s," May said, claiming that new grammars would improve life chances for 1.25 million children in schools that were failing or in need of improvement.

"He believes in levelling down; we believe in levelling up," she said. "Can I gently remind the right honourable gentleman, he went to grammar school, I went to a grammar school; it's what got us where we are today." However, May conceded: "My side is probably happier about that than his."

Corbyn said his experience at a grammar school had shown him that every child should have similar excellence in educational opportunities.

"It's not about pulling up ladders, it's providing a ladder for every child," he said, and quoted the former prime minister David Cameron as saying: "There is a kind of hopelessness about the demand to bring back grammars ... I want the Conservative party to rise above that attitude."

Corbyn said: "Isn't he correct to say what we need is investment in all of our schools, a good school for every child, not this selection at the age of 11? The government is heading backwards to failed segregation for the few and second-class schooling for the many."

The focus on grammar schools drew roars of approval from the Labour backbenches, which have become a rare sound during Corbyn's year as Labour leader, a period in which the vast majority of the parliamentary party has expressed no confidence in his leadership.

With the results of the Labour leadership race due to be announced next week, after parliament goes into recess, May said the exchange could "be [Corbyn's] last opportunity to face me across this dispatch box, certainly if his members of parliament have anything to do with it".

Lucy Powell MP (@LucyMPowell)
Jeremy Corbyn easy win at #PMQs Theresa May has made a serious misjudgement on grammar schools. Her MPs know it.

Corbyn's performance was praised by several of his critics on Twitter following his exchange with May. The former shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, a key supporter of his leadership rival, Owen Smith, said the debate was an "easy win for Corbyn", and Jonathan Reynolds, the Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, said the Labour leader was "thrashing the PM".
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Corbyn lambasts May on grammar schools in boisterous PMQs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theresa May has united the educational establishment in opposition to her plans for new grammar schools, Jeremy Corbyn told the prime minister during a boisterous prime minister's questions, saying the system would lead to "segregation for the few".

# data[].attributes.body
Estelle Cagin MEEF 1
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37305841

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education Secretary Justine Greening says the government will take a "pragmatic" look at new grammar schools - but recognises there is an "emotive" debate over the issue.

Labour says ministers are showing a "dangerous misunderstanding" of issues facing schools in England.

We spoke to parents and ex-pupils with strong opinions on both sides of the debate.

The parents' views:
David Noble, 42, East Finchley, London
"I am a Conservative Party activist and married to a primary school teacher. I have two kids going to a new free school. I am very against opening new grammar schools.

"Education is paid for by the taxpayer and so should therefore be uniformly excellent in all state schools. With technology this may one day be achievable.

"Would anybody want a two-tier health service, police force or fire brigade? The answer is no. We should not have this in state education.

"Grammar schools benefit the middle and wealthy classes as those are the people who can pay for tutoring. This is a fact and it outrages me that some in the Conservative Party ignore this.

"I speak to some people who are massively pro-grammar schools purely from the perspective that they see it as saving £15,000 a year on private school education. They would throw the kitchen sink at their kids - by tutoring them - to get them to pass the 11-plus.

"The wealthy and middle classes already have private schools and a postcode lottery that works in their favour, so why give them a third option?

"A better model is streaming or a competitive environment in state comprehensive schools."
Scott Greenwood, 50, Greenwich, London
"The standard of non-grammars is not high enough. I agree that all schools should improve - but how long will that take? Should my son's education suffer whilst they try to sort out the problems?

"My son is 11 and has just started at a grammar school. He was lucky, he was able to take the 11-plus for a school in Kent as there aren't any in Greenwich.

"We did pay for extra tuition, but we also found the time to give him home tuition and installed a real work ethic into him. All the hard work he put in has paid off.

"And he was very keen to go to a grammar school even though most of his friends were going to a different school up the road.

"When we took him to see various schools, he could see the extra subjects and opportunities available at the grammar.

"If he went to a non-grammar he would be so far ahead of most of the other kids that the teachers wouldn't be able to give him the push he needs.

"If we educate all our children to mediocre standards then who will become a doctor, lawyer or a politician? They will only be fit to do menial jobs and not have the skills to become leaders or scientists and push the boundaries."

The ex-pupils' views:
Maggie Craig, 60, Croydon, Surrey
"I am the middle child, my elder brother and younger sister passed their 11-plus. I failed and went to the comprehensive school.

"After that I felt like a failure. I felt like I was the stupid one in the family. At the time, the view in society was that if you didn't go to a grammar school you had to do the more menial jobs.

"When I left school I felt I had less options and of course I wasn't able to take the same exams as my siblings, doing CSEs instead of O-levels.

"I still had a good time at school and was top of my classes there. But my brother and sister had more chances to go abroad on school trips. I felt I was missing out.

"Later, after I was married and had children I did evening classes to better myself. I had been working in catering for many years but I wanted to get better work. After the classes I got a job in administration.

"It would be stupid to bring grammar schools back and make so many children feel like failures. You shouldn't have to take a test at the age of 11."
Denise Taylor, 72, Merseyside
"I attended a grammar school, I went to university, I became a teacher and then head teacher of a secondary school.

"My parents were very working class, we lived in a council house and we were poor - but they valued education and encouraged me to do well at school.

"At the grammar school there was a strong ethos of achievement and a work ethic which was not disturbed by poor behaviour and disruption of learning in lessons.

"This is the strength of grammar schools. Quite simply the children want to learn, they want work and they do achieve.

"Removal of this from poor working class children with ability has considerably reduced their chances of a good education.

"However, the downside of this for the children who do not secure a place - or who do not have the ability to do so - is unacceptable. Any increase in selection should be accompanied by appropriate support for the education of these children.

"The most important thing for a successful education is the support of parents for the school and the provision of classes with good behaviour and good teaching. This is what grammar schools provide."
Pauline Messenger, 67, Norfolk
"Living in Buckinghamshire, as I did then, my own daughter had access to the grammar school system.

"She attended a highly-respected local grammar, where she gained an excellent education, leading to further education opportunities at university.

"I attended a grammar school in Islington, London and my past experiences there recommended the whole grammar school ethos to me.

"Born into a poor locality, living in a council flat, my grammar school provided me with the opportunity to 'better' myself and have access to a better, greatly improved way of life and better career.

"I very much feel other children from similar backgrounds should have those opportunities.

"For those children with high ability, it is good for them to be in a class along with others possessing equal learning ability because everyone then moves along at the same pace and no-one is held back."
Nathan Williams, BBC UGC and Social News team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education Secretary Justine Greening says the government will take a "pragmatic" look at new grammar schools - but recognises there is an "emotive" debate over the issue. Labour says ministers are showing a "dangerous misunderstanding" of issues facing schools in England. We spoke to parents and ex-pupils with strong opinions on both sides of the debate.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.scoop.it/t/british-civilisation-education-in-england-british-politics/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
British civilisation, Education in England

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
British civilisation, Education in England

# data[].attributes.body
https://storify.com/ImeldaElliott/the-grammar-school-debate-in-britain

# data[].attributes.headline
Ex-Education Secretary Nicky Morgan leads backlash against Theresa May's grammar schools plan 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ex-Education Secretary Nicky Morgan leads backlash against Theresa May's grammar schools plan 

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-education-secretary-nicky-morgan-8801841

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Image: PA)

Nicky Morgan has slammed Theresa May's plan to create new grammar schools amid a huge backlash.

The former Education Secretary led criticism of the new grammars, which will see tens of thousands more children selected by ability in England.

Mrs May tried to use Brexit to justify a wave of new grammar schools today.

The Prime Minister suggested the EU Out vote was triggered by a "profound sense of frustration" at a whole raft of issues - including parents being unable to get their kids into good schools.

Critics fear pupils who fail the 11-plus will suffer under the latest education overhaul.

Peers are set to fight the plan when it reaches the Lords, where the Government has no majority.

The scale of the PM's challenge in forcing the plans through Parliament was underlined by Nicky Morgan, who was sacked as Education Secretary in July.

She tweeted: "Identifying areas of poor education & lack of good schools is right. Idea that more selection is the answer is wrong."

Increased selection would be "at best a distraction from crucial reforms to raise standards and narrow the attainment gap and at worst risk actively undermining six years of progressive education reform", she added.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of schools watchdog Ofsted, blasted the proposal, which the Prime Minister claimed would help create a "great meritocracy".

He said: "My fear is by moving to a grammar and secondary modern system - because, let's face it, that's what we'll have if you divide at 11 - will put the clock back and the progress that we've made over the last 10 to 15 years will slow."

Ex-grammar schoolgirl Mrs May linked June's referendum vote to her pet education project.

She said: "When the British people voted in the referendum, they did not just choose to leave the EU.

"They were also expressing a far more profound sense of frustration about aspects of life in Britain and the way in which politics and politicians have failed to respond to their concerns."

But Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said: "How dare Theresa May try and use Brexit as justification for new grammar schools without a mandate.

"The referendum Out vote should not be used as a catch all for any right wing policy she wants to introduce.

"It's ridiculous to claim that the EU vote was anything to do with grammar schools."

The Bright Blue think tank for Tory modernisers accused Mrs May of "wasting precious political capital on re-introducing grammar schools".

Director Ryan Shorthouse said: "The most excellent and equitable education systems from around the world do not rely on selective education."

Pledging to fight the proposal, Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Jonathan Ashworth said: "It's utterly ludicrous for Theresa May to stand up and talk about creating a 'great meritocracy' and then in the next breath announce a return to grammar schools.

"The Prime Minister can talk all she wants about delivering for everyone but what matters is what she does, and her actions reveal the Tories' true colours - working in the interests of the few while everyone else is left behind."

National Union of Teachers general secretary Kevin Courtney said the move "represents a return to the class-ridden Britain of the 1950s".

He added: "This will be a devastating blow to those families' children who won't get a place in these elite selective schools - and as we know that these will be largely working class children since less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals."

Other plans revealed by Mrs May include relaxing admission rules for faith schools.

Current rules which put a 50% cap on the proportion of pupils selected by religion have been blamed for preventing new Catholic schools from opening.

Senior Tory MP Sarah Wollaston warned: "Anything that moves towards allowing greater segregation at a time when we want to have more community cohesion in my view is a very regressive step."

Mrs May also launched a crackdown on top private schools, saying they must do more to justify their charitable status, which offers generous tax breaks.

What sort of grammar school do you want?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nicky Morgan is NOT impressed with Theresa May's grammar schools plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nicky Morgan has slammed Theresa May's plan to create new grammar schools amid a huge backlash. The former Education Secretary led criticism of the new grammars, which will see tens of thousands more children selected by ability in England. Mrs May tried to use Brexit to justify a wave of new grammar schools today.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education












Reality of grammar schools and disadvantaged pupils in 2 graphs

# data[].attributes.subject
Education












Reality of grammar schools and disadvantaged pupils in 2 graphs

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/reality-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils-8802153

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theresa May has announced a major shake-up of the education system, with a big push for more selective schools - but how much will disadvantaged children really benefit?

Get politics news by email

Theresa May has announced a four part plan to overhaul the schools system - with the widely trailed return to grammar schools a key pillar.

The Prime Minister believes the scheme will allow every child a chance to attend a good school, regardless of their background.

She trumpeted the outstanding results achieved by selective schools, and the fact 80% of selective schools have an Outstanding rating compared to 20% of state schools overall.

Mrs May intends to make up to £50 million a year available to support the expansion of existing grammar schools rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, and she also wants to allow new grammar schools to open.

But new figures suggest few disadvantaged children benefit from grammar schools currently, and even fellow Tories have questioned the plan.

Former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has slammed the return to a selection model, saying it is not the answer.

So who goes to grammar schools at the moment?

Almost all existing grammar schools (orange) get the best results.

And they almost always have the lowest proportion of disadvantaged students.

Rob Grant/Trinity Mirror

Each circle is a secondary school in England (not Wales or Scotland).

It doesn't include independent schools, just grammar schools, comprehensives and secondary moderns.

This chart shows only grammar schools and 'modern' schools under the selective system.

David Ottewell/Trinity Mirror

The charts were made from Department of Education statistics, plotting GCSE scores against the proportion of disadvantaged pupils they teach.

"Disadvantaged" covers children in several different circumstances, but the main two to be aware of are children who are eligible for free school meals and those in care.

What did Theresa May say about selective schools?

She says she wants any school - including new schools, free schools and existing comprehensives - to have the chance to change into a grammar school and impose selection.

But that'll be subject to conditions. For a start, anyone who wants to open a selective school will also have to open a non-selective school.

She insists this won't be a return to "secondary moderns" and a binary system, but hasn't really explained why.

She also said the 11plus would not act as a cliff edge for children, as they could move to a grammar school later, with intakes at 14 and 16 too. She also mentioned the idea of taking certain subjects at grammars based on aptitude.

Nick Ansell/AFP/Getty

Theresa May at her schools plan launch

And she thinks 11 plus tests are now much smarter and "tutor proof", reducing the benefit of rich parents being able to pay for extra coaching to help their children get in.

The plan to force grammars to prove they take a proportion from poorer households is aimed at preventing wealthier families getting their children in just by moving house.

The Labour leader says he will scrap the changes if he becomes PM, adding that he'll make it a "top priority"

The Prime Minister has announced plans to create more grammar schools and increase selection across the board. Here's how it would work

Recommended in UK News

Most Read in News

Recommended on the Mirror

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reality of grammar schools and disadvantaged pupils in 2 graphs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theresa May has announced a major shake-up of the education system, with a big push for more selective schools - but how much will disadvantaged children really benefit? Get politics news by email Theresa May has announced a four part plan to overhaul the schools system - with the widely trailed return to grammar schools a key pillar.