With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s consultation published today, ‘Schools that work for everyone’, copies of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, this Government are putting the interests of ordinary working-class people first. We want this country to be a truly meritocratic country, where what matters most is a person’s individual talent and their capacity for hard work, so we need to build a schools system that works for everyone, not just for the privileged few. The various proposals set out today in this consultation document all drive towards one simple goal: increasing the number of good school places for all children.
Over the past six years we have made great strides forward, with more than 1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools than in 2010. The flagship academies programme has unlocked the potential in our schools. This Government are committed to helping all schools enjoy academy status freedoms and school-led system improvement through multi-academy trusts. The reforms carried out by my right hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) have had a transformational effect on education in our country. Now we need to build on the “Educational Excellence Everywhere” White Paper—our dedication to good teachers in every school, world-class qualifications and reforming school funding—and put an end to the underperformance that has blighted too many children’s education and that still exists in pockets throughout our country.
We need radically to expand the number of good school places available to all families, not just to those who can afford to move into the catchment areas of the best state schools, those who can afford to pay for private education, or those belonging to certain faiths. We need to give all schools with a strong track record, experience and valuable expertise the incentives to expand their offer to enable even more pupils to go there, driving up standards and giving parents greater choice and control. We have sought to do this already through, for example, university technical colleges and specialist subject schools.
The reality is that demand for school places only continues to grow, but too many children still do not have access to a good or outstanding school. In some areas as many as 50% of children do not have one locally. In fact, 1.25 million children attend schools that are not good or outstanding, in spite of all the progress that has been made. That is unacceptable.
The Government make sure that schools have the resources to help the children most in need—for example, through the pupil premium—and of course that will continue, but the Prime Minister is right when she says that disadvantage can often be hidden in this country. It is not just about those children who receive free school meals; we want to come up with a broader definition and look at ordinary working-class families just managing to get by, who are too often forgotten.
This consultation deliberately asks big, open questions about the future of education in this country. The plans set out in “Schools that work for everyone” focus on how we can unlock four existing parts of the educational community so that they can have a bigger impact for all children.
The first part is the independent schools that give wealthier parents the option of an outstanding education for their children, often sending a high proportion to the best universities and guaranteeing access to the best career outcomes. Many of these schools already make a contribution to the state sector—some even sponsor or run state schools. While we recognise that work, we want independent schools to do more, so we want stronger, more demanding public benefit tests for independent schools to retain the benefits associated with charitable status. We want independent schools to offer more places to those less able to afford them, and to sponsor or set up schools in the state sector. For smaller schools we will, of course, look at an proportionate approach, and we are seeking views on how they can make their facilities available to state schools and share their teaching expertise.
The second part is our world-class universities. They need funding, of course, in order to maintain that status, and under this Government’s approach to access agreements, we have made sure that we have seen steady investment, while at the same time making sure that university is not out of reach for disadvantaged people. We want the huge talent base in our universities to do more to widen participation and to help more children to reach their full potential. We therefore want universities to open or sponsor schools in exchange for the right to raise their fees. This will ensure that they are not just pulling in the most qualified applicants—some of whom might have had an educational head start—but playing a bigger role in increasing the numbers of students with the GCSEs and the A-level grades that open doors to degree courses in the first place.
Thirdly, when we talk about selection in this country, we have to acknowledge that we have selection by house price already—for those who are able to buy a house in the catchment areas of the best schools. [Interruption.]
We know that selective schools are in high demand, as are specialist art, music and sports schools. Selective schools are good for pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged ones who attend them, yet for most children the chance to attend a selective school simply does not exist, so we want to look again at selective schools and how they can open up excellent places to more children, particularly the most disadvantaged. We will therefore look at how we can relax the rules on expanding selective schools and allow new ones to open and non-selective schools to become selective where there is a demand. At the same time, we have to challenge ourselves, and selective schools, to raise attainment much more broadly.
It is really important that I am clear about how we ensure that all schools improve. We do not want to see a return to the old binary system of good schools and bad schools. Every child deserves a place in a great—[Interruption.]
Order. The Secretary of State must be heard. Everybody, I think, on both sides of the House knows that, when ministerial statements are delivered, I, almost without exception, allow everyone who wants to contribute the chance to do so, and, believe me, today will be no exception—I am very sensitive to the differences of opinion in the House. Everyone will have a chance to question the Secretary of State, but meanwhile she should and must be heard with courtesy.
Every child deserves a place in a great school; it is not just what they deserve, it is what our country deserves. What is clear is that selection should be part of the debate about how we make sure that the right number of good places exist. Selective schools will be expected to guarantee places for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and, far from tainting the standards of education in schools around them, we will explore ways for selective schools to share their expertise. We want them to raise standards in every part of the schools system—for example, by opening excellent feeder primary schools or by sponsoring local non-selective schools.
Finally, let me turn to faith schools. I am sure that many colleagues will have children who go to high-quality faith schools. The current rules to promote inclusion mean that when new faith free schools are oversubscribed, they have to limit the number of pupils they admit on the basis of faith to 50%. The reality is that this has not worked to combat segregation, and indeed also acts as a barrier to some faiths in opening new schools. We want to remove that barrier so that new places can be created, but at the same time consult on more effective ways to ensure that all new faith free schools are truly inclusive. We will look at new requirements on proposers of free schools to demonstrate that they are attracting applications from other faiths, and to establish twinning arrangements with schools not of their faith, and consider sponsoring underperforming non-faith schools and bringing members of other faiths, and none, into their governing bodies.
The Government want to build on the progress made over the past six years and make the schools system truly fit for purpose in the 21st century. The “Schools that work for everyone” consultation is about engaging with as many views as possible so that we can design policies that make the most of the expertise that we already have, and widen access to good and outstanding school places for all. Government Members believe in building a true meritocracy. We think that every child deserves a school place that will best serve their individual talents, and not to be limited by where they live or by how much their parents earn. There is so much potential in our country, and that talent base needs us to ask the big questions, leaving no stone unturned so that we can build a schools system that truly works for everyone. I commend this statement to the House.
If I may, I would like to start by offering some advice to the Government:
“Stop your silly class war.”
[Interruption.] That reaction is very interesting, because it was not my advice but that of the last Prime Minister—who is still currently, I believe, the right hon. Member Witney—when asked about Tory MPs wanting to return to grammar schools. He went on to say:
“I think it is delusional to think that a policy of expanding a number of grammar schools is either a good idea, a sellable idea or even the right idea”.
He was the future once, but the current Prime Minister wants to hark back to the past. Where once, under Labour, we had “Education, education, education”, this Government’s mantra is “Segregation, segregation, segregation” .
Perhaps the Secretary of State can start by telling us when the Prime Minister told her what her education policy was going to be. When the Secretary of State came to this House last Thursday, she told us that there was nothing to announce. She said:
“we have not yet actually made any policy announcements; they will be made in due course.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 470.]
She assured us that she was looking into “a range of options”. Yet, lo and behold, just 24 hours later the Prime Minister unveiled their policy in full. Apparently it did not take that long to look at those options. This is not a surprise. The Prime Minister’s plan seems to be that we need grammars, secondary moderns and technical schools. This is a line taken directly from the Conservatives’ 1955 manifesto—hardly an education policy for the 21st century. Was the Secretary of State unaware of the Prime Minister’s speech or did she forget to tell the House—or perhaps the dog ate that bit of her answer?
Today’s statement is another sorry excuse, so I have some serious questions that the Secretary of State has yet to answer. Will she confirm that the new Prime Minister has absolutely no mandate for this policy? Not only was no such pledge in their manifesto, but the former Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, promised precisely not to bring in new grammar schools. He said: “It is not something we would do if elected.” We will hold the Government to account, and the country will hold the Government to that promise.
When the Prime Minister’s predecessor was asked whether he would cave in to his Back Benchers over grammar schools, he said:
“I lead. I don’t follow my party; I lead them.”
He was able to do that for more than six years, but his successor has hardly managed six weeks.
It is not just the former Prime Minister who opposes the plans; the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has said of the creation of new grammar schools:
“I believe that an increase in pupil segregation on the basis of academic selection would be…a distraction”
from the serious efforts to narrow the attainment gap.
The Conservative Chair of the Education Committee said last night:
“We have serious issues about social mobility…and I don’t think that having more grammar schools is going to help them.”
He went on to say:
“I think that the creaming off of the best is actually detrimental to the interests of the most.”
Will the Secretary of State now apologise for dismissing all opponents of her plans by placing dogma over pupils and opportunity? All the major research shows that where there are grammar schools today, access to them is limited to the most well-off. It also shows that educational attainment in grammar areas for those who fail to get into grammar schools is below the national average. Given the overwhelming academic evidence that grammars fail to improve the standards of the majority of children, what research is the Secretary of State basing her decision on, and will she lay it before this House?
Will the Secretary of State explain just how this policy is going to work? She seems to be saying not only that every new school can be a grammar, but that every existing school can convert to a grammar as well. I may be a comprehensive girl, but even I can see the flaw in thinking that it is possible to let every school in the country select through an exam. Will the Secretary of State tell us just how she will decide which schools will be allowed to segregate pupils and which will not?
We are told that the new grammars may be free schools, but free schools are not free to the taxpayer. How much of the schools budget will be put aside for these new grammar schools? Has the Secretary of State received any extra funding from the Treasury, or will it have to be taken from existing schools, which are already facing the first real-terms cut in decades?
Page 25 of the Government’s consultation document says that for schools to become grammars, one requirement that they may have to meet is to establish a new, non-selective secondary school, with capital and revenue costs paid by the Government. Perhaps the Secretary of State can reassure the House that that will be paid for by new funding arrangements that she has reached with the Treasury, rather than being squeezed out of school budgets that are facing a real-terms cut.
Order. I think the shadow Secretary of State is bringing her remarks to a close. I have been generous, but she is a little over her time and I think she has either finished or is approaching her last sentence—a pithy one.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister promised on the steps of No. 10 to govern for the many and not the privileged few, and to be led by the evidence when making decisions, yet now we have a policy that is aimed at not just serving the privileged few, but entrenching that advantage over the rest of society. This is a disgraceful attack on opportunity and inclusion, and we will oppose it. I appeal to every single Member in this House to oppose it, too.
I reiterate that this is the beginning of a consultation that sets out a debate that we need to have in our education system if we are going to make sure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment, which is to have an excellent school place available for every single child in our country. We set out very clearly that that would include more places at grammar schools.
The hon. Lady had nothing to say about how we can make independent schools play a stronger role in raising standards or how universities can play a stronger role in raising attainment. In spite of all the challenges and issues that she raises from a Labour perspective, it is worth pointing out that the leader of the Labour party, as I understand it, wants to scrap existing grammars. Is that correct? I cannot see a flicker of recognition of that policy from the Leader of the Opposition; perhaps he has been distracted over recent weeks.
In spite of all the challenges and issues that the Labour party raises over grammars, and in spite of the fact that the party was in power for 13 years, it took no steps when in government to ensure that grammars played a stronger role in raising attainment in their broader communities. What did we actually see under Labour in government? It was not education, education, education; it was grade inflation; children leaving school without even the most basic skills of reading, writing and adding up; a university system that had a cap on student numbers and aspiration; and youth unemployment that went up by the best part of 50%. We need no lectures from the Labour party on how to deliver opportunity for our young people.
If we are going to ensure that ours is a country where everybody can do their best, wherever they start, we have to be prepared at least to have a debate about how we will make that happen. It seems to me that the only distraction in this Chamber for the Labour party is, yet again, its own leadership contest. In the meantime, the ideas and the initiative to drive opportunity across Britain will come from Conservative Members.
I warmly welcome the motives behind my right hon. Friend’s statement, which appeared to be to try to restore some of the best of the 1944 Butler Act—with its amazing opportunities for bright working-class children—while avoiding some of its serious downsides, such as the great damage that it did and the poor alternatives that it offered to the majority of pupils who did not pass the exam. Does she accept that the devil lies in the detail? Does she accept that, as she develops the policy that she is setting out for consultation today, it will be tested by how far she can, in specific ways, ensure that this change does not damage the opportunities for pupils in other schools and does not distract priority from raising the standards of all schools for all pupils, which has been the objective of this Government?
May I also ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider pretty fundamentally the announcement she has made about faith schools? We need to live in a society where we reduce barriers and improve contacts and integration between people of all faiths. If the system has been imperfect, we need to know why it has not worked. It may be right to modify it, but will not simply removing the cap altogether lead us into considerable danger?
My right hon. and learned Friend went back some time to talk about the 1944 Butler Act. I do not personally recall it, having not been born at the time. The point is that the education system in our country is in a radically different position from when we effectively had a binary system, which that Act did not intend, of secondary moderns and grammars. Our education system has been transformed out of all recognition. This proposal is about improving choice for parents, wherever they are in the country; it is about building capacity in our school system; and it is about continuing with the reforms that have already seen 1.4 million more children get into good or outstanding schools. Those reforms are absolutely critical, alongside this work, to making sure that we improve opportunity.
On faith schools, let me explain the situation more succinctly. The existing 50% rule was put in place with the best of intentions, and it kicks in when new faith schools are oversubscribed. The issue is that that very rarely happens, so in spite of the fact that it was designed with the best of motives, the rule does not operate effectively. Some new faith schools are overwhelmingly comprised of children with one faith, because the school did not have to go and seek more children of other faiths and no faith. The consultation document therefore sets out a number of different proposals. For example, proposed new faith schools would have to demonstrate more clearly that there was a broader community desire for places at that new school, not just from parents of that faith but from parents of no faith and other faiths.
The Secretary of State has expressed concern that the opponents of this policy have nothing to say. I can reassure her that I have plenty to say, but, unfortunately, I have only two minutes in which to say it.
For any Government to be truly progressive, their education system must do all it can to tackle inequality. Only in this way can our young people reach their true potential. Only in this way can we close the attainment gap, which the First Minister has made the mission of her SNP Government in Scotland. There can be no doubt that grammar schools encourage educational inequality. That is why there will be no grammar schools in Scotland. Instead, the SNP Government are doing everything possible to ensure that all children have access to the same opportunities, no matter their background. If the mistake of reintroducing grammar schools in England has any financial impact on Scotland, we in the SNP will fight tooth and nail in our opposition to this policy.
Instead of this backward step, the Government should be working to close the attainment gap. The SNP Government in Scotland are committing an additional—targeted—£750 million to close this gap, with a new, fair and transparent funding formula for schools that will ensure additional resources go where they are needed. Does the Secretary of State not think that she could learn something from this strategy? Will she explain how this Government can trumpet their credentials of so-called social mobility when there is clear evidence that such selective admissions policies in schools are not to the benefit of all children? This Government say they believe in a meritocratic society, so can she explain how grammar schools promote that when they fly in the face of such an ideal, creating social divisions between children at a very young age?
The hon. Lady sets out the SNP’s approach to education, but it does not bear comparison with the dramatic improvements in our English education system during the past six years, which we absolutely aim to continue to drive forward. We have seen a stronger focus on school leadership and teaching standards. We have seen a more rigorous curriculum that truly enables our children to have the knowledge and skills they need to be successful. Critically, we have seen schools working far more closely together in order, collectively, to raise attainment standards across the board. I am saying today that I want some parts of our education system that have played less of a role in doing so than I think they can to step up to the plate and to do much more.
The hon. Lady asked about attainment. The reality is that disadvantaged children who get into grammar school come on in leaps and bounds. In fact, the attainment gap between them and better advantaged cohorts has dramatically closed by the time they leave school. Fundamentally, the difference between us and the opposition parties is that we believe that that is a good thing, and that we should therefore look at how to make such an opportunity available to more children. The opposition parties believe we should have a levelling down. That is the difference, and that is why we do not accept their approach.
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the clear moral purpose that runs through every word of her statement? Her commitment to ensuring that every child in this country receives a high-quality education and that we narrow the attainment gap between rich and poor is the driving mission she has brought to the role of Education Secretary, and I for one am delighted to see her at the Dispatch Box.
In particular, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that two of the highest performing education sectors in this country—independent schools and universities—still have not done enough to help disadvantaged children to do more. Do not the examples of the Harris Westminster free school, supported by a great independent school, and King’s maths school, supported by a great university, show that institutions that select at the age of 16 can ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds can do more? Will she reassure the House that, in the face of the opposition to all reform and all debate by the dogmatists on the Opposition side of the House, she will be driven entirely by data and what works, and that she will press ahead with the cause of reform?
I can assure my right hon. Friend of that, and I thank him for his comments. He was a Secretary of State who was willing to press on with difficult decisions to get the best outcome for Britain’s children, and he was absolutely right to do so. Failure comes from failing to address the difficult questions that we need to ask ourselves to improve England’s education system. We are prepared to address those questions, and we are putting our proposals out in a consultation document, which is effectively a Green Paper.
As my right hon. Friend says, innovation is happening across the system. We can look at the maths school that King’s College London has set up, or at the Harris Westminster college, or further afield at the work of the University of Brighton and the University of Exeter, which are truly showing how they can work with their local school system and more broadly to raise attainment. We should learn from them and expand the impact of universities, not contract it.
Let us have the debate, but let us have it based on evidence. What evidence does the Secretary of State have that the reintroduction of selection would work? All the evidence that I can find shows that it would not. Areas that have selection have a wider attainment gap than those that do not, disadvantaged children do not get into grammar schools and poorer kids do worse. In contrast, the highest-performing areas, where the gap has closed dramatically, particularly under the Labour Government, are comprehensive areas. Perhaps the Secretary of State would do better focusing her efforts on how we can spread the good practice of places such as London rather than on importing the much poorer practice of somewhere such as Kent.
It would be helpful if the Labour Front Benchers, and maybe individual Labour MPs, set out exactly where they stand on removing existing grammars. That is not clear to me, but as I understand it, that is the Labour party’s proposal. From the hon. Lady’s comments, perhaps we can assume that she wants to end all existing selection. If she is not prepared to make that argument, it is hard for her to argue against the status quo while simultaneously saying that we are wrong to consider reforming it. I think that is her position.
The reality is that many grammar schools, such as Bournemouth school, are doing important work to prioritise getting children on the pupil premium into grammar schools. We know from evidence from the Sutton Trust that when children on free school meals get into grammars, they do disproportionately well. The same evidence also showed that there was no discernible lessening of attainment among children outside the grammar system.
Of course, we are not in a binary system now. Our schools have overwhelmingly improved over the past six years, and many more schools of all kinds are now good or outstanding. The sense that children not in a grammar are somehow consigned to an education system that is failing them is simply wrong, but in some schools in some parts of the country, children do not have access to a good school place. We should not accept that. Our proposals today and the debate that we are starting are aimed at looking at how we can tackle it, and they sit alongside a much broader series of policy reforms. We will push on and change those circumstances, unlike the Labour party, which does not even seem to want to have a debate in the first place.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today about having greater collaboration between universities, independent schools and schools in the state system. I also agree with her about faith schools, which need to be looked at.
Over the past six years, the Conservative party has consistently challenged the soft bigotry of low expectations—the idea that an academic education is not available to all. My right hon. Friend is right that we have great schools and great teachers, but we do not have them everywhere. Will she explain, now or in the course of the consultation, how the Green Paper proposals on selective education will benefit pupils in areas where expectations are still too low and results are too poor? When will she announce the first of the “achieving excellence” areas?
My right hon. Friend is right to point out that too often, in the past, Governments have not had high enough expectations for children growing up in more disadvantaged parts of our country. That is totally unacceptable. Talented children are growing up all over our country and we should make sure that they have an education system that can enable them to make the most of their talents. She is also right that if we want new grammars to open we have to work with local communities. I would very much like some of the most disadvantaged communities to have the chance now to have a grammar. At the moment there is simply not that opportunity for them, even if local parents want it. We know that 20% of children at grammar schools come from outside the immediate catchment area, which clearly suggests that parents in those broader areas also want the choice of a grammar for their children.
Finally, my right hon. Friend set out points in the White Paper that I thought were quite right. The achieving excellence areas are about looking systematically at places where children are systematically let down and do not have access to good school places, to see what it will take—not just inside schools but outside—to change that over time. I assure her absolutely that all that work will continue, and pay tribute to her for that White Paper, which put in place the building bricks for what I hope will be a successful approach.
It is simply not true to say that the Opposition are in favour of levelling down. Having schools that work for everyone and for all families is exactly what we are in favour of. I want to press the Secretary of State on the question of evidence. Where is the evidence that any of the improvement we have seen in the past 15 to 20 years has come as a result of selection? In particular, can she name a school system elsewhere in the world that succeeds on the basis of selection at 11?
Our proposals are clear on the fact that we do not want a test at 11 to be the principal way that children get into grammars. We want much more flexibility in the grammar system. This is about having a 21st-century education system and a 21st-century approach on grammars. It is wrong to say that we should just freeze grammars in time, and never come back to look at how they can work more effectively. The test is surely the fact that 99% of grammars are judged good or outstanding by Ofsted. Those schools have outstanding leadership and teachers, and a strong, stretching and rigorous curriculum. They deliver for children of lower prior attainment and disadvantaged children, but also stretch those of better attainment. That is why they are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. It would be wrong not to look at how we can pull those features into the broader school system. Many of our reforms have been doing that. Where it is the choice and there is the demand we should be enabling more grammars to open.
Back in 1944, three types of school were proposed—grammars, secondary moderns and technical schools—but by 1959 only 2% of any year group could expect to get to a technical school. The problem is sometimes in delivery and the mechanism for implementation. What plans does the Secretary of State have to make sure that the changes in the Green Paper will be implemented in such a way that we reach every community and every child, and can be sure that we are giving every child the best possible opportunity, either in a grammar school or some other, different type of school? The mechanism—brokering it and checking that it is working—will count for a lot with this policy.
I very much pay tribute to all my hon. Friend’s work as Chair of the Education Committee. This is about building capacity; fundamentally, it is about having more good school places for children around Britain. The test of its success will be a continued improvement in attainment—very much following on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has said—focusing in particular on those children who do not get as far as they should and have not been able to enjoy and benefit from the broader reforms that so many more children are now benefiting from.
Let me tell the Secretary of State that this country has made steady progress on education over the years, under all parties. There has been real improvement in our education system; is she aware that sending a message that that is a history of failure is not very encouraging to teachers and the people who deliver education? I beg her not to start what we have already seen in the Chamber, namely a bitter turf war about comprehensives against grammars. If she likes grammar schools, she should provide the evidence. Provide what is best for our students and our kids in this country, but do not start an ideological turf war that will be very damaging to our country.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to open up a measured debate that is based on evidence on what it will take to improve our school system, and particularly on what it will take to enable those who do not have access to a good school place to have one. We believe that selection can play a role, and that we should look at how that can be done more effectively.
The hon. Gentleman was at the urgent question on Thursday. I recognise how emotive the issue is on both sides of the House—it is emotive because it matters for all of our children. The wrong thing to do would be simply to see the concerns that Labour Members express and put them in a box, unprepared to look at how we can make grammars work more effectively for disadvantaged children. We should recognise that every child is different. Those who are academic need schools that can help them stretch themselves.
My anxiety with some of the proposals is this: the Secretary of State rightly focuses on areas of economic and educational disadvantage, but without any kind of local catchment area how can we guarantee that new selective schools will benefit the communities in which they are situated?
We are setting out a number of conditions that new grammars would have to meet for them to be able to open in the first place. Part of that would be working with local communities and demonstrating local demand. It could also involve setting up a non-selective school or sponsoring one that is already there, or setting up or sponsoring a primary school in a more low-income area that feeds the grammar school, so that it absolutely reaches into some of those communities that we want to benefit most from the good or outstanding grammars that are established. I encourage my right hon. Friend to look at the consultation document, which opens a lot of questions about how we can do that effectively. I will no doubt be interested in her response.
I have listened to the Secretary of State carefully and am quite sorry for her in a way, because I am sure this policy is not directly hers. Could she tell us confidentially whether she was as surprised as hon. Members when we found out the chaotic nature of future Government policy, and when she was informed of it by Government Spads in Downing Street?
On behalf of children in Britain, that was a totally pointless question. In fact, I will not bother answering it.
I do not want any child to have to go to the sort of school I went to in the last five years of my secondary education. Hartland comprehensive was many times more like a borstal than a school. Unfortunately, there are still too many comprehensives like that in our country but—it is a big “but”—schools in my constituency have done so well, notably George Spencer, which has become an outstanding academy because of the academy programme. There is no desire in my constituency for us to have selection. Will the Secretary of State therefore assure me and my constituents that the academy programme, which is delivering, will still be supported by the Government?
Yes, of course I will. The proposal is about providing more choice but, as my right hon. Friend sets out, in many parts of the country we have seen academies transform prospects. Her local community might be happy with those existing schools and want to continue to see them get better.
When discussing education with parents and teachers, the issues that come up time and again are the need for more primary places, teacher workload and recruitment, and the north-south funding gap. Not one person has ever raised new grammars with me. Where is the evidence that the continued obsession with structures will resolve the real issues facing our education system?
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the need for more primary places and we have put billions of pounds into ensuring them. Part of the challenge is that that demographic bulge is gradually passing into our secondary school system, and we need to ensure that it has the number of places our children we need. We need to ensure that they are good places, which is why we want to open up the debate on selection and ending the ban on grammars. As she says, this is not to say that we do not need carefully to push on with the rest of the agenda in education. She mentioned teacher recruitment and ensuring that education funding is fair around the country. I will continue to focus on all those things.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to greater freedom for faith schools, including Yavneh in my constituency, which is the best performing comprehensive in the entire country. It forms part of a diverse mix in Hertsmere that includes part-selective schools. Does she agree that it is that diversity that is driving up standards, and is she committed to maintaining that diversity?
My hon. Friend sets out the case very well. Parents have more and better choices in his local community. That is important and part of how we see standards rising. We are committed to that continuing.
I, too, listened very carefully to the words of the Secretary of State and she did say that we do not want to see a test at 11 for access to grammars. Is it her intention to abolish the 11-plus for existing grammar schools? If not, why not?
The point I was making to the hon. Gentleman was that many people feel there is a cliff edge in terms of entry into grammars, as it stands, at age 11. We are consulting on children having the chance to go to a local grammar, perhaps at an older age. Indeed, if they are particularly capable at one or two subjects, they could perhaps go to a grammar to study them. I am sure he will read the consultation document with interest.
Does the Secretary of State agree that by lifting the statutory bar we are not returning to the two-tier system of the 1950s? Our education system has moved on. We have the choice of university technical colleges, free schools and academies, as well as apprenticeships. When striving for educational excellence, we must continue to look at all the best forms of education for our children.
My hon. Friend is quite right. We have moved from a system where there was a one-size-fits-all approach to schools for children. We now have a system where there is so much more diversity and choice. We think it is wrong to have one kind of school within the system that is unable to respond to parent demand—that is the need for more grammars. We want to open up the debate and look at what we can do to enable parents around the country to have more of a choice.
When it comes to schools that work for everyone, the Secretary of State says she wants views from everywhere. She will be aware that the exam results from schools in Northern Ireland for GCSE were some of the best in the United Kingdom. Has she had the opportunity to strategise those results for the benefit of the UK mainland?
I know the system of grammars in Northern Ireland is one that people would point to and say that, on average, attainment has increased. During the urgent question last week, I was invited to Northern Ireland to look for myself. I am sure I will be able to visit Northern Ireland shortly.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s Green Paper on the wider aspects of education. I have to say that I have severe reservations about introducing more grammar schools. I was at a grammar school 50 years ago. I have often wondered where I would be if I had failed the 11-plus. I certainly would not be here today. I know the education system has moved on, but I have to say it is a question not of introducing more grammar schools—if people want grammar schools, that is fine—but what is happening in the main part of the system. The main question we have to deal with is not just about access to schools; it is about the poverty of many parents and dysfunctional families. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be looking at that. Could she perhaps give me some reassurance that that is going to be done?
Very much so. As I just replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), looking at specific areas where there is a persistent and long-term lack of educational attainment and a gap in good school places absolutely has to sit alongside this consultation document. The rest of the Government reforms are now well under way and have delivered so much for children in Britain. They absolutely need to continue.
The Secretary of State’s statement is deeply divisive. Will she tell us the difference between the selection criteria for a grammar school and for a free school? What evidence base is available to her for not prioritising the needs of the young people who are not going to be selected?
I would encourage the right hon. Gentleman to look at the Green Paper consultation document that we have published today. It not only talks about how we think grammars and selection can play a stronger role, particularly for improving the prospects for disadvantaged children who are academically able, but sets out our expectation that grammars can do a lot more to raise attainment more broadly in their local communities. As I said to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the challenge is that we have not engaged much in the reform of grammars before. Now is the time to ask them to do more, but in return we should also be prepared to enable them to open up in other parts of the country.
I have no ideological hang-up about letting the brightest children do well, but it is crucial to let the poorest come through to do so. I welcome this as the beginning of a debate and as one method by which we can increase the diversity of the school system. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend’s mention of the role that universities can play. We can see the results of poor social mobility in my Norwich constituency, but universities, as well as existing teachers, are addressing the problem hard and should be encouraged in doing so.
I think Norwich provides an excellent example of a place where we could see attainments raised by the University of East Anglia doing more in local communities. I would like to pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend is doing locally with her young people to help to ensure that that happens. We are at the beginning of understanding how universities can work effectively further back in the education system. The more we can work out how to do that successfully, the more we will see how it can dramatically improve children’s prospects so that they can reach the levels of educational attainment that make going to university become an option.
If the Government were serious about social mobility, they would focus on the early years and on technical and vocational provision. The one thing I welcome is the Secretary of State’s acceptance of the Labour party’s 2015 manifesto commitment on independent schools. Of course they should be doing more to earn their charitable status. I think we are entering into a consensus view on that. Rather than going down the blind alley of the Charitable Commission, I urge the Secretary of State to amend the Local Government Act 1988 so that the business rate relief of private schools is dependent on a hard partnership, as determined by the independent schools inspectorate. It remains a scandal that our sixth-form colleges are paying VAT and private schools have business rate relief. That has to end.
As I understood the hon. Gentleman’s policy, it was simply to scrap charitable status, but what we want to do is to make sure that our independent schools actually earn that charitable status and truly deliver more public benefit taps than some are currently doing. It is fair to say, however, that the overwhelming number of independent schools already do much in their local communities.
As a comprehensive schoolboy, may I commend my right hon. Friend for her bold new departure? Will she ensure, however, that at all times the language used by the Government focuses on people’s aptitudes rather than solely on their academic ability? I believe that, in that way, there are no losers; instead, all talents are championed and pupils are fulfilled.
As a comprehensive schoolgirl, I think that is an excellent point. I can assure my hon. Friend that this is about making sure that we have diversity and choice in our schools system so that, whatever kinds of talents children have, they can find a school that will truly enable them to be developed successfully.
The attainment gap between poor and rich children is unacceptable. It holds them and our country back. The Secretary of State is simply wrong to say that expanding grammar schools will help the most disadvantaged children. They are less likely to get into grammar schools and more likely to fall further behind better-off children than in areas without selective schools. Will the Secretary of State focus instead on what evidence shows makes the biggest difference to disadvantaged children—high-quality early years services, getting the best heads and teachers in the schools that need the most and relentlessly driving up standards in academic and vocational qualifications?
We are doing all those things, and, in fact, our proposals are intended to ensure that grammars do take more disadvantaged children. Labour had 13 years to think about this, and failed to do so.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the community that I represent in Bournemouth and Poole already has access to high-quality local grammar schools, but may I make her aware of a change in admission policy that will begin in 2018 at Bournemouth School, which is headed by Dr Dorian Lewis? We are going to introduce a geographic limit prioritising Bournemouth pupils, and we are going to prioritise looked-after and formerly looked-after children and those receiving free school meals. Critically, we are going to combine those measures with an ambitious programme of outreach to primary schools to raise the aspiration of pupils and their parents to send their children to grammar schools.
Does the Secretary of State agree that those ambitious measures are entirely in line with the Prime Minister’s excellent new policy, and will she undertake either to come to Bournemouth School and see for herself what it is doing or to meet Dr Dorian Lewis if we bring him here to London?
I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend’s local head teacher. What he has described is exactly what we want to see replicated across grammar schools in our country, and is relevant to the conditions that we will set for existing grammars to expand and new grammars to open. We want to ensure that they are engines for social mobility
I hope that we will have a debate about this, because it is important. None of us should be satisfied about the fact that too many of our children are not getting the best out of—what is it these days? Before long, it will be nearly 18 years of compulsory education.
When I last spoke in the Chamber, in a debate led by my former colleague Jo Cox, we talked about the lack of educational attainment in Yorkshire and Humberside. Three facts emerged from that debate: first, that so many of our children were 18 months behind their peers at the age of three; secondly, that in Doncaster and other areas outside our cities, we could not attract the best teachers for love nor money; and, thirdly, that the choice to be made by 14-year-olds was not good enough for those who wanted to follow a more vocational route. May I ask the Secretary of State please not to abandon issues that I feel are of greater importance to achieving the outcomes that she wants than a debate on grammar schools that could be divisive?
I assure the right hon. Lady that I will never abandon the agenda of seeing what we can do to lift areas that are struggling in terms of educational attainment. I grew up in Rotherham, I went through the state school system there, and I am personally committed to ensuring that that area does better in the future than it has in the past. Having a role in which I can help to build the education system that enabled me to be successful presents an opportunity that I will make the most of.
If the Secretary of State is indeed going to search for evidence, will she try to find out why the OECD has consistently said that educational outcomes in England are far better than they are in Wales, where we have had 17 years of Labour government?
It is almost certainly because the Labour Government in Wales have failed to learn from the reforms that we have made here in the United Kingdom. It is interesting to note that many parents want to take advantage of the features of grammar schools that often make them successful, such as excellent teachers and outstanding leadership, a stretching, rigorous academic curriculum, excellent extra-curricular activities, and discipline. Those are the things that parents want throughout the school system, and our reforms have largely embedded them throughout the system, which is why standards are rising.
I am proud to represent a town that is ram-packed with what the Secretary of State calls “ordinary working-class people”. [Interruption.] I am using the Secretary of State’s words. It is also a town that has grammar schools. People there are frustrated by the fact that their kids cannot get into local grammar schools because other people with much more resources are able to drive miles from west London and get their children into grammar schools on the basis of the 11-plus.
I am beginning to be unsure about what the Secretary of State means by a grammar school. When I talk to the heads of grammar schools, they say that they cannot devise an admission test that is tutor-proof. The point is that my constituents who cannot afford tutors are not getting places in the grammar schools, and therefore grammar schools do not serve, as her statement implies, those, in her words, “ordinary working-class people.” Unfortunately, they serve those people who can afford to tutor their kids.
In that case, all the more reason for us to bring forward the reforms announced today. It is nonsensical to make an argument in the way the right hon. Lady has just done and then say we should do nothing about it.
The whole focus of the debate so far has been on the question of admissions, but what makes for a good school is not how the pupils have been admitted, but the quality of the leadership. How will the Secretary of State focus the debate and her proposals on how we secure more outstanding headteachers?
As we have seen in many parts of the country, including London, what actually made the difference was schools working together, having outstanding headteachers going into what were underperforming schools, turning them around and then working with other schools in neighbouring areas to ensure that best practice was disseminated. Grammars need to play their role in doing that, hence these proposals.
The Secretary of State mentioned the Sutton Trust and it points out that 18% of pupils are on free school meals but only 3% of grammar school pupils are, so the fact that that tiny group does well does not support her policy, as she has claimed. Opening new grammar schools inevitably means creating new secondary modern schools, however it is dressed up. How can that possibly be a good idea?
Again, the right hon. Gentleman was part of the Government that had 13 years to tackle the issue he has just set out and did nothing. The reality is we should be enabling parents to have more choice, including having selection and grammars if they want them, but we should also be challenging grammars to do more on reaching out to disadvantaged children. As we have heard, in Bournemouth and other parts of the country that is already happening. We should be seeing more of that, not simply trying to avoid the debate all together.
I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s statement, which is an encouraging step in the right direction. Does she share my anxiety and frustration at the fact that so many of the objectors to this scheme are themselves the products of selective education? The French have a saying: “Le patron mange ici”, or the patron of the establishment—usually a restaurant—eats here, and is it not disappointing to see so many people who are the products of selective education say, “It’s alright for us, but it’s not alright for them”?
I tend to agree with my hon. Friend, and I would add that on the one hand there is a vehement dislike of the status quo while on the other hand apparently an objection to bringing forward any reforms to change it.
Let us deal with this nonsense that if we are not in favour of the Secretary of State’s reform, we are not in favour of any change. Where there is failure, underachievement or lack of ambition in the system, there should be change. The system should not be a reform-free zone. But if the Prime Minister believes that the expansion of grammar schools is better for social mobility, how does she explain that in grammar-school Kent just 27% of kids on free school meals get five good GCSEs, whereas the national average is 33% and in London, where there has been substantial turnaround based on all-ability schools, that figure is 45%?
As the right hon. Gentleman sets out, the sense that somehow grammars are the only schools delivering good and outstanding education for our children is wrong. That is why we should not be shy of the fact that we ought to open up the system to allow grammars to play a stronger role; we can do that precisely because it is not a binary system any more with all the other schools in that system performing weakly. As he says, however, we need to recognise that it is not just opening up new grammars that is going to enable more children to get more good school places; that is part of the answer, but the other part of the answer is to enable schools to learn from one another and to collaborate more, and of course, as I have set out, to see other actors in the educational establishment, like universities and independent schools, playing a bigger role in the future.
Are not choice and diversity the key? We have been sitting here discussing this matter for over an hour, yet no one on either side of the House has suggested that a single existing grammar school should be abolished. Is it not perverse to prevent successful grammar schools, such as Caistor Grammar School or Queen Elizabeth’s High School in my constituency, from expanding to take in more disadvantaged kids? We should allow them to take in such kids from disadvantaged areas in Lincoln, Grimsby or Scunthorpe. In regard to the cap on faith schools, why did we have it in the first place? It was perverse and bizarre, and it failed in its objective. Why should Catholic parents be prevented from sending their children to the faith school of their choice?
This is about opening up choice for parents, including those who want grammar school places but do not have them, and about enabling more faith schools to open. About a third of the schools in our system are faith schools and many of them have played an outstanding role in educating our children. We should enable them to do more.
I was the council cabinet member for education and children’s services in Trafford, which retained selection at 11. Much as we tried to level up and to improve all our schools, I can tell the Secretary of State that the selective system there was expensive in budget terms, it could be divisive and it caused underperformance in a number of schools. In my experience, selection at 11 did not aid social mobility. Where is the evidence that it does?
The evidence is in the fact that 99% of those schools are good or outstanding. They are a model that delivers great education. The evidence also comes from the Sutton Trust, which has tracked how children on free school meals do disproportionately well when they get into grammars. As for the hon. Lady’s challenge on the broader system, I think that grammars should rise to it in terms of raising attainment. As I pointed out earlier, however, the Sutton Trust’s research has also shown that there is no discernible reduction in attainment among children who are outside the grammar school system.
I really welcome the fact that we are opening up this debate and having a consultation on this subject and a Green Paper. However, I have to say to my right hon. Friend that I am quite worried about what I have heard so far, because I have not had the answers I have been looking for. One of the big answers is to the question: how do we avoid creating a stigma for those who stay in the comprehensive system and do not go to the selective entry schools? Unless we have enough spaces, people of equal ability will be unable to get into those schools. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about academy trusts involving several schools, but I believe that investing to make the streamlining within existing schools better is a good way forward. Whatever the intentions might be, if there are schools that are known for their academic ability and others that are not, a stigma will be created. What I really want to see is an excellent education system in which people from any background can achieve their potential. I went to a comprehensive school. My sister went to a comprehensive school, and she is now a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. This can be done within the comprehensive system. We must not create stigma—that is what I am really worried about—but I welcome the fact that we are having this consultation.
I think that the full Shelbrooke world-view should be deposited in the Library of the House, preferably by the end of the week.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his views. As he suggests, there are good and outstanding schools all over our country. This is not a binary choice between getting into a grammar and not having access to a good school. We are simply saying that academic children should have the ability to go to a school that will really stretch them, if that is what they want to do.
What the Secretary of State has just said goes to the nub of the problem. An 11-year-old source close to me started comprehensive school last week. He does not yet know whether he wants to be a chef, an astronaut, a plasterer or a lawyer. He does not know what he wants to do. Why is the Secretary of State closing off opportunities to young people at such a young age?
We are doing precisely the opposite. For example, the introduction of the EBacc and much of the reform of GCSEs will be about ensuring that children come out of our school system—whatever school they have gone into—having a rigorous, balanced set of GCSE results that are academic in nature, and that all options remain open to them.
I applaud the determination of the Secretary of State and the Government to drive up standards for all, but will she confirm exactly how the proposal will prevent those who do not make the grade from being stigmatised and disincentivised? It could be particularly problematic given that all the evidence suggests that age 11 is too early to test aptitude and intellect, especially for boys.
I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the consultation document that is coming out today. It sets out clearly how we want children to have more flexibility in being able to access grammars while placing conditions on the setting up of new grammars, including the need for them to work across the whole school system to raise attainment more broadly. I also say to her that we already have selection by house price and that a variety of schools already specialise, whether in music, art or sport—there will be children who do not get into those schools. The proposal is about having diversity and choice in the system to enable there to be a good school near each child that is tailored to their needs.
Will the Secretary of State explain why she wants to link the sponsoring of schools by universities to higher tuition fees? This country’s students are already highly indebted from paying for their education without being required to pay for secondary education as well. Universities sponsoring schools might be a good thing, but asking students to pay for it is not.
The hon. Lady may have misunderstood the proposal. We are saying that if universities want to be able to charge higher fees, they will need to play a stronger role in raising attainment in the system more broadly—alongside the work that they already do with bursaries. We have seen that that works effectively in some cases and want to roll it out more widely.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that academic excellence is a good in and of itself, and therefore that something that is academically the best is worth having and that everything else around it is fundamentally secondary? I also congratulate her on opening up faith schools. That will be particularly welcomed by the Catholic Church, which has a fantastic record on faith schools in some of the most disadvantaged and diverse communities.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The rule was ineffective and prevented Catholic faith schools from feeling that they could open under the free schools system. It is sensible to consider how we replace it with a set of rules that will work more effectively. From the reaction of the Opposition to my hon. Friend’s points on academic rigour and ability, it is clear that a class war is still under way—it is raging in the Labour party.
Can we do away with the nonsense from some Conservative supporters of grammar schools that Labour Members are somehow hypocritical because we are all from grammar schools? I was brought up on a council estate and went to a secondary modern. The right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) congratulated the Secretary of State on the moral purpose of what is being discussed today, but actually it is immoral to select young people on their academic ability. That is what we should be opposing.
I want to ask the Secretary of State a clear question. Sir Michael Wilshaw has come out against extending selection. Is he right or wrong?
I have a lot of respect for Sir Michael Wilshaw, but I do not agree with him at all on this issue.
As the product of and with three children at state faith schools, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s recognition of the huge importance of faith schools and welcome the proposals that she has set before the House. However, I have questions about two areas. Deprivation, poverty and lack of aspiration are not restricted to our urban areas and exist across rural areas. Will she ensure that all proposals are rural-proofed, particularly in large rural areas where only one comprehensive secondary school serves a large catchment area? Will she also underscore that the Government’s commitment to fairer funding to the benefit of our rural schools will be in no way hindered by the proposals announced today?
First, on my hon. Friend’s last point, the Government will shortly respond to the first phase of the consultation and will set out the second phase on how to ensure that the national funding formula is fair—he set out why it is so important that we do that. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right to highlight that rural schools are in a position to improve more strongly. One of the lessons of London is that schools are close together—I see this as a London MP—and it has been easier for teachers to spend time together working out how to raise standards. We need to ensure that we can take that approach while ensuring that it still works in areas where schools are more dispersed.
The Secretary of State will know that in Birmingham grammar schools have existed alongside comprehensive schools for decades. Nobody argues that the King Edward schools are anything other than good schools, and they do collaborate with other schools. The point is, and I put this to the Secretary of State, that their existence has not changed and cannot change the life chances of the majority of children in Birmingham, including in terms of tackling the issue of underachievement of white working-class areas such as the one I represent. She suggests that she does not want structures to get in the way of standards. I put it to her that by making the expansion of segregation and selection the centrepiece of her ambition, her boss the Prime Minister is actually going in the opposite direction, and that whatever else this is about, it is not about schools that work for everybody.
I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As he will be aware, the schools in Birmingham that he talked about are now prioritising children who are eligible for the pupil premium. It is wrong simply to turn around to parents who want more choice and say that they cannot have it and that somehow they are wrong. We should be looking at how parents can get more choice and we should not simply be ignoring it, as his party is.
There is much to welcome in this statement and Green Paper—the focus on choice, the lack of ideology and the absolute commitment demonstrated by the Secretary of State to better education for all to meet the demands of the 21st century—but some things concern me. The reason why my school, Nailsea comprehensive, has improved so much, and indeed why the schools in my constituency have improved so much, is the impact of the academy programme and, in particular, the multi-academy trusts. They have enabled schools to embrace lower-performing schools, including at primary and pre-school level, to deliver better education. Will she say a little more about how her proposals would fit with the multi-academy trust model, which is so welcome? Will she indicate to the House who the decision makers will be if these choices are to be decided upon?
As my hon. Friend will know, this consultation is the beginning of a discussion and debate about how we can make sure that these policy proposals work in practice. We are absolutely committed to continuing the process of working with more schools on becoming academies, as we know how much that has delivered in terms of results for our young people. The way in which multi-academy trusts are now able to work together to raise school attainment and to be themselves a way for school improvement to take place is at the heart of our Government education reforms. What we are saying with this Green Paper is that we think grammar schools should play a stronger role, in that existing system, in the future than they have done in the past.
I was in one of the many high-performing comprehensives in my constituency on Friday, and I asked the headteacher what the real challenge is. She told me that it was those young people who are struggling academically but are from families with low aspirations. The Secretary of State’s proposals do nothing to address this issue. Why does she not experiment in the areas of the country that have grammar schools, make them take 25% free school meals students as a pilot and see what happens there before she meddles with everybody else’s education?
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the consultation document proposals, as I think he will welcome some elements of them. We have to remember that we are coming from a position of there being no conditionality on grammars whatsoever and far less push on them to reach out into more disadvantaged communities. That push is precisely what we are setting out in this consultation document, while also setting out our intention to give parents more choice.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s and the Prime Minister’s commitment to opening education up for everyone and leaving nobody behind, but, having conducted research on this issue and asked the Library, I have found no evidence, thus far, to suggest that social mobility is improved as a result of opening up new grammar schools. What evidence has the Secretary of State got that she will present before this House to prove that opening new grammar schools will improve social mobility? That is something for which the Conservative party has worked hard for a very long time.
I set out how research by the Sutton Trust has demonstrated the impact of grammars on free-school-meal children and on the broader school communities of which grammars are part. That is a case for change, not a case for keeping the status quo. I encourage my hon. Friend to look at our proposals to see how they can do exactly what he says, and I think he will welcome them.
Can the Secretary of State please explain to children and parents in my constituency why there are no outstanding schools after six years of the Tories’ accelerated academies scheme, yet rather than investing in those schemes and ensuring that the teacher shortage is addressed, that money is to be diverted into a scheme for a selected few? Is she proud that she is proposing bringing back a two-tier education system and yet more upheaval in our already exhausted schools?
The hon. Lady’s area demonstrates why we need to continue to do more and work harder to ensure that the reforms that we have introduced can start to have an impact for children, and it is also why we are right to leave no stone unturned in understanding how we can make sure that there are good schools and good school places for children in all parts of our country. To my mind, that requires us to look at all options, not to close some off.
Having represented parents for 16 years, I know that nothing angers them more than their children not being able to access a good local school. Will the Secretary of State therefore consider changing access to UTCs from 14 to 19 to 11 to 19?
As UTCs steadily bed down and develop, we are right to look at how they can evolve over time. There are some indications that working with children at a younger age may be one of the ways to achieve a UTC model that is successful.
For the past five years I have proudly been chair of governors of the Brighton Aldridge Community Academy. It is a school that has 60% of its students on pupil premium. This year it increased its GCSE results by 21%. It is truly a school for everyone. Can the Secretary of State name a single grammar school that has more than half of its students from areas of deprivation and this year increased its GCSE results by more than 20%? If not, will she just remove this ridiculous proposal before it goes too far?
The hon. Gentleman argues about the status quo, while resolutely standing against any proposals to change it. As he knows, the challenge that we face is selection by house price. Parents simply do not have the choice if they are not able to buy a house in a catchment area. We think that is totally unacceptable and that grammars should do more to reach into disadvantaged communities, but we also think that parents in those communities should have the choice of a grammar if that is what they want.
The Calder Valley is unique in the north of England, as we are still served by three state grammar schools, all of which are hugely popular with parents and pupils alike. Will my right hon. Friend, however, look at how we encourage state primary schools to help those pupils, particularly those from deprived backgrounds, who opt to sit the entrance exam, which my local state primary schools are currently opposed to doing?
My hon. Friend sets out a serious issue. It is one of the reasons for some of the proposals to ensure that grammars work more carefully with their feeder schools that are primaries in areas of lower income families. It is vital that we break that link. An important piece of work done by Kent County Council looked at some of the reasons why parents from lower income families were often less inclined to send their children to grammar schools. In many cases that was not just about the test; it was about school uniforms and transport costs. These are all practical steps that we can take to remove the barriers that parents sometimes wrongly think exist, which dissuade them from even applying to grammars.
As the Secretary of State will know from her previous job, faith-based institutions are the biggest providers of schools on the planet. I think the grammar school issue is a smokescreen to hide the disastrous policy of the 50% arbitrary cap that this Government introduced, which has led to few schools being built in areas of demand and thousands of parents therefore being denied their choice. That is this Government’s record.
I do not think that is correct. The reality is that 1.4 million more children are now in good or outstanding schools. We have improving standards and a tougher but appropriately stretching curriculum. That is progress, and it is a lot more progress than Labour made.
I was very interested in my right hon. Friend’s comments about the independent sector. Independent schools clearly have much to offer the public sector, but if an independent school does not make an adequate contribution, or is not willing to, will she consider putting VAT on its fees?
The reality is that we will work with the Charity Commission to set a more stretching, tougher bar for independent schools to demonstrate that they are, indeed, eligible for charitable status. If they are unable or unwilling to meet those tougher standards, they simply will not be able to get charitable status, and that will then, of course, impact on their tax status too.
What does it say when the new Prime Minister’s first major initiative is so regressive that the former Tory Prime Minister would rather resign from Parliament than be faced with voting for it? The Secretary of State must know what the real problems are. They are, most of all, the shortage of teachers, the workload that we then put on the rest of the teachers, insufficient pupil funding in some areas and, in most places, an absence of the very best, most outstanding leadership. Please, Secretary of State, take this issue away and come back with something serious about standards, not structures.
We are working on all of those things, but that does not mean that we should not ask ourselves additionally how we can make sure that there are more good school places for more children, especially in parts of the country where there are currently insufficient good school places. It is not an either/or question. These proposals today—this Green Paper that we are opening up—are about how we ensure that the overall reforms we are bringing forward are going to be successful.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her vision on religious and selective schools. May I shift the spotlight to STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths? The Simon Langton boys school in my constituency has, for several years running, produced more than 1% of this country’s physics graduates. However, there is an even greater issue around maths. The blunt truth is that a child with mathematical abilities in a poor area is very unlikely to find sufficient children in the top stream of their comprehensive to provide a critical mass for maths A-level or, indeed, the more demanding teaching needed further down the school.
One thing the Government have focused on has been increasing the number of children in and entries for STEM subjects—maths A-level, for example, is now the most popular A-level there is. But there is a lot further to go, not least so that we ensure that children are taking the academic exams that will open up opportunity, but also because that is what our economy needs.
I am sure that the Secretary of State knows this because it has been touched on before, but in Northern Ireland 67 of our schools are grammar schools. We often lead in the results in the United Kingdom. One third, though, are failing. I would welcome the right hon. Lady coming to Northern Ireland to talk to all parties as well as to look at the three side effects of having grammar schools. It is important to ensure that vocations are still looked at, that we have standardised tests that everyone can get at and that we have the sharing of resources with other schools so that they are not left behind.
The hon. Gentleman sets it out very well. It is about having a balanced package of reforms that mean not only that parents have choice, but that, fundamentally, grammars are engines of social mobility.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to sharing the success of grammar schools with neighbouring non-selective schools, and I welcome it because it is already happening in my constituency with the Horncastle Umbrella Trust, thought to be the first partnership in the country between a grammar school, Queen Elizabeth’s, and its neighbouring non-selective academy, Banovallum School. The trust works for the good of all children in Horncastle, sharing teaching practices and facilities, and bringing the students together to learn together, with pleasing GCSE results this summer for Banovallum. Will my right hon. Friend please look at these schools and the other excellent selective and non-selective schools in my constituency to see whether their example can work elsewhere in the country?
I think my hon. Friend will welcome the proposals that we are setting out in the consultation document, which aim to look at how we can see stronger, more connected relationships between grammar schools and other schools nearby, and how, working together, they can lift overall attainment.
As a product of Luton’s comprehensive system, I know at first hand the benefits that come from good leadership and good teaching, and that has never held back capable students from social mobility. I will do everything I can, as the town’s MP, to oppose segregation. Why does the Secretary of State believe that a system in which the pupil is chosen by the school at 11 is better than the shift that has happened in the past 15 or 20 years whereby pupil and parent together decide on a pathway at 14?
Again, I do not accept that this is somehow an either/or approach on education. It is about driving more choice for parents, having more schools that can be tailored to particular children’s needs, and, in the end, raising educational standards.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. In the week or so since this debate began, it has received a very favourable response from my constituents. If we are to maximise the opportunities for our young people, we need not just more grammar schools but more young people reaching the standard at the age of 11 to qualify for them. Can she give an absolute assurance that adequate resources will be provided at all schools? She spoke of opening excellent feeder schools, but we want to make the existing schools excellent feeder schools.
One of the suggestions is that expanding grammars could sponsor a primary feeder, particularly in an area of lower-income families, if that was a possibility. As my hon. Friend says, we have to look at all the work we have done in primary schools in terms of phonics and improving maths, driving up attainment to make sure that children are not only ready but at the right level to be able to move into a secondary system and then finish their education from there.
I would like to congratulate the young people in my constituency who have been successful in their GCSE and A-level results this year. There is no shortage nationwide in access to excellent academic education. Our world-leading universities are welcoming more students from this country than ever before. However, we are not so good at providing access to technical and vocational qualifications, and employers across the length and breadth of this country are crying out for those skills. How exactly will introducing more grammar schools improve this situation?
It needs to sit alongside the Government’s existing push on improving vocational education, improving young people’s chances to get work experience, and bringing forward 3 million apprenticeships. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to reflect on the fact that although many children will do A-levels and go on into our university system, with a higher proportion and absolute number than ever before now coming from disadvantaged families, many young people will not follow that route. We have to make sure that the vocational route can really deliver for them too.
In Lincolnshire we already have grammar schools. With about a third of pupils going to them, many from deprived backgrounds, it is clear that in the right ecosystem grammar schools can be a real engine for social mobility. Will the Secretary of State also bear in mind the contribution that is made by secondary modern schools in the 21st century—schools such as Giles Academy which have evolved to make sure that the right education is provided for the right pupils in a genuinely diverse ecosystem? If we get this right, we can produce schools that make sure that every pupil gets the education they deserve. May I invite her to come to the National Association of Secondary Moderns’ reception in the House of Commons, as her predecessor did, to pay tribute to the excellent work that goes on in those schools?
I look forward to getting a chance to meet the organisation that my hon. Friend mentions. I reiterate his point, which is that we see grammars operating in parts of the country not to the detriment of the broader school community. This is not, as we saw in the past, a binary system with outstanding grammars and, by contrast, other schools—the 1950s and ’60s secondary moderns—that were not even testing the children that came through their doors, let alone really driving attainment. We are in a very different place now, with a much wider, more diverse system, but that is why we are also right to start opening it up.
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart): far from opening up opportunities to all children, all this proposal does is open up opportunities to those children whose parents can afford private tutors for them, to train and coach them through the grammar school exam. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for his excellent suggestion that our current grammar schools should pilot some of these ideas. The Secretary of State has talked about reforming the 11-plus exam. Why does she not start that reform with our existing grammars, make the exam tutor-proof and do what she says is going to happen, namely give all young people an opportunity?
I know that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that a number of grammar schools are already looking at how they can make sure that their test focuses more on the underlying abilities of the child than on the ability of their parents to pay for a tutor. We should also look at other ways in which we can overcome those barriers, but I do not think that the answer to that is to simply—[Interruption.]
Order. We cannot have a series of side conversations and Members chuntering from a sedentary position across the Chamber in evident disapproval of what the other is saying while the Secretary of State is trying to respond to questions. I was speaking to a very large group of school students in Ochil and South Perthshire on Friday, and the habitual refrain—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) will be interested in this, and if he is not, he ought to be. The habitual refrain of quite a number of the pupils was, “Why is it sometimes in Parliament that Members are discourteous to each other?” We should try to set a good example. What is required is the statesmanlike demeanour personified by the Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who is sitting in a solemn and reflective manner. There are many examples of Labour Members who are sitting in a similar way. We should learn from them.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools is, indeed, one of the principal reasons behind why school reform in our education system has delivered better outcomes for so many children. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) has set out some of the challenges. Many grammar schools are already looking at how to ensure that they are open to more children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I am sure that she will welcome some of the conditions that we will set on grammars to expand and some of the challenges that we will put on existing grammars to do more.
On selective schools, does the Secretary of State agree that we must take account of local circumstances? Cheltenham has some of the strongest comprehensives anywhere in the country—they offer exemplary academic rigour—and they sit alongside an excellent grammar school. Does she agree that, where great opportunities already exist and are growing, thanks to this Government’s policies, and local parents are happy with that provision, nothing should be done to disturb that delicate local balance?
I do, and I have been very clear today that, as part of the consultation, we understand that we need to work with local communities. This is about more choice; it is not about dictating which schools people should have locally.
May I press the Secretary of State on STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects? With the Humber becoming the UK’s energy estuary, thousands of new jobs will depend on people having scientific and vocational qualifications and good apprenticeships. If we are really serious about schools that work for everyone—we already have academies, we are getting a universal technical college and we have free schools—would it not be much better to concentrate on making them work best for our children, rather than introduce grammar schools, which are for a bygone age and not for this century?
I will say two things in response. First, we have seen significant improvements in children’s attainment in maths and English over recent years, and we are introducing a more stretching curriculum for GCSEs. Set against that, some of the schools that are delivering best for children in achieving attainment in STEM subjects are themselves grammars, so it makes sense to look at how we can give parents in other parts of the country more choice to send their child to a local grammar.
I welcome both the process and the breadth of the debate launched by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. We have four historic grammar schools in Gloucester, and for some time I have very much wanted to increase significantly the numbers of free-school-meal pupils who attend them, as well as the numbers of pupils who live closest to them. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those issues and, indeed, options for how best to achieve them will form part of her Department’s subsequent White Paper?
I will be keen to see my hon. Friend’s response to the Green Paper and the consultation document. It very much sets out these issues, and we will take account of the responses that we get. As he knows, many of the children at his local grammars are from outside his local area. That suggests that there is broader demand from parents, and we should respond to that.
May I remind the Secretary of State that educational standards improved immeasurably in London as a result of the Labour Government’s London Challenge? It focused on standards of education in the classroom, quality teaching and excellent leadership, and it involved the collaboration of schools across the capital. We had a similar scheme in Greater Manchester, the Greater Manchester Challenge, which sadly was scrapped in the early days of the previous coalition Government. May I urge the Secretary of State, as part of this process, to focus not solely on structures but on collaboration, the drive for better standards and making sure we best use teaching and leadership to drive up educational standards in places such as Greater Manchester?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are setting out some proposals today about how we can get more good school places for more children, but they sit alongside all the things that he has talked about, such as standards, quality and strong leadership. I believe that grammars have many of those features, but, as he sets out, many other schools have them too. That is why we have done so much work to raise overall school standards over the last six years, and more schools than ever before are now good or outstanding. I was surprised not to hear him mention the Manchester expo proposal, which I know his local area is developing, so I thought I would do so on his behalf.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and her willingness to challenge the status quo and the one-size-fits- all approach to education. May I seek an assurance that in this review she will not neglect rural areas, where some communities may only have one secondary school within easy travelling distance; that she will look at how to increase diversity and choice for families in those circumstances; and that she will continue to address the shortfall in the education funding that many rural areas receive?
My hon. Friend has set out, as in previous points that have been made, the particular challenges that rural communities face in having strong choice and strong school places locally. I assure him that I am well aware that hon. Members in rural areas are concerned to see us get on with the national funding formula next steps, and we will be announcing what we are going to do shortly.
May I give the Secretary of State the opportunity to answer a question that I tried to get her to answer last week, which she simply failed to address? We can either have school selection or we can have parental choice; on one hand the school selects, and on the other the parents choose. Which is it?
In the end, it is both. At the moment, many parents do not have the choice of a grammar school, so it makes sense to see what we can do to rectify that. I disagree with the underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which is that if a child cannot get into a grammar, there are no other good schools around for them. We want to make sure that there are. In many parts of the country, grammars and non-grammar schools coexist very well together and, indeed, work very effectively together. We would be wrong not to respond to parents who want more good school places and the option of a grammar school for their child.
May I take the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend to congratulate Portsmouth schools, both academy and comprehensive, on another improvement in their results this year; and to congratulate St Edmund’s Catholic School on becoming an outstanding comprehensive? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that whatever structures we have, be they academies, grammars or comprehensives, the Government will concentrate on the quality of teaching, because that has the most crucial impact in raising standards?
I congratulate the schools in my hon. Friend’s local area on their recent results, which are down not only to the hard work of the children, but to the dedication of the teachers in those schools that has enabled the children to do so well. As she points out, in the end this comes down to improving the quality of teaching—that is how we get good schools—and we believe that grammars can play a role in that.
The former Prime Minister, who has been mentioned in the Chamber—we will miss him around the Commons—did not go to a grammar school, but his parents managed to get him into a decent school. Is that not the point? I went to a grammar school, and I would not wish to deny that to youngsters growing up on working-class estates like the one where I grew up.
Will the Secretary of State take on one thing, which is that, increasingly, people will not be going to their nearest school? In Ribble Valley, we have Clitheroe Royal Grammar School and a number of other good schools, yet the county council refuses to give assistance to youngsters not going to their closest school. Parents are being clobbered with costs of £600, or sometimes of over £1,000 if they have two youngsters who are not going to the nearest school. Will she work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to make sure that parents and youngsters are not financially disadvantaged?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In many respects, the fact that parents want places closer to where their children live underlines why we are right to give parents more choice. He raises the issue of transport costs. I am very well aware of it, and I will certainly look at what I can do to ensure that, wherever children are in our country, transport costs are not a barrier to going to the school they get into.
We are very lucky in my constituency, because the brightest young people from all backgrounds are already flourishing in my locally run local education authority schools, local academies and the co-operative trust school, and we are very well served with progression to two sixth-form colleges—Greenhead College and Huddersfield New College. Will the Secretary of State assure me and local parents that this is a genuine consultation, and will she focus on social mobility and funding for smaller schools, rather than selection and segregation?
I assure my hon. Friend that this is a very open and genuine Green Paper consultation. I will be interested to see the submission he makes to it. As I have said to many hon. Members, this is not about forcing local communities to have schools that they do not want; it is about working with local communities and simply giving parents more choice, if that is what they want. At the moment, there are too many parts of the country where people want it but do not have it, and we should try to do something about that.
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place, and I also welcome her suggestions for educational reforms. May I suggest that this is not about segregation, as has been suggested by some Members on both sides of the House, but about aspiration? We only have to look at our Olympic gold medallists and other medallists, who are streamed to perfection—not everyone can attain that—and the inspiration derived from their success that ripples the whole way down to those who, perhaps like me, are not the best at the 100 metres.
As my hon. Friend points out, raising children’s expectations, and also their parents’ expectations, is absolutely critical. We believe we can open up our school system to allow selection to play a role in helping that take place, but I have also set out how I want independent schools and universities to play a stronger role. Doing so will fundamentally set goals high for our children, and if they are set high, children have a chance of reaching them.
Rugby has three outstanding grammar schools, and parents will be delighted that they are able to expand. The very fact of their excellence means that bright youngsters from towns and cities outside Rugby apply for and are allocated places at them, some of which might otherwise go to Rugby children. Does the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the fact that not only will the development of grammar schools in other areas be right for those areas, but it will mean that a greater proportion of our selective places can be taken up by Rugby pupils?
Indeed, I do. Although it was depressing to hear Labour Members not even willing to engage with the sort of issues that local communities actually face, we are right to open up this debate so that we can take a measured approach to understanding what a 21st-century policy on grammars should be.
I am grateful for your generosity in allowing me to ask a question following my absence, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about the fact that schools have already started to change their admissions exams to recognise that the over-tutoring of children just to squeeze them into grammar schools can have a negative effect, because they may struggle for the following seven years.
We were asked for a London example. Does the Secretary of State agree that the example of Sutton is a good one? There are six either fully or partly selective schools working closely with two Catholic schools, two schools that provide extra assistance to those who are gifted at sport, and other schools that provide a wide range of vocational training, including Stanley Park High School in the neighbouring constituency of Carshalton and Wallington. Stanley Park has gone from being an average state school to being The Times Educational Supplement’s secondary school of the year. All that is underpinned by inspirational leadership and great teaching, which is what can make schools work for everyone.
The hon. Gentleman has obviously used the long wait to allow his thoughts to fructify in his mind. We are deeply obliged to him.
My hon. Friend sets out how a number of very different schools can work together effectively to raise standards and attainment collectively, while at the same time giving parents a choice so that they can find the school nearby that will be best for their child. That is precisely what we are aiming for in opening up the debate and issuing the Green Paper, and I look forward to continuing that over the coming months.
I thank the Secretary of State and all colleagues who have taken part in this important series of exchanges.
Arms Export Controls (Countries of Concern) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tom Brake presented a Bill to establish a presumption against licensing arms exports to certain countries designated by the Secretary of State as being countries of concern in relation to their respect for human rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 63).