SINCE comprehensive education was introduced, barriers to achievement for many young people have been removed. However, in some areas of England, comprehensive schooling should be regarded, not as a “failed experiment”, but as an experiment that has yet to be tried.
In 2008, more than 60 per cent of all 15-16-year-olds in maintained schools achieved five or more higher passes at GCSE. This is the hurdle set in the past for only those attending grammar schools – one that many, even of that selected minority, failed to surmount. In 1970,
47 per cent of pupils left secondary school with no qualifications; in 2007, that figure was down to less than 3 per cent. Between 1989 and 2007, the percentage of 16-18 year olds in full-time education rose from 37.6 per cent to 80.3 per cent. In 1971-72, 14 per cent of under-21 year olds entered higher education. In 2006-2007, the figure was 44 per cent. Given that expenditure on education did not increase in real terms between the mid-1970s and the late-1990s, this remarkable change is attributable, in large part, to the removal of the barrier of the 11-plus for some four-fifths of the population.
Political support for the comprehensive ideal could be a major issue at the next election. If Europe has long been the Conservative Party’s Achilles’ heel, a debate about selection at the age of 11 could prove to be a real pain in the neck for David Cameron. In 2007, Cameron called the defenders of grammar schools “deluded” and said that any debate about selection was “sterile”. Cameron, if not his party, is still apparently convinced that there should be no more grammar schools and no more selection by ability at age 11.
What is puzzling is why he does not take the next logical step and call for all existing selection to end. Perhaps the reason is that the majority of the remaining 164 grammar schools in England are in Tory-held constituencies. Cameron is not opposed to selection out of conviction; rather, he is in favour of keeping all existing selective schools out of political calculation.
One man who seems to think the continuation of the 11-plus could and should be a major issue is Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Families and Schools. In a speech to last year’s annual conference of the National College of School Leaders, he said: “Let me make clear that I do not like selection.” He went on to explain how some secondary modern schools are achieving good results despite the fact that they are surrounded by grammar schools. “I’ve heard first-hand how some of the young people starting in these schools feel on day one that they have already failed.”
Cameron often uses the term “progressive” when talking about the modern Tory Party and he knows that selection at age 11 is widely seen as archaic and socially exclusive. But he also knows that opening up a debate about this issue would mean trouble. Tory members and supporters of a particular age regard grammar schools as offering escape routes from poverty for bright, working-class children They want to see more grammar schools under a future Tory government, not fewer of them.
As yet, the Conservatives have failed to outline a vision for schooling that will meet the aspirations of the British people. Do the Tories advocate an inclusive, comprehensive system that intrinsically values and caters for all, regardless of their economic or social capital? Or are they still in favour of a two-tier, elitist system that helps to perpetuate privilege and inequality?
The answer to this question matters and Labour should provide its own, clear and unambiguous response. The party’s next manifesto should make it clear that Labour will secure a bright, well-resourced future for comprehensive schools and an end to selection by ability in the state sector once and for all.
Mike Ion is a former deputy head teacher and was Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Shrewsbury and Atcham at the 2005 general election
