Now I’ve heard everything. This from the Telegraph:
The Conservative Party will officially sever links with academic selection in the state sector today, accusing grammar schools of entrenching social advantage.
David Willetts, the shadow education secretary, will warn grammar supporters in the party that they cannot harp back to the past.
“We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids,” he will say.
“This is a widespread belief but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it.”
On that note, I am terminating my membership of the Conservative Party. Someone let me know when they return to their senses. Failing that, I will be supporting any party that offers a true conservative manifesto. I think it’s time to take another look at Ukip.
May 16th, 2007 at 8:44 am
am considering monster raving loony , they do have nice outfits. ( actually i think for now am sticking lib dem as ming seems honest )
There will always be good schools and really good schools, i dont think we should focus on stopping really good schools , rather we need to focus on improving really bad schools.
It may be unfair, but i think society will always need people with ‘enhanced’ education, just as it will always need people prepared to roll their sleeves up and get their hands dirty. Society is ALL about differnce and everyone doing what they are best equiped to do. As for improving the life of poor bright kids , i was one of those, i went to a regular school, followed by a church high school followed by university on a full grant. That was back in the day when a grant was a grant and not a pitance. I had to work damn hard but us poor bright kids can make it , we dont need a level playing field , thats insulting, we just need the playing field to be reasonable.
Which brings me full circle, this latest manifesto bribe seems more about seeming ‘fair’ than it is about seeming ‘reasonable’. Regardless of education most kids can spell spin.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Bel, I terminated my membership when they initially came out in support of id cards “in principle”, so you are not alone in thinking the Tory party is no longer conservative.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Just getting further and further away from any sense of leadership.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:40 am
If supporters, such as yourself, decide that it doesn’t matter whether the Conservatives win the next election, but go for the long term with UKIP then David Cameron is truly in trouble.
I’ve had similar thoughts (here and here), but haven’t reached my final straw yet.
If I was looking for an alternative political home I would also consider the English Democrats.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Bel - sorry to hear this. I hope you can find a forum where sensible Conservative ideas are welcomed.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Yep, the Tories lost my support over ID cards and their refusal to respect the unique quality of marriage.
And their arrogant cold calculation to increase numeric support by abandoning core principles I find contemptible.
Still, Britain will have the government it deserves. (As will all other countries.) Many good individuals will carry this burden for want of thinking countrymen, and for a failure of insight and resolve in their forebears.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
There’s always the labout party, at times more conservative than the conservative party.
( but serously monster raving looney have cool outfits )
May 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
The conservative party is in disarray. Cameron is leading a party that turns which ever way the wind blows. They think following polls and going negative are enough.
No matter how much I can’t abide Gordon Brown, the truth is, the conservatives aren’t ready to govern this country.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Cameron seems to be emulating Blair: set up stall so firmly in the middle ground (or you might call it the left); ditch some “sacred cows”; upset / lose some on the right of the party.
The calculation must be that by ditching grammar schools he will cement the party’s position on the political spectrum and win more votes than he loses. This is classic Blair but for those, like you, for whom this seems like a betrayal that prob just makes matters worse. You must either leave or grit your teeth and accept this as a price to win power: many did and still do in the Labour party.
I am not unhappy about the trouble this issue is causing the Conservatives but I can imagine your feelings when you see your party walking away from you and I do not make light of that.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:59 am
A sad day. You wonder what exactly it is that the Tories stand for now.
i) Regaining Power
ii) err..
iii) At any Cost
Utterly contemptible.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:52 am
I’m sorry to hear you are terminating your membership Bel. The Conservative Party needs more people like you in its ranks. I am looking to the party conference when we will have some firm policies to debate. After that, all I can think is if there are policies I disagree with, I will just have to like it or lump it. The Tory party is where my heart is, even though it strays at times from its principals. We believe in freedom of choice and choosing to send your child to a grammar school is one presented to too few parents. It should be extended. I hope the party has a re-think.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Your profile is up.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Have you read the speech yet?
He isn’t attacking grammars. He’s stated that “For those children from modest backgrounds who do get to grammar schools the benefits are enormous. And we will not get rid of those grammar schools that remain. But the trouble is that the chances of a child from a poor background getting to a grammar school in those parts of the country where they do survive are shockingly low.”
He’s proposing a large-scale liberalisation of the supply side of schools. In essence, the speech summarises as:
1 - Grammar schools work well but the entrance system has been systematically “gamed” by middle-class families and age 11 is too late to give poor-but-bright children their way into education.
2 - We want to move towards Education Vouchers. Current stumbling block is supply of schools.
3 - Stumbling block to be overcome by:
a - Reducing hurdles for setting up schools in the maintained sector.
b - Reduced central control by using “self-governing” Academies/CTCs.
c - Increase autonomy of Academies/CTCs from central government; encourage small “networks” of similar Academies to get an “economy of scale” boost and share techniques without Government interference.
d - The one major “interference” from Government would be to compel “whole class teaching, setting and streaming, and a robust discipline policy “.
e - Use Government resources for independent research to provide advice on teaching methods to teachers (note: advice, not compulsion).
I’m sorry if you disagree vehemently with the proposals - I feel that they are a great step forward. I like Willetts comment on vouchers that “If a parent’s request for their child to get to the school of their choice is written on the back of a cheque to pay for it then the letter is going to get far more attention.” is good.
You do know that the “Don’t open or close any grammar schools” philosophy was followed for the entire 1979-1997 period of Tory rule?
May 18th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Andy Cooke, thank you for posting that. It’s very helpful. But what about the Tories moving away from supporting selection by ability? Whether no new grammar schools are built is another thing. You are right, none have been opened in a long while. However, the ideological position of the party did not change, even though no new schools were built. Now we are hearing that even the ideological position is changing. If the Tory party now believes that selection by ability is a bad thing, what hope is there for thousands of bright children all over the land?
Strangely, they support city academies, which offer selection by criteria other than ability. Do they not see a contradiction there, or does it not matter?
David Cameron deliberately picked this fight for narrow political ends. It’s all very well for a public school educated man who can afford to send his children to private school or send them to a state school and pay for their private tuition outside school hours. He must realise that many in this country do not have that option.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I for one hope you do not terminate your membership. If we COnservatives have to have this discussion then I would rather there are wise heads in the party that will argue for selection from the inside.
At the end of the day it is a personal thing between you and your viewpoint. But I just thought I would offer my humble opinion.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
[…] especially when they suspect that there is not much substance behind the swaggering posture. By attacking grammar schools and selection by ability, David Cameron deliberately picked a fight, not only with […]
June 4th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Sorry for not responding - I was in France.
Although this thread is probably dead, I still should respond to your questions.
“But what about the Tories moving away from supporting selection by ability?”
Look at the requirement. Why did we want selection by ability?
1 - To ensure that the brighter kids are not held up by the less bright; conversely, to ensure that those having more difficulty are not left behind. It’s well demonstrated that both of these issues cause problems beyond the obvious one that it is highly inefficient(such as loss of discipline and reduction in self-esteem).
2 - To concentrate resources appropriately.
1 is achieved by streaming (”A grammar stream in every school”); it’s notable that one of the very restricted set of education requirements that will be compulsory under a Tory Government is streaming.
2 is a red herring (as I brought it up, feel free to dismiss it as a strawman if your only worry was number 1; it’s included as I’ve heard the complaint elsewhere). There are ample resources - the spend per pupil today is equal to the inflation-adjusted average private school fees in 1992. The centralised Government control is the problem - thus the solution of freeing the schools and allowing market forces (ie the free will of the parents) to act as the feedback mechanism on schools.
Apart from the fees (which are not the key point of their success - see above), what are the main differences between independent schools and state schools?
- Their independence. The fact that the funding follows the pupil, so heads have to keep parents happy rather than politicians. The ethos of discipline. The (comparative) freedom from central meddling. Willetts proposals are designed to bring these benefits to all schools.
I, for one, am absolutely delighted by the proposals. I had reconciled myself to disappointment when Cameron said early on in his leadership that we were moving away from the education vouchers proposal. Willetts success has been through tying the concept in to current systems (ie city academies, so it shouldn’t scare the voters too much) and addressing the sole problem - that of school supply.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Hi Jim. Photos i received. Thanks
July 20th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
[…] it soon became clear that they did not. The ridiculous attack on grammar schools was one step too far for many, including myself. What was the point of being ahead in the opinion […]
September 11th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
[…] better not. David Cameron has shown himself to lack judgment on some very serious issues (remember grammar schools?). Who therefore knows what proposals the man may adopt in private, without the eye of the media […]