Moved by Baroness Blower That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Blower (Lab) My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron
of Comprehensive Future. Although this Bill concerns a relatively
small section of England’s schools, it is concerned with a
significant principle about how our education system and service is
organised. I believe profoundly that it is an important principle
that the education service should provide access on an
equitable...Request free trial
Moved by
That the Bill be now read a second time.
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of Comprehensive
Future.
Although this Bill concerns a relatively small section of
England’s schools, it is concerned with a significant principle
about how our education system and service is organised. I
believe profoundly that it is an important principle that the
education service should provide access on an equitable basis to
all children and young people. This is not, of course, what
happens in the 35 local authorities where access to certain
state-funded schools is on a selective basis.
The majority of the most successful education systems globally
are of a comprehensive nature, meaning that, post their primary
education, where there is virtually no selection, all children
are welcomed by their local school—although I will address the
issue of special schools later. Professor Stephen Gorard and Dr
Nadia Siddiqui from Durham University have looked into selection.
They conclude that
“pupils attending grammar schools are stratified in terms of
chronic poverty, ethnicity … special educational needs and even
precise age within their year group. This kind of clustering of
relative advantage is potentially dangerous for society. The
article derives measures of chronic poverty and local
socio-economic status… between schools, and uses these to show
that the results from grammar schools are no better than
expected, once these differences are accounted for.”
Gorard and Siddiqui further conclude that:
“The UK government should consider phasing the existing selective
schools out”
in England. Such an opportunity is afforded by this Bill.
Comprehensive schools raise the attainment of all children. More
children do better in a comprehensive system. The attainment gap,
which has increased since the pandemic, between disadvantaged and
more advantaged pupils, is narrower in comprehensive schools.
Figures from the DfE show that non-selective—that is, secondary
modern schools in selected areas—produce poor results,
statistically significantly below the national average because of
the nature of their skewed intake. Research from the University
College London Social Research Institute shows that access to
grammar schools is highly skewed by a child’s socioeconomic
status, with the most deprived families living in grammar school
areas standing only a 6% chance of attending a selective school.
Interestingly, Gorard and Siddiqui note that their
“analysis also shows that the chances of accessing a grammar
school vary hugely by family background, even when we compare
children who have the same attainment at age 11”—
or possibly 10—as determined by key stage 2 stats.
Access to grammar schools by pupils from wealthier backgrounds is
also likely to be associated with additional private tutoring
that is not available to their economically disadvantaged peers.
Therefore, the 11-plus has become a test that favours those with
the ability to pay for tuition, a suggestion supported by the
fact that only 3% of children in grammar schools are entitled to
free school meals, the most widespread proxy for poverty in our
system, as opposed to the 18% to 20% entitlement to free school
meals in non-selective schools. At present, about 5% of pupils in
England attend a grammar school, but as many as 19% are affected
by academic selection, with about 100,000 pupils a year sitting
the 11-plus—or, rather, an 11-plus, given that there are over 100
different 11-plus tests. Different selective areas and different
grammar schools in so-called non-selective areas all set their
own tests. There is no official body overseeing the 11-plus.
Neither the DfE nor anyone else is responsible for
quality-assuring this multiplicity of tests.
There can be a long-lasting and damaging effect on children from
failing the 11-plus, as reported by teachers and parents. It can
dent the confidence of 11 year-olds as they begin their secondary
education. If they are not selected, axiomatically they are
rejected. This is not the frame of mind in which to begin the
next phase of their education. However, as demonstrated by an
article in the Times last Wednesday, even people who go on to be
successful in life may never lose the sense of shame and failure
that not passing the 11-plus leaves behind. The headline was:
“Shame of failing 11-plus haunts TV trailblazer.”
This Bill seeks that secondary schools have regard to the
comprehensive principle by providing for admission to schools to
be not based wholly or mainly on selection by academic ability.
As Gorard and Siddiqui suggest, this Bill provides the mechanism
to phase out the practice of academic selection and its corollary
of rejection. The Bill would leave in place arrangements for
admission to special schools for children and young people with a
relevant special educational need or disability.
This is a social justice and levelling-up Bill. As I have said,
19% of England’s secondary school pupils feel the impact of
selection, whether they face an 11-plus test or not. This is
because the overall effect of concentrating higher-attaining
pupils in particular schools depresses the overall GCSE results
in the surrounding area. Research demonstrates the advantage of
teaching lower, middle and higher-attaining pupils together.
Higher-attaining pupils continue to obtain highly, while middle
and lower attainment levels are generally raised. Kent’s GCSE
results being lower than the national average confirm that
selective schools do not improve results across the area. A
comprehensive principle is that we all do better when we all do
better.
As to the social justice and levelling-up points, selective
education produces social segregation. The proportion of pupils
in grammar schools from disadvantaged backgrounds, with a special
educational need or a disability, or who are looked-after
children, is extremely low. It follows, therefore, that
surrounding schools take a disproportionate number of pupils with
disabilities or special educational needs. The law needs to
change to end the unnecessary division of children into schools
by means of the outdated and unreliable 11-plus scheme. This Bill
offers a phased plan to bring about comprehensive admissions
policies to England’s remaining state-funded selective schools.
This would bring England into line with education systems in
Scotland and Wales and ensure a fully comprehensive education
system.
In conclusion, while there is currently a grammar school ballot
legislation in place, frankly, it is unworkable, and rewriting it
is not a good solution to this problem. In evidence to the
Education Committee in another place, a conclusion was drawn that
the grammar school ballot regulations were designed precisely to
retain the status quo. Selection in Guernsey was ended by a
parliamentary vote, not a local one. The parliamentary vote was
acknowledged and accepted because clear evidence was advanced
outlining the reasons and the rationale for the change. The
people of the island understood the benefits of phasing out the
selection, even when they did not initially agree with it.
I commend this Bill to the House. It is a brief but precise Bill,
the effects of which would bring great benefits and enhance the
social justice that I am sure that we all seek from our education
system. I beg to move.
11.59am
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving your
Lordships’ House the opportunity to consider the issue of
academic selection for schools, which was, until Prime Minister’s
Questions in the other place on Wednesday, probably the most
politicised issue in the education system. How do 163 schools in
more affluent areas demand such attention, when there are 4,081
schools that are non-selective? Should the local decision-making
that has allowed this historical anomaly to exist be taken away
by central government to end this situation? I support this Bill
as the status quo is unacceptable.
Nothing that I say is to denigrate the hard work of those in
these schools. It is not personal, but it is principled and
pragmatic. Here, briefly, are three reasons: education is a
social experience; there should be parity of parental choice; and
there is what I term the micro-geography of education.
While some non-selective schools do not have a broad background
of pupils and some families ameliorate the issues I will outline
with extracurricular social activities, the profile of our
grammar schools, with few exceptions, is narrow. They do not have
many children with additional needs, who are on free school meals
or who are looked-after. At the census date last year, 68 of our
grammar schools had no looked-after children at key stages 3 or
4. That is a product of not giving priority admissions and
selecting on the basis of the entrance test only. If I think back
to my school and remove all those children, it would have been a
poorer education.
Additionally, 13% of children entering grammar schools come from
outside the state sector—presumably they are from abroad or the
private sector, or have been home-educated—compared with 2% in
other state schools. Nowadays, employers do not want
qualifications only; they want an appreciation of different
talents and life experiences, as well as protected
characteristics. Is this really the education we want in the 21st
century, and should the taxpayer be funding it? Can the Minister
outline whether the taxpayer funds the costs of running these
additional examinations?
Secondly, on principle, in England parents should have parity of
choice in choosing a good local school, but they are offered
other additional choices, such as in the area of faith. Although
a larger catchment area is served, parents can choose a faith
school—not only Church of England, Catholic or Jewish but, since
2010, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh state-funded schools. It is only
right to expand that and give parents of faith parity of choice.
If you are going to offer selection, it should be all or
nothing.
Parents living in selective areas such as Lincolnshire often want
a non-selective system, but for most people, if you want
selection, it is not open to you. At the moment, this choice is
predominantly not given to parents in deprived areas, which tend
to lack grammar schools. Noble Lords might say that that is an
argument for bringing them back wholesale; this is where
micro-geography is the trump card.
I grew up in a small town in the smallest county—Rutland. Rutland
topped the country’s league table for the best GCSE results for
the first time, but it has only three secondary schools. Much of
that was due to Catmose College in Oakham, under the leadership
of Stuart Williams and his great team, which has been improving
things year on year, doing their teacher-assessed grades with
integrity so the reintroduction of exams meant even more
improvement. You could make it a grammar school, but there is no
other school in the town and a huge proportion of pupils would
have to travel from towns large enough to sustain a secondary
school. That would be not a parental choice to travel, but no
option.
The second aspect of micro-geography is that, although there has
been a policy of expanding grammar schools for intermittent
periods, it looks innocuous but is not always. A small town might
have two schools: the grammar school is expanded, then the
comprehensive school might suffer from a lack of numbers; it
starts to have fewer pupils through the door, starts to get less
money and then starts to fail. Education is often a microeconomy
that is very sensitive to what look like subtle changes at the
policy level. There are hundreds of children now travelling out
of large towns to get education, because the only school now on
offer is a grammar school.
I leave it to other noble Lords to add to the detailed evidence
on academic attainment that the noble Baroness, Lady Blower,
outlined for these schools. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord
Hunt, for sending me some of that information. However, I noted
that this is ESRC research. Who funds that? The taxpayer. Surely,
we have better things to spend our research money on than looking
into an anomaly created by a historical accident in our education
system.
I wish I could remove the politics from this, but I fear that
even the rather more heavily populated Benches of His Majesty’s
Opposition have not been able to grasp this nettle politically
and look at the grammar school issue. The greatest irony, in my
mind, after the issue raised at Prime Minister’s Questions, is
that, when assisted places were abolished, some of our private
schools set about raising the money to replace them. For
instance, Manchester Grammar School offers one-sixth of its
places on scholarships and bursaries. You are perhaps more likely
to find more socioeconomically and ethnically diverse children,
and more looked-after children, in a private school than in some
state-funded grammar schools. If we are going to spend our money
on research, we should research that.
12.05pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blower for
promoting this Bill on a subject whose time has come. At a time
of scarce public resources, there is a need to spread them as
equitably as possible and that particularly applies to
education.
What a pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady
Berridge: we discussed education issues at the Dispatch Box on
many occasions. We rarely agreed, for obvious reasons, but we are
in agreement today and I am pleased that she is part of this
debate.
Those in favour of grammar schools claim that they help to
increase social mobility, but the evidence points in the opposite
direction. Today, less than 3% of pupils at grammar schools are
eligible for free school meals, compared with 18% in
non-selective schools. If grammar schools were really increasing
social mobility, all—every one of the 163—would need to
demonstrate that more than 18% of their intake were entitled to
free school meals. It is clear that they are not increasing
social mobility in the areas in which they currently operate.
I have a problem with the term “social mobility”, and grammar
schools epitomise the reason why. To give a disadvantaged few a
hand up in any sphere is always welcome but, as the free school
meals figures show, when it comes to school pupils, they are very
few. This suggests a level of self-satisfaction, coupled with an
acceptance that the remainder of pupils can be left pretty much
to carry on as before. That is why I prefer the term “social
justice” to social mobility, because we need to consider the
school population in its widest sense and ensure that we do all
we can to improve learning and outcomes for all pupils, not just
the fortunate few.
Let us not sugar-coat the issue: grammar schools are often much
better at social selection than at academic selection. Many
children who succeed in gaining entry to grammar schools are from
two categories: those who have attended private prep schools
rather than their local primary school and so are already
privileged, or those who have remained within the state system
but come from families whose parents can afford to pay for
private tutoring to ensure their children pass the 11-plus exam.
I think I know the Minister well enough to believe she genuinely
wants to see an increase in social mobility, but not enough in
her party share that aim. If they did, surely they would invest
more in early years education, the stage at which state
intervention makes the greatest contribution to a child’s life
chances.
Advocates of grammar schools rarely state that each one needs
around three non-selective schools. What about those? They are
filled with children who are told, at the age of 11, that they
are failures. There is a cruelty involved in stigmatising
children at such an early point in their development, and many
never recover. Although I was educated in Scotland, where there
are no grammar schools, I sat the 11-plus. I very much remember
the divisions that caused and the lost friendships that resulted.
There are many who recall siblings and friends being separated,
with people branded as failures, snobbery reinforced, class
divisions entrenched and, perhaps most importantly, opportunities
denied. Who would want or even tolerate those outcomes?
The truth is that grammar schools are damaging not just to
individual young people, but to communities, because they are
about being exclusive, not inclusive. Some would say that that is
their raison d’être; it is more about who they keep out than who
they let in. They do not raise general education standards. My
noble friend Lady Blower mentioned Kent, which has the highest
number of grammar schools in the country, but also the highest
number of failing secondary schools, including academies, of any
local authority.
We hear much about the postcode lottery of school admissions, and
it could be said that there is already a form of selection by
house price. Of course, grammar schools defy the postcode
lottery. Rather than seeing themselves as part of a community,
they cast their net far and wide, resulting in often ridiculous
situations, such as children travelling from Brighton to attend
grammar schools in the London boroughs of Kingston and Sutton—50
miles away. Southend has four grammar schools, yet only one has a
majority of children whose home is in Southend. What is the point
of that?
This is public money being spent on public education, yet it is
being used to stroke the egos of grammar school head teachers,
for whom result are everything and promoting community
cohesion—supposedly a legal duty of every state school—appears to
count for very little.
There is no shortage of Tory party Members of Parliament in
favour of creating more grammar schools, the most vociferous
being , the influential chair of the
Back-Bench 1922 Committee. That is not a surprise, given that 50%
of schools in his constituency are grammars. I wonder whether he
would be so ardent if he represented a seat in Surrey, where
there are no grammar schools.
The argument is that more grammar schools would create more
choice. That would certainly be the case, but it would be the
schools being given more choice over pupils rather than parents
being given more choice over the school they want for their
child. No child should be required to earn a place at their local
school.
This issue has been around for as long as I can remember.
Everyone in my party is in favour of a fully comprehensive
system. Some say that to move towards it would be a distraction
to an incoming Labour Government, because of the fuss the media
would cause, and so we should not make it a priority. Whether it
is a priority or not, I believe it should be a manifesto
commitment for the next election. To those in my party who argue
otherwise I simply say: if not now, when? I wish my noble friend
well with her Bill and look forward to continuing this important
debate in Committee.
12.11pm
(GP)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady
Blower, for bringing forward this important Bill and giving us
the chance to have this important debate, and for taking steps to
implement a long-term, consistent Green Party policy—which I have
no doubt will be a priority of the first Green Government, should
it still be an issue.
I say that noting line ED112 of the Green Party’s policies for a
sustainable society, which says:
“Selection by aptitude, ability, or social class runs
counterproductive to creating a high quality education system for
all students. Excellent all-ability schools with balanced intakes
are the best way of ensuring that every child receives a
first-rate education”.
The policy goes on to say:
“Many of the existing problems in our admissions system stem from
the emphasis on SATS and League Tables, both of which the Green
Party will abolish”.
I quote that second point because there is in the nature of
grammar schools a fundamental underlying problem of the way that
we currently look at education. It is set up as a competition
between pupils trying to get into schools, and between schools
trying to get higher on the league tables. If we look at this in
a much broader context we see that we face so many issues given
the state of our world today. We need to develop the human
potential of every person on this planet to the best possible
level. That would be to the benefit of all of us. It is not a
case of saying, “We’re going to get our school system ahead so
it’s better than somebody else’s.” We all benefit the better
schooling is all around this country, and all around the
world.
Many noble Lords already set out some of the stats, figures and
evidence, but it is worth picking out three points from three
sets of evidence. First, I refer to a Durham University study
published in the British Journal of Sociology of Education in
2018. Using the kind of measures that the Government themselves
like to use—what it describes as “effectiveness”; that is, exam
results—the study found that, once the nature of the intake,
including chronic poverty, ethnicity, home language, special
educational needs and age of the group, had been taken into
account, grammar schools are no more or less effective in
outcomes than other schools. They do not achieve what they aim to
achieve. The study found that their apparent success is due just
to the selection of the pupils.
Coming towards a measure of schools that is much more like the
one I would like to see, there was a study in the same year by
the UCL Institute of Education that analysed data from 883
children in England and 733 children in Northern Ireland who had
similar academic achievements at primary school and were from
similar backgrounds. It looked at these pupils at the age of 14
and at some of the traditional tests in English, maths, verbal
and non-verbal reasoning, and vocabulary. There was no difference
in the result; there was no benefit from the grammar school.
Crucially, given some of the issues we face and the concerns that
I have about schooling, looking at the pupils’ mental health,
engagement at school, well-being and interaction with peers—the
way a school prepares pupils for life—there was also no benefit
from a grammar school education.
On the broader impacts, not just on individuals but on
communities, a hugely valuable study from the University of Bath
looked at areas with grammar schools and areas without. It found
that inequality in earnings is significantly higher for people
who grow up in areas with grammar schools compared with those who
grow up in areas with a comprehensive system. The Government tell
us that they are concerned about poverty and inequality. Here is
an absolutely crucial statistic: low earners who grow up in a
grammar school system area earn less than low earners who grew up
in a comprehensive school area.
We all know that, given the timings—we saw my noble friend Lady
Jones of Moulsecoomb’s Private Member’s Bill go through the House
and be sent to the other place today—we really have to get our
skates on to get this one through the same process. This is a
crucial issue. I applaud the contribution from the noble
Baroness, Lady Berridge, and echo the point she made that this
certainly is not meant as an attack on pupils, teachers or people
associated with grammar schools. People make the best of what
they have. Indeed, I visit a number of grammar schools with Learn
with the Lords and other school visit programmes. Generally
speaking, pupils do not choose to be where they are at school, so
I will visit any school. I have visited Eton and Harrow, among
others, and found that very educational, in its own way. We need
to debate these issues and, more than that, act on them. I wish
this Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, good speed.
12.17pm
(Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support this important and
timely Bill. I thank my noble friend Lady Blower greatly for
introducing it. It has not actually been much of a debate so far;
the speeches have been remarkably one-sided. I very much look
forward to the Minister’s reply, but that one-sidedness reflects
the situation we are in.
This debate is timely. This week saw the launch of an active
campaign on the issue, Time’s Up for the Test. It is important,
in the sense that it raises the profile of this issue. Those
involved in education will be conscious that there has come a
time when this issue will need to be confronted; it cannot be
tucked under the carpet any more. The mission statement of Time’s
Up for the Test says:
“We want the remnants of the discredited secondary school system
which dates back to the 1940s to be swept away. Nowhere in
England should young children be divided on the basis of some
ill-conceived perception of intelligence. The 11+ should be
abolished and every child should have the right to attend a
comprehensive school.”
I could not put it any better myself, so I am happy to quote what
it says. We are talking about comprehensive education. The basis
is that all children benefit from a fully comprehensive
education; that is education in its wider sense—not just exams
but how you learn to live in society.
Earlier in the week, the Prime Minister, in answering a question,
referred to parental aspiration. All parents have aspirations for
their children; it is only a subset who have the money to support
those aspirations. If you really want to aspire then
comprehensive education is best for all.
It is important not to underestimate the significance of
selective education. There are still 11 local authorities that
the Department for Education designates as being highly
selective—that is where more than 25% of pupils attend grammar
schools. The Department for Education’s own figures show that
schools in highly selective areas have the lowest attainment,
statistically below the national average. There is no evidence
that the high-attaining children gain any advantage but clear
evidence that those who find it more difficult to attain a high
standard of education do worse. It is one-sided.
We have had some figures and I shall cite some more, from the
Comprehensive Future website. Noble Lords can look them up and do
their own due diligence. I think they are compelling. One that
has already been mentioned but should always be referred to
concerns free school meals. They are underrepresented in grammar
schools, with just 5% of grammar school pupils taking free school
meals, while the average in non-selective schools in selective
areas is 23%; that is 5% against 23%. Where is the equity in
that? The pupil premium is an alternative measure of
disadvantage. It is based on eligibility for free school meals at
any point in a pupil’s school life. Grammar schools’ intake is
made up of around 8.3% of pupils entitled to the pupil premium
compared to a national average of 27.6% for disadvantaged pupils
in secondary schools; that is 8% against 27%.
All this goes back to the total failure of the test, as has been
mentioned. The test is a test of social selection. It is not a
test of innate educational ability. For example, those born in
September or October have an inherent advantage over those born
in July or August. What justice is there in that? It also
benefits those with parents who can afford the all-pervading
tutoring that is now available. The figures are compelling. I
conclude by emphasising that the superior results, to the extent
that there are superior results, in grammar schools reflect the
ability of the intake and not the success or otherwise of grammar
schools’ ability to educate children.
12.23pm
(LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and other noble
Lords, I take part in the Learn with the Lords programme, which
involves all types of schools, from maintained schools to
academies, independent schools and grammar schools, and I meet
children and young people who want to learn and are excited about
learning. For me, it is about the young people themselves and how
we develop them for the best and provide opportunities for all
children. I support the School (Reform of Pupil Selection) Bill
and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, for bringing it
forward. I am pleased that such an important issue is being given
the appropriate attention.
Supporters of selective grammar schools often remind us of such
schools’ superior results. Admittedly, data pointing to such
conclusions abound. For instance, the 2017-18 GCSE attainment
data between grammar schools and non-selective schools in highly
selective areas show that the average attainment per pupil was
higher by almost 30 points in selective schools. When this House
briefly discussed grammar schools in June, the noble Lord, Lord
Knight, used an analogy to address such statistics. He said that
if a hospital was allowed to choose patients and admit only those
very lightly injured, its mortality rate would be impressively
low. The same goes for schools. If a school is allowed to admit
only pupils with above average aptitude, of course its results
will be better than those of schools offering education to every
student regardless of their abilities. In fact, those who use
such data to justify the outdated and frankly traumatising system
of selection and rejection would do well to remember the first
law of scientific research: association is not causation.
Even disregarding the unfair advantage given to selective schools
in allowing them to choose who to admit and who to reject, we can
find hardly any evidence-based justification for their existence.
It is often said that such schools are centres of excellence,
being especially well adapted to accommodating and developing the
above average abilities of their students. Yet a University of
Durham study which looked at chronic poverty, special educational
needs, home language and age in year groups found no evidence
that grammar schools were more or less effective than any other
schools. Once again, it was pupils’ overall circumstances rather
than the school they went to that decisively influenced their
academic performance. It would be good if the Government focused
on addressing this recurring pattern of academic underachievement
and underprivileged background instead of trying to perpetuate an
outdated, unfair and exclusive model of schooling.
12.26pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend’s Bill. Like her, I
am a patron of Comprehensive Future. The relevance of this debate
is, of course, that we are in the lead-up to the next election,
and we will be interested in my noble friend’s response to this
debate. It is a good opportunity, too, for the Minister to state
expressly the Government’s offer and promise in relation to
selective education and grammar schools. Going back, in 2016,
as Prime Minister said that the
Government intended to lift the ban on the creation of new
selective schools. That was in the 2017 manifesto. Since then, we
know that, had the Schools Bill made progress in your Lordships’
House and gone to the Commons, a number of concerned MPs there
would have wished to amend it to get rid of the ban on selective
education. My noble friend Lord Watson quoted Graham Brady’s
views and his article in House magazine in July, in which I think
it would be fair to say that he evangelised for grammar schools.
It is therefore legitimate for us to ask the Minister to say,
when she winds up on my noble friend’s Bill, what the
Government’s view on selective education is.
I am old enough, I am afraid, to have been brought up in a
selective system of education in Oxford. I lived through the
experience of the pressure of taking the 11-plus exam, the
private coaching that did take place, even in the 1960s, and the
devastating impact on so many children who “failed” the 11-plus
exam and went to secondary modern schools. I do not underestimate
the hard work of teachers in those schools, but they had much
less resource and less ambition, and we consigned so many young
people to a future that did not always have a positive
outcome.
We need to remember that the move to comprehensive education was
hugely popular, because this wretched system that divided
children when they took the exam, mostly at 10, was very
unpopular with many people. Those who now argue for grammar
schools present only the image of children who passed the
11-plus; they never talk about the impact on the others. They
simply assume that the comprehensive system, if you like, can
just chunter on, without grammar schools having a devastating
impact on it.
I do not want to repeat all the statistics that we have heard;
they are overwhelming. Grammar schools clearly do not aid social
mobility. The big argument that Conservative MPs always trot out
is that this will give a leg up to poorer children. It is a very
small number of kids. Overwhelmingly, their pupils come from more
advantaged social backgrounds. As the social mobility tsar said
recently, selective education does not work. You cannot have
grammar schools without the 11-plus. You cannot have the 11-plus
without paid coaching buying advantage. The whole system is
rigged against the poor.
In quoting my noble friend Lord Knight, the noble Lord, , was absolutely right. We know
that private health insurance weeds out people who are going to
make expensive demands on the system. Imagine hospitals doing the
same. The outcomes would be better and, no doubt, people would
proclaim that they were the best hospitals because their outcomes
were better. This is what we often get in relation to grammar
schools. I am afraid that until recently Ofsted often fell into
that trap.
From the Minister we are looking for a clear statement that the
Government will not support the expansion of the grammar school
system. I hope they say that they will not allow any more
satellite grammar schools to go ahead, because clearly that is
driving a coach and horses through the current prohibition. I
hope they also say that selection at 11 has absolutely no purpose
or point for our young people.
12.32pm
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the
register of interests and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blower,
for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue.
The central point I want to make today is that we have to make
education, and improving standards in education for all young
people, our country’s number one priority. In a world in which
technology and skills are crucial but in which we are finding it
harder and harder to compete, there can be no more important
issue. Improving education would enable us to tackle all sorts of
issues. It would not just help young people to lead more
prosperous and fulfilled lives but strengthen the economy, help
us to tackle the deficit, bring new investment and better jobs to
towns that have lost traditional industries and reduce the costs
of inequality and poverty on the NHS, housing and benefits.
Unfortunately, when it comes to literacy and numeracy, we are
lagging behind our competitors. It is not just countries such as
China and South Korea; we are struggling even to compete with
post-communist nations—Estonia, Poland and Slovenia. For decades,
Germany has provided many more apprenticeships and had much
better technical education.
Let us look at the challenges in education: so many working-class
pupils, particularly white, working-class boys, leaving school
without even basic qualifications; decades of not taking
technical education seriously enough or providing enough
apprenticeships; and a teacher recruitment crisis. Look at
yesterday’s scandalous figures showing the plummeting number of
young people going into teacher training. Look at the catastrophe
of Covid for children from poor or overcrowded homes or those
with special needs.
Given all that, who would say, as the Minister for School
Standards appointed in September did—thankfully, he is no longer
in office—that their “biggest fear of all” in education is the
abolition of charitable status for private schools? Whatever you
think of the idea, who would say it is the biggest problem in
education?
Likewise, given the scale and urgency of the task of improving
education for all young people, I am not sure that abolishing
selection should be the top priority for an incoming Labour
Government. I understand the objections set out to selection at
11, of course, but the Explanatory Notes say the Bill would also
prevent schools with sixth forms from selecting pupils for
A-levels. What about the BRIT School, which does a very good job
on performing and creative arts? What would be the impact on
other specialist schools?
Whether we like it or not, selection is a major feature of our
education system, whether it is a few state schools, private
fee-paying schools or parents buying a home near the best state
schools. The question is not whether selection takes place but
who gets to choose and on what basis.
According to the Sutton Trust, only 7% of pupils attend
independent schools but they produce seven out of 10 High Court
judges, more than half our leading journalists and doctors and
more than a third of our MPs. Five public schools send more
pupils to Oxbridge than 2,000 state schools—two-thirds of the
entire sector.
Look what happened in Covid: every independent school I know
provided a full timetable on Zoom from day one. I do not begrudge
them that at all. Spending money on education for young people,
either as a parent or as society as a whole, is the best
investment possible, but I do not know a single state
school—comprehensive, selective or otherwise—where that happened.
Children from poor or overcrowded homes were hit worst of all, so
the gulf between poor children and the rest—already a scandal,
and greater in the UK than anywhere else—gets bigger than
ever.
Instead of abolishing selection, we should look to open up elite
private schools to all pupils on the basis of ability, which is
what the Sutton Trust proposes. That would open access to leading
independent schools by selecting pupils for all places purely on
merit, with parents paying a sliding scale of fees according to
their means. When this was piloted in Liverpool, open access saw
academic standards improve and the social mix of schools become
more diverse, with 30% of pupils on free school places and 40%
paying partial fees. Top independent schools are prepared to take
part in trailblazer programmes on this, benefiting thousands of
pupils every year whose parents could not afford fees. Extending
that to 100 or more leading—
(Lab)
The noble Lord is making his case, but the school in which it was
piloted in Liverpool, the Belvedere School, has since joined the
state system as a state academy and does not have selective
admissions or fees any more. Might there not be a lesson from
this that if more of these elite private schools joined the state
system, access to them would be much more open than with them
charging fees of £15,000, £20,000, £25,000, £30,000, £35,000,
£40,000 or £45,000 a year?
(Non-Afl)
I am afraid that my hearing aid meant I missed the first part of
the noble Lord’s question, but I got the gist of it. I think the
answer is that there is not much chance of that happening, but
there is a chance that they are prepared to join the Sutton Trust
programme. That would have a dramatic effect on the diversity of
these schools and the opportunities open to young people from
poorer homes.
(LD)
The noble Lord, , mentioned Belvedere, but there
is also the independent selective school Liverpool College, which
is now an academy with no selection; and St Edward’s College,
which was a selective independent school, is now an academy. The
results are better than when they were grammar schools.
(Non-Afl)
That is fantastic to hear, of course. Can I seek some guidance?
Do I get a bit longer after the interventions? Does it work like
in the Commons, where we get more?
(Con)
My Lords, given that there have been a couple of interventions, a
minute longer.
(Non-Afl)
I am very grateful for that. My other point is to ask why the
Government cannot increase choice and competition by allowing
popular and oversubscribed schools with consistently good
results, strong governance and sound finances to provide more
places. The problem at the moment is that funding follows the
pupils. Oversubscribed schools cannot provide places to
accommodate more pupils. Allowing them to provide the facilities
first and then pay back the cost of expanding the facilities
through the money that the additional pupils generate would deal
with that problem.
I am very grateful for the extra time I have been given. I will
not read the rest of my speech, but I am grateful to have had the
opportunity to contribute to this debate.
12.39pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the clerks, your Lordships and my noble friend
for allowing me
to speak in the gap before him.
I support my noble friend Lady Blower’s Bill as a matter of high
principle. I also have a personal reason for doing so: I am one
of those who failed the 11-plus. Remembering it now, I do not
think I realised then what the significance was of failing that
exam, but I remember the sadness of knowing that my mates were
going to grammar school while others were going to secondary
modern. I remember the shame of the failure of that exam, and I
remember the sadness that I brought to my mum and dad for having
failed it.
As it happens, I was lucky; I went to a first-rate comprehensive,
Mellow Lane School in Hayes, where I blossomed in education for
two years. Unfortunately that came to an end because my parents
moved to another borough in London, which I will not mention,
where I went to a second-rate grammar school and my education
diminished in stature.
As it turns out, I have not done too badly in life—I have had a
very enjoyable career, and here I am among your Lordships—but I
do not cite myself as an example. Statistically speaking, I am
non-existent. What I am very aware of, and so are noble Lords now
from the statistics that others have mentioned today, is that
those who fail the 11-plus are most likely condemned to a worse
standard of living and a worse enjoyment of life than those who
pass.
I only make the point that, if it is proposed to maintain
selection, the Minister should remember the pain that is
inflicted on those who are rejected when they fail. That is, as
my noble friend Lady Blower mentioned, a scar that I personally
bear, and will do so till my dying day.
12.41pm
(Con)
My Lords, I too am glad to speak in the gap. The noble Lord has
of course not done too badly, and I am sure that his scar is not
quite as acute.
I was delighted when the noble Lord, Lord Austin, made his speech
because we had debate for the first time. The basic proposition
proposed by the noble Baroness in her Bill—and I congratulate her
on bringing it forward—was being challenged, and I think rightly.
I must declare an interest: I am the product of a grammar school
education. Before I entered Parliament in 1970, 52 years or more
ago, I taught in the independent sector and the state sector. I
taught in a docklands secondary modern as well as in an Edward VI
grammar school, founded in the 16th century, in a little country
village. I have therefore seen education in a variety of forms. I
believe that it would do no service to abolish a particular group
of schools that contains some of the most remarkable schools in
our country. I am much more of the Austin persuasion of opening
up and encouraging.
The real problem in education, more than any other single factor,
is discipline. You need discipline for learning, but so many of
our large comprehensive schools do not have good discipline. One
sees the shining examples of those that do, but it really is
crucial that we concentrate on that—I would say more than any
other single factor. If there is no discipline, children cannot
properly learn. They go astray and their parents are let
down.
I accept that this has to be a very brief contribution in the
gap. I hope my noble friend the Minister will recognise the
factor that I have spoken about and will not pledge any future
Conservative Government to abolish a particular group of schools
but rather will seek to bring them all up and give all children
an equal opportunity to learn in a disciplined environment.
12.44pm
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, maybe I should declare that I went to St Thomas the
Apostle, a Catholic boys’ school and comprehensive in Peckham. I
thought that I got a very good education from that school; prior
to that, I went to St Joseph’s in Camberwell, so I had two good
Southwark schools.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Blower for securing this
spot for her Private Member’s Bill, which has enabled its Second
Reading today. She did far better than I have with my Private
Member’s Bill. I am way down the list and do not think I will be
getting anywhere near this level, but I will keep pressing the
Government—you never know. In paying tribute to her, I also
commend my noble friend for her work in the field of education
over many years. I think we all recognise that and we are pleased
to have her here with us, particularly on our Labour Benches.
It is fair to say that all noble Lords who participated in this
debate care deeply about education. Ensuring we have the
processes, procedures and framework in place so that every child
gets the chance they deserve to have a first-rate education is
what we all want to achieve. It is also fair to say that schools
are struggling with an unprecedented array of issues. They are
struggling with the Covid catch-up and all the other issues that
we have to cope with, including energy prices, rising food prices
and the mental health crisis among children. We talk about and
grapple with all those issues every day.
Clearly, there is an uneven playing field in England today. A
week ago, DfE data revealed that children on free school meals
achieve education outcomes that are 20% lower than those who are
not. In Richmond upon Thames, Wokingham or Surrey, 73% of pupils
reach a good level of development; but if you grow up in
Manchester, Middlesbrough or Luton, it is nearer 50%. Those
figures should raise alarm bells for, and are a challenge to, all
of us. For me, that is what levelling up is all about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, gave the whole House some very
important points to think about in her excellent speech. As I
said, I went to school in Peckham and Camberwell, while the noble
Baroness went to school in Rutland. But my housemaster was
Michael Wilshaw—who I believe went on to other things. I had a
fairly good education at the school I went to. I learned to play
the bassoon there and played it in school orchestras. I also
learned to love Shakespeare, theatre and stuff. The education I
got in my comprehensive school was excellent.
Education to me is all about changing lives for the better, no
matter where people live. Sadly, that has failed to be delivered
in many cases. If we look at education policy over the last 12
years, for me it is one of failure, and that is most
disappointing, and no more so than on levelling up. We hear so
much about levelling up from the Government but we see no work at
all on levelling up education.
Grammars certainly represent a minority of schools. The evidence
does not support that grammar schools improve outcomes for
children across the education system. My noble friend Lady Blower
highlighted that in some of the figures that she gave to the
House, so we support the existing ban on new grammar schools
opening. My noble friend is right that
there is a debate about where we as an Opposition should go with
our policy and where an incoming Government should be. I am
unable, though, to offer support from the Front Bench for the
Bill. There are big issues facing the education system around
children’s recovery, the supply of teachers and ensuring that
young people leave education with the skills they need to thrive
and work throughout life. That is our priority, and it should be
the Government’s too.
My noble friend set out, in a very
good speech, some of the huge challenges that we face in
education today. My noble friend made the point about
literacy and numeracy. He is right on that; what we need to do is
to offer an education to young people that actually equips them
for the world of work—to get a job, provide for their family and
then be an active participant in society. To me, those are the
most important things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, also mentioned private
schools. The Opposition certainly have policy on private schools.
We intend to end the tax break for private schools and invest the
money that raises in driving up standards for children across the
piece, by delivering thousands of new teachers, professional
career advisers for every school and work experience for
pupils.
I conclude my remarks by again congratulating my noble friend on
securing a Second Reading. I will look carefully as the Bill
proceeds through the House.
12.49pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, I echo other noble Lords in offering my congratulations
to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, on securing a Second Reading
for her Bill and in acknowledging her lifetime of commitment to
children and the education system. While I understand the
intention of her Bill, I must express our reservations about
it.
As we have heard in the debate, it may be a truism, but selection
by ability is certainly a controversial area. We know there are
strongly held views both for and against selection by ability, as
we have seen laid out here, in the other place and in the media.
However, I am delighted to agree with the noble Lords, Lord
Kennedy and Lord Austin, in saying that the Government’s mission
is to raise education standards for all. As my right honourable
friend the Prime Minister said earlier this week, this Government
believe in opportunity. To be absolutely clear, that is our
priority: to raise the standards of education for every child. We
live in a land where the education landscape is diverse; we do
not have a uniform system where all schools share the same
characteristics. The Government believe that this is one of the
key strengths of our education system.
We have heard surprisingly little mention of parents in this
debate. Parents clearly like to have a choice of differing types
of schools. Schools of all types—small and large, co-educational
and single sex, selective and non-selective, faith and secular;
there are examples in every category—are oversubscribed. As your
Lordships are aware, grammar schools are also oversubscribed. As
a Government, we want to support and facilitate choice for
parents. We can either look to make all schools the same or we
can embrace the diversity of our school system and strive to
ensure that all schools are good and outstanding. Your Lordships
are aware of the considerable progress that has been made by this
Government in that regard, with 87% of schools now rated as good
or outstanding.
Fair banding aside, this Bill would, ultimately, end all forms of
selection in secondary schools, in both England and Wales,
including for entry to school sixth forms. I am not aware whether
that was the noble Baroness’s intention, but that is the impact
of her Bill. There are 457,000 pupils in secondary sixth forms in
England, where selection is commonplace. Selection for sixth-form
entry helps ensure that students succeed in the courses that they
enrol upon. It helps ensure that young people are choosing the
courses that are right for them and where they can thrive,
whether they choose to pursue an academic route or more technical
route.
As your Lordships have pointed out, selection by ability for
children of compulsory school age is less common than in post-16
schools. As we have heard, there are currently 163 grammar
schools in England—5% of secondary schools—providing education
for 188,000 children. In addition, there are 40 schools that are
permitted to select a minority of their pupils by ability or by a
form of aptitude selection not otherwise permitted. This right
was enshrined within the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
Finally, we have schools that select 10%—and only 10%—of their
intake by aptitude in prescribed subjects: the visual or
performing arts, modern foreign languages or sport. All these
schools are part of the choice and diversity that our education
system provides. I note that this Bill would retain pupil
banding.
Some 97% of grammar schools are rated as “good” or “outstanding”
by Ofsted. They are popular with parents where they are located
and regularly oversubscribed, just like good and outstanding
comprehensive schools, including faith schools. Those grammar
schools offer excellent standards of education and benefit the
children who attend them. Several grammar schools share their
expertise with other schools as teaching schools and are experts
in stretching the most able pupils.
The majority of the 163 grammar schools now prioritise children
eligible for free school meals or the pupil premium for
admission. Even so, there is lots more for them to do in this
space, as your Lordships have highlighted. I urge all good
schools, including our existing grammar schools, to do more to
increase the numbers of disadvantaged pupils—and, as my noble
friend said, looked-after and previously looked-after
children—who they admit, so they act as real drivers of social
mobility.
The noble Lord, , asked for the
Government’s position on the expansion of grammar schools. As I
have said, the department’s priority is to concentrate on
ensuring that as many children as possible, whatever their
ability, have access to an outstanding education, rather than
creating more grammar schools.
In reference to the points made by my noble friend about the importance of good
behaviour within schools, that is clearly necessary across all
our schools, and I would absolutely agree that it is a foundation
on which good curricula and teaching need to be built.
My noble friend Lady Berridge asked whether the taxpayer funds
11-plus exams. I suspect that she knows the answer to her
question. Admissions authorities pay out of their schools’
budget, so in effect the taxpayer does pay, but I hope that the
House would agree with me that it is not the role of central
government to micromanage small elements of school budgets. That
feels like a path we should not be going down.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to
this debate. As I said, we want parents to continue to have a
diverse choice of good and outstanding schools that deliver
opportunities for every child. Selective schools form a small but
important part of this diverse provision. While we have no plans
to open new grammar schools, neither do we believe that existing
and excellent schools that have, historically, been selective for
a very long time should be forced to remove their selective
admission arrangements and become comprehensive.
I therefore hope that my remarks give noble Lords something to
reflect upon, although I am not optimistic that I will change
many minds. I look forward to working with your Lordships more
broadly to ensure that all children and young people in our
country continue to have access to the highest-quality, and
diverse, education.
(GP)
The Minister made a major part of her contribution the assertion
that parents like choice. I am not sure whether she is aware of
the article this year in the Journal of Social Policy by Aveek
Bhattacharya, the chief economist at the Social Market
Foundation. In a comparison with Scotland, where parents
generally do not have a choice of schools, he found that parents
in England were less happy. They described themselves as
“cynical, fatalistic and disempowered” in the situation of having
choice in schools. In asserting that parents like choice, is it
not simply the case that a few sharp-elbowed parents like choice
and lots of other people suffer in that system?
(Con)
I really do not think that it is helpful to be judging parents
and accusing them of being sharp-elbowed. I think that every
parent wants the best for their children. In relation to the
Scottish education system, I point the noble Baroness to the
attainment of children in Scottish schools compared with English
ones.
12.58pm
(Lab)
My Lords, writing notes to reply to a debate on the hoof when you
are also listening to speeches is tricky, and something that
clearly I must develop more fully. I thank all noble Lords who
have engaged in this debate. Like my noble friend Lord Watson, I
genuinely believe that this is a Bill whose time has come. Many
people have long campaigned over the issue of selection, which,
as noble Lords will recall from my opening speech, I choose to
refer to as “rejection of the many”. We have done that because we
genuinely believe that the comprehensive principle is the right
one. Recent publicity has shown that even many years after the
experience of failing the 11-plus people still feel damaged by
it. The testimony given by my noble friend indicates that even people who
are supremely successful—as the noble Lord, , KC obviously is—have that
feeling within them that somehow or other there was a point at
which they were not quite good enough.
I note that the contributions on the Bill have come from all
sides of your Lordships’ House. I particularly thank the noble
Baroness, Lady Berridge, for expressing the view that her
education would have been poorer had it been in a school that had
a grammar school profile. That was a significant contribution,
and it speaks to how the social integration, rather than social
segregation, in comprehensive schools is deeply felt by a lot of
people and very important to them. I say to her that I will do a
lot more work on micro-geography, which is a really interesting
issue.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Watson’s preference
for the expression “social justice” rather than “social
mobility”. If noble Lords take anything away from this debate,
they might take away his remark that no child should be “required
to earn a place” at secondary school. The fact is that children
have a right to be educated to secondary level.
Social class, whether it is described as that or as being
disadvantaged, less wealthy or other things, has run through this
debate. Clearly there is an issue here about the fact that some
families have much greater resources than others, which means
that they have privileged access in different ways. For me, this
is a significant issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the inequality
wrought in society by the very fact of the existence of grammar
schools. Quite a lot has been written about the fact that, if you
achieve a grammar school place, you are likely, certainly at some
stages of your life, to have a more successful career. Frankly,
we do not think that this is the proper way for the education
system to be organised.
My noble friend Lord Davies referenced the Time’s Up for the Test
campaign that was launched last evening, in a piece of
extraordinarily brilliant coincidental timing, since that meeting
was arranged before any of us knew that Second Reading would
happen today. I was not present, but I understand that it was
very successful and gave an opportunity to discuss these issues
outside this Chamber. It demonstrates that, although people are
able to assert—because they feel they can—that grammar schools
are popular, there is also the much less discussed fact that
grammar schools are not popular with a whole range of people. I
am pleased about that timing and that he talked about one of the
aspects of education being how we learn to live together. We do
so with a much narrower group of people if we are in a grammar
school than if we are in a comprehensive school.
The noble Lord, , made a great speech; I am glad
that he was able to stay in the Chamber long enough to make it.
He referred to the hospital analogy, also referred to by my noble
friend Lord Hunt—this is an apt and well-made point.
The devastation of many children and families at failing the
11-plus was described by many speakers, particularly my noble
friend Lord Hunt. Noble Lords probably underestimate how serious
this is.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, brought some
perspectives to this that meant that it actually was a debate,
and I would be happy to discuss this further with him. I realise
that it is absolutely true that there is a lot to do in
education. I simply feel that this step can be taken now; it is a
good step, and it would improve our education system.
(Non-Afl)
If the noble Baroness thinks that this should be the priority for
an incoming Labour Government above all the other problems the
education system is facing, why does she think the last Labour
Government—several speakers in this debate, including me, were
Ministers in it, and one was the Schools Minister—did nothing
about this in 13 years?
(Lab)
Since I was not in the Government, I cannot tell the noble Lord
what their thinking was. Sometimes the priorities of parties in
government are not the right ones. I believe this would be an
important priority for any incoming Labour Government to take on.
My—
(Con)
I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she will be
aware that the convention is that the wind-up lasts about three
or four minutes. Even though there has been one intervention, we
are already on nearly seven minutes, so I advise her to
conclude.
(Lab)
I will conclude by thanking my noble friend and saying to the noble Lord,
, that I do not think the word
“abolish” was mentioned once in the debate. The noble Lord talked
about opening up the system; in fact, that is what the Bill is
about. If he visited more schools, he would find that there is
quite a lot of discipline in quite a lot of comprehensive
schools. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this
debate.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole
House.
|
