Theresa May made it clear when she became Prime Minister that she wanted to be defined by more than just Brexit. With the launch of her Government’s policy on grammar schools this morning, today is the day she puts her money where her mouth is. After snippets of detail slowly saw the light of day this week, Theresa May’s plans for selective schools are appearing to be much more radical and dramatic than many will have imagined. As well as the opening of new grammar schools, the PM will say that hundreds of comprehensive schools will be allowed to convert to a system of selecting their intake (so long as they pick a certain number from poorer backgrounds). What’s more, she’ll also pledge that current rules allowing faith schools to choose only half their pupils based on ability will be relaxed. As the Times points out, these reforms ‘would mark the biggest change to the English education system since the late 1960s’. But whilst the upheaval is significant, the paper says it’s unavoidable to see the reforms as anything other than a slap in the face to the education policy of the Cameron government.
The Daily Mail describes the plans as ‘a bonfire of ‘ideology and dogma’ and goes on to say the decisive steps taken by Theresa May means the PM ‘shows every sign of being the bold Tory leader this paper believed and hoped she would be’. Crucially, though, the paper says it does not think a return to the ‘rigid’ system of the 11-plus is the right answer and says grammar schools must have entry points for late bloomers.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, the Guardian sees it all differently. In its editorial, it says grammar schools are the wrong answer to the right question. It claims, too, that Theresa May’s view that grammar schools will end selection by house prices is wrong. ‘Instead of levelling the field,’ the paper says, ‘new grammars will expand the market for exclusive tuition and private prep schools, accelerating social segregation.’ And Lewis Iwu, director of the Fair Education Alliance, in the Times agrees. He argues that kids from poorer backgrounds ‘left behind would perform worse than they would have in a comprehensive’.
It’s no revelation either that Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, has maintained his staunch opposition to the plans. He’s previously said that plans to re-introduce grammar schools are ‘tosh‘. On the Today show this morning, he argued that by taking the cleverer kids out of comprehensives, those left behind suffer as a result. He made it clear that he thought bringing back grammars meant, inevitably, a return to having secondary moderns:
‘If you take away those bright children from the comprehensive system, the comprehensive system would become secondary modern.’
Wilshaw then went on to say that this policy came at a time we didn’t need it, pointing out that academies and free schools were working and that by ‘going backwards, we will throw a spanner in the works and that momentum will be halted’. You can listen to his interview here:
Wilshaw made the point, too, that introducing grammar schools would, in his view, offer opportunities for the top ten to fifteen per cent whilst ignoring the rest. So how could this match with Theresa May’s vow to mould Britain into a country that works for everyone? Justine Greening, the Education Minister, on Today deflected the question somewhat. Instead, her main buzzword was ‘choice’: this policy is about offering options to parents and children, she claimed. Her interview is here:
It’s obvious that in the face of the fire which is almost certain to be chucked the Tories’ way over the coming months this is a line that they will stick to on grammar schools. Greening insisted they would not allow a ‘politically dogmatic driven debate’ to ‘get in the way’ of these plans. The Tories have picked a fight over grammar schools. But they are showing all the signs of being determined not to let the battle prevent them from pressing on with this radical and decisive schools shake-up.
Comments