I have finally got around to reading fully the speech by David Willetts which has caused so much controversy in the national press.
While standing by my earlier comments that I believe that the number and type of schools an area has should be decided by local people, I actually think that many of the arguments Willetts makes against both reintroducing selection and against the comprehensive system are sound and it is a shame that much of the subsequent debate has been focussed on his comments on selection.
Grammar Schools were an effective solution to the problems faced between the 1940s and 1970s. This (still newish) century requires a different answer, because the situation is no longer the same.
Willetts makes the case that one (and perhaps the most important) reason why education matters is to provide social mobility, allowing the brightest working class pupils to do as well as their middle class peers - true equality of opportunity. This is what the Grammar schools used to help achieve. While people played by the rules of the Grammar/Secondary Modern game then all was OK, but following the introduction of Comprehensive Schools social mobility started to break down. Middle class parents increasingly used money (directly, by funding private education or private tuition, or indirectly, via moving house to be closer to a popular school and by funding after school activities), or their own educational advantages by helping at home. All schools (including the remaining Grammars) then tended to entrench advantage rather than promote mobility. Willetts backs this up with a wealth of evidence.
The case against introducing new Grammar schools today is that selection at 11 is now likely to be too late to help those from poorer backgrounds succeed and not be popular with the parents of the 80% of children that don't get a place there. There are better ways of raising standards - better discipline, streaming within schools , good management and leadership - all of which should make for better teaching. And only once there are enough good education options for all children will education outcomes by improved for all children (not just those of middle class parents).
How then do we proceed? Willetts (and I agree with this) says that 'supply side' reform is needed. However well designed no admissions system will provide a decent opportunity for every child unless parents have a genuine choice of schools, and outside of London and the bigger towns and cities, it also means a choice between schools which are locally accessible.
In my view this means that over-subscribed schools need to be able to expand and successful schools take over unsuccessful schools. And new schools need to be allowed to be opened, by local government, by groups or parents, charities, educational trusts and businesses. All schools need to have more freedom in how they are run and how they are structured and where they get their services (especially non-teaching - e.g., finance, maintenance) from. This will require a less centralised and bureaucratic approach and more local accountability. The roles for central government would be to set minimum standards (not detailed criteria) and local government would be as a service provider (including where there is demand, of schools) and a commissioner of services in the case of market failure.
However this is much easier to say than to implement - the challenges facing the next Conservative Government is to make all this happen, without introducing too much bureaucracy. Continuing with City Technology Colleges and City Academies are only one option, there are others, including if there were to be demand, Grammar Schools!
