Kent Grammar School decision will make our society less equal and more divided.

Today it’s been announced that the first new grammar school in a long time is to be opened in Kent. It’s using a loophole in the law by claiming that it’s really an expansion of an existing school – even though they’re nine miles apart. Apparently, in order to prove it’s one school, kids will have to be bussed backwards and forwards.

This is being presented as an unusual one off event which doesn’t mean Tory policy is changing. According to Nicky Morgan “”I don’t want to fight the battles of selective and non-selective… This is one particular application with one particular set of circumstances. Why would I deny a good school the right to expand?”

But in fact it’s clear that this will not be a one off. The Guardian is already reporting that “The government’s controversial decision to approve the first selective school in 50 years looks set to prompt a series of similar applications for “satellite” developments to existing grammar schools.”

Buckinghamshire looks like being first in the queue with a plan cooked up with Tories in Windsor and Maidenhead to open a new school – sorry, an extension – in an authority where currently all the schools are comprehensive.

What is now clear is that on this issue, as on many others, the reactionary wing of the Tory party is increasingly calling the shots and Cameron is too weak to stop them. Back in 2007, David Willetts, then Tory shadow minister said “We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright poor kids … there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it”. Almost certainly today’s decision is not one that Michael Gove would have made. For all his faults, he did believe that education needs to work for all children. In the modern world it can’t be about just selecting out a minority of pupils for favoured treatment.

Sadly this decision may have been caught up in the Tory leadership campaign which looks like running for the next four years. However improbable it may seem, apparently Nicky Morgan thinks she has a chance. Certainly Theresa May, who is involved in the Windsor and Maidenhead proposal, thinks she does. Both it seems are using this issue to appeal to the Tory grass roots – or at least to what is left of them.

Grammar schools of course are defended as engines of social mobility. The myth of the poor bright child rescued by a grammar school education is pervasive. But it’s also completely wrong. And it always was wrong.

Back in the so-called golden age of grammar schools, there was plenty of research showing how, even if kids from working class backgrounds got to grammar school, there were lots of ways in which schools failed those children. More recently Selina Todd devoted her Caroline Benn Memorial Lecture for the SEA to debunking the myth of the grammar school (

The reality now is that working class children don’t get to grammar school. Even where two children have the same key stage 2 results, the middle class child is far more likely to get to grammar school. The numbers of children on free meals at grammar schools is pitiful. Grammar schools are dominated by those with private tutors and even those from independent primary schools. So this decision will do nothing for social mobility – actually it will reduce the opportunities for poor children by lowering academic standards in the schools they do go to.

This is of course becoming the standard approach of this government. It talks the talk, as Cameron did in his conference speech. But what it does is quite different whether you’re talking about tax credits, social housing, devolution, the NHS and now schooling.

But the left can’t be complacent on this issue. The evidence may be on our side but too many people haven’t heard it and believe that selection will make things better. Back in February YouGov asked a question to two different samples. Half were asked if they’d like to bring back grammar schools across the whole of Great Britain – 53% said yes, 20% said no. The other half were asked if they’d like to bring back the system of an exam at 11, with 25% of children who passed going to grammar schools and the other 75% going to secondary moderns. Now 46% of people supported it, 34% of people were opposed.

This needs to be a wake-up call. The international evidence about what kind of system works best is clear. It’s clear too that selective education consolidates class advantage rather than challenging it. As Michael Wilshaw said “grammar schools are stuffed full of middle-class kids. A tiny percentage are on free school meals: 3%. That is a nonsense. Anyone who thinks grammar schools are going to increase social mobility needs to look at those figures. I don’t think they work.”

Maybe this decision will provoke a reaction and will force the issue out into the open. This decision needs to be fought not just in the courts but in every possible forum or we will find ourselves once more entrenching privilege and wasting talent – we can afford to do neither.


4 Comments on “Kent Grammar School decision will make our society less equal and more divided.”

  1. David Pavett says:

    No one should be surprised at this decision. There has been a head of pressure in right wing circles building up for this for a long time. Labour has made it possible and virtually inevitable by its refusal to tackle the grammar school question when in power and its refusal to talk about it when out of power. We have to hope that with the open and honest politics advocated by Jeremy Corbyn this will change. We should test that by organising discussion in LP branches which I believe would show that a clear majority want selection at eleven to stop. Corbyn can’t do it all on his own. We need to provide pressure from the base of the Party to back up his inclinations and to stay the hand of those who think that Labour should learn to live with the general “educational landscape” (Blunkett’s expression) created by the Conservatives.

  2. Alan Gurbutt says:

    I am bitterly disappointed with Morgan’s decision on Kent, it is weak and unthinking in terms of how many more children will have to be divided into sheep and goats at 11 years old. Our coastal community in Mablethorpe/Alford provides a bad example of how education divides us. It’s very much “them (the grammar school) and us”. I speculated almost two years ago that Michael Gove’s drive for education would level the selective field in terms of funding being diverted to academies and pupils going elsewhere to escape the 11+. As much as I am against selection I don’t see competition as a positive way forward. As a parent, I would rather have an end to the 11+ than schools closing. My view is not popular in Lincolnshire because people in power either value their grammar school educations or are afraid to speak out. They simply blame the Tories. The problem with Lincolnshire is that selection is in our DNA, attack it and you are attacking 500 years of tradition, including the Church. As a thinking Christian, I don’t believe it is unreasonable to want comprehensive schools that are universally available to all children’s talents, gifts and imaginations. I hope that’s worth fighting for.

  3. David Pavett says:

    Lucy Powell makes many good arguments against selective schools. What she doesn’t do, as far as I can discover, is to ending selection. Is this position tenable?

  4. Alan Gurbutt says:

    It has to be tenable. The 11+ causes misery to thousands of children every year. I am sure when Lucy hears from parents who oppose their children being batch-fed into academies she will help us. In Lincolnshire we the parents are led to believe that grammar school is very much the preferred option. The signage on a school in our area reads — “Selective Academy” — which implies other children aren’t welcome. I want to challenge that. Our area, which covers Skegness, is ranked as the most deprived in England (Lincolnshire Echo 19th October 2015) and studies show that children’s attainment levels are adversely affected by parents’ being on low incomes and suffering high stress, such as the type inflicted by the 11+. Under these circumstances how can grammar schools claim to be more successful than the neighbouring schools they downgrade?