Registered user login:

Brady's stance on Grammar Schools

Graham Brady

Published 16 May 2007

Read the newstatesman.com article that led to Tory frontbencher Graham Brady quitting as shadow Europe minister.

Graham Brady has quit the Conservative frontbench over his opposition to David Cameron's policy on Grammar Schools. Below you can read the article that the Altrincham and Sale West MP wrote for newstatesman.com two weeks ago in which he set out his views. It was subsequently picked up elsewhere in the media and subsequently led to his resignation.

Explaining his decision on 29 May Mr Brady said: "Faced with a choice between a front bench position that I have loved and doing what I believe to be right for my constituents and for the many hundreds of thousands of families who are ill-served by state education in this country, there is in conscience only one option open to me."

Brady's original article on Grammar Schools:

I am a product of Trafford’s outstanding selective education system. The fact is that if Altrincham Grammar School had been a comprehensive, my parents would not have been able to afford to buy a house in the catchment area.

In his book with Stephen Pollard, A Class Act (1998), Andrew Adonis (later to become Tony Blair’s Education Minister) says: "The comprehensive revolution, tragically, destroyed much of the excellent without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability with selection by class and house price. Middle class children now go to middle class comprehensives, whose catchment areas comprise middle-class neighbourhoods, while working class children are mostly left to fester in inner-city comprehensives their parents cannot afford to move away from."

Social mobility has declined since the introduction of comprehensives; if we had tried to invent a system to entrench social inequality I cannot think of anything which would achieve it quite so effectively as the so-called comprehensive revolution.

It is certainly not a charge which can be aimed at the remaining grammar schools. Grammar schools were abolished in inner city areas where a high proportion of pupils qualify for free schools meals, so the fact that a relatively low proportion of pupils at grammar schools qualify for free school meals is not all that surprising.

The point is that where children from poorer backgrounds do attend grammar school they do extremely well. Indeed, where selection survives, the evidence is that it works best for all children – in high schools as well as in grammar schools - that is why selective authorities top the league tables. In the Greater Manchester borough of Trafford over 70% of children get five or more good GCSEs, in Bury, with a similar socio-economic profile the figure is 59%, in leafier Cheshire it is 61.9%.

According to DfES figures, selective systems also deliver better results for every ethnic group with some doing extremely well; the percentage of Indian children getting 5A* - C grades at GCSE in comprehensive areas is an impressive 68.9%; in selective areas the figure is 81.2%. For Bangladeshi children the numbers are 55.8% in comprehensives, 70.9% in selective areas.

In a really effective selective system such as that in Trafford where 40% of children go to grammar schools and those who do not, go to an excellent high school; the effect of the exam at 11 means that the standards across the primary schools are high.

It means that at the age of 11, standards in Trafford are at the top of the league tables, on a par with leafy Richmond-upon-Thames. The difference is that by GCSE Richmond has slid down the achievement tables whereas Trafford remains at the top and is at the top again for A level. At Wellington School in my constituency, last year 72% of pupils got 5A* - C GCSEs; the national average was 59%. Is it a grammar? No, a high school, with rigorous teaching and high standards, where the top 40% of the ability band has gone to the local grammar school.

People have said that grammars are dominated by the middle class. The fact is that because so many grammars were closed, those that remain in pockets like Sutton or Kingston are hugely oversubscribed and fought for by desperate parents who want a decent education but cannot afford school fees. It is still a fairer system to select by ability than by the price of your house. There are no grammars left in our inner cities and I agree that, of the schools currently available in our inner cities, the academies are probably the best way forward for raising standards. However I believe that if grammar schools were available in our inner cities it would have a major impact in raising standards and on the number of bright pupils from poor backgrounds going on to university. Those who argue that grammar schools are somehow irrelevant to the debate would do well to come and examine the way selection works for all pupils, across the board, in Trafford.

Graham Brady is shadow minister for Europe and MP for Altrincham and Sale West

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

16 comments from readers

Jgeorge
16 May 2007 at 16:36

When will politicians face the fact that if ALL state funded schools were good schools (which in most parents' minds means safe more than anything else) then we wouldn't be in this educational quagmire. Schools should work collegiately to ensure that the best schools help those which are struggling. No school is an island and the more links made between schools, the more likely they are all to thrive and benefit from each others' strengths. The Grammar system could be incoropated into this to everyone's benefit - and ultimately the greater good of society. Grammar schools would do well to work with others, not in proud isolation.

RedDaybreak
16 May 2007 at 18:13

No Graham, really, Grammar Schools are a great idea. Set them up, let all the good teachers flock to them and ignore the secondary moderns. Sleep well at night safe in the knowledge you've consigned the vast majority of 11-year-olds to the educational slow lane. Brilliant!

greenworld
17 May 2007 at 10:25

Grammar Schools provide the best state education there is. Bring back the 11 plus - it was a good system and as Graham says, if it covered the whole country, the pockets of success represented by Grammars at the moment woould be replictaed everywhere.

vic
17 May 2007 at 12:47

RedDaybreak obviously didn't read Graham's article - the point is that standards are high at primary stage and are maintained across the board. The school he mentioned where 72 % of kids got 5 decent GCSEs was a high school, what you'd call a secondary modern - that's not 'life in the slow lane' as you put it...if it is then there are a hell of a lot of comprehensives moving far more slowly than that!

RedDaybreak
17 May 2007 at 16:20

Well no Vic of course I didn't read Graham's article. I can't read. I went to a secondary modern.

Dave "the rebel DC" Cameron
18 May 2007 at 12:08

The abolition of grammar schools [has] reduced social mobility. As I said in July 2005.

Michael "the vamp" Howard
18 May 2007 at 14:49

I make you this promise today. Under the Conservatives, grammar schools will survive and thrive. So said I, June 2004

Johnny Bercow
18 May 2007 at 17:00

I think i set out my position when i said in the Independent (01/09/99),

"These schools are beacons of excellence in our education system ... We must fight to protect these prized institutions against egalitarian hooliganism".

forthurst
19 May 2007 at 00:03

Under the old system, those attending grammars received a good education based upon a rigourous examination system. Now most children take less taxing exams, less rigourously marked in a higher proportion

of poor schools. Progress? Did nobody think of improving the provision for children not going to grammars who represented a significantly greater range of abilities?

And who cares how many peole get A levels in Media studies: is China churning out Media studies graduates or perhaps Maths Science Medicine Engineering graduates.

By not creating large numbers of graduates in 'difficult' subject we are opening ourselves to a future in which we are unable to create sufficient added valiue in a competitive world market to remain a relatively advanced country. Which countries apart from the oil rich have large balance of payment surpluses? They also have an unsentimental attachment to exellence in hard subjects and the resulting ability to created added value in all branches of scientific endeavour. Rolls Royce recruiting engineers abroad - damn disgrace.

Calum
23 May 2007 at 16:33

If he still supports grammar schools yet his party line is opposed to them, he should surely stand down, collective ministerial responsibility applies to the opposition as well. Therefore Brady should stand down.

bwims
29 May 2007 at 11:55

Everyone forgets that the system envisaged in the 1940s was never implemented. We didn't need a success/failure system. We should have (and should now) implement the middle system, the technical schools, instead of implementing pseudo-academic qualifications for kids who aren't interested. The reason we have shortages in craftsmen, plumbers, gas fitters etc is because the kids who were brighter but not academic did not have the opportunity to go to a craft-orientated technical school, and the reason sec. mods were a failure was because the bar was too high to make it the kind of vocational/remedial institution it should have been.

h.taylor
29 May 2007 at 15:48

As a retired teacher in a selective system, I fully support Graham Brady's views, which are based on practical and proven experience, and am disappointed that the 'Conservative Party' leader

unfortunately does not. I recommend the latter resigns from his party, crosses the floor and joins the party which best represents his opinions.

Colonel Blimp
29 May 2007 at 17:49

I find it hard to imagine anyone called Graham being allowed to join the Conservatives.

Chartbury
30 May 2007 at 00:39

Yes, comprehensives were a misguided attempt to implement an amalgam of the American and French systems in the U.K. and what we've got is the same high priced catchment area mess of the U.S., (but lower socio-economic kids still go to "middle class" schools and disrupt the classrooms.) The old tri-partite system wasn't perfect, but it obviously worked best for Britain. Secondary moderns were the problem, and kids should have gone either to grammar or technical institutions and been able to take electives on either campus if they wanted. Diplomas would be issued by the county, not the individual schools, and the courses taken and grades listed on the diploma so that the technical schools wouldn't be considered second best. How's that for a solution?

bwims
31 May 2007 at 10:21

Chartbury: Glad to read some sense here. Unfortunately, the opponents who use the "if there are grammars there must be secondary moderns" argument don't have anyone in the BBC brave,intelligent, or more importantly willing enough to challenge it.

bwims
31 May 2007 at 10:25

Regarding post code lotteries: when are people going to understand that, by and large, schools are "good schools" _because_ of the middle class consitutents? The middle class flock to the same schools because they want their kids a) to do well, but more importantly b) speak like their parents - not learn to swear as a matter of course - and not mix with violent kids and children of drug takers/pushers? I'm not saying that all or even most lower class children are like that by any means, but those are the areas where these children exist and good parents will do ANYTHING to avoid their kids mixing with them.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?