asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue guidelines to local authorities in connection with the provision of free school transport.

No, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is great concern in Somerset due to the fact that all discretionary transport for school children may have to be withdrawn? As most discretionary transport is given on the ground of road safety in this rural area, and as the children who lose their transport will be at considerable risk if it is withdrawn, will the right hon. Gentleman hasten any changes in legislation that are required for the introduction of of fare-paying services to replace school transport?

As the House knows from previous Questions there is no unanimity or any consensus among local authorities about any change in school transport arrangements. It was because I was concerned about exactly the points the hon. Gentleman has made that I made proposals just under a year ago. We can get no consent and, therefore, no changes are at present contemplated. As for Somerset's decision, it is within the discretion of the authority, and it would not be right for me to interfere with a local authority's discretion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Gloucestershire, too, considerable hardship is being caused to working-class parents by the withdrawal of concessionary fares for their children travelling on school transport? Does he agree that it would be helpful if there could be more centralised guidance on matters such as school transport?

The arrangements for school transport are well known and have not changed. The issue of concessionary fares is a matter for the transport operators and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I know that this is a matter that has attracted their attention. It is not within my powers to deal with concessionary fares.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in my constituency there is considerable resentment as between parents who live within the three-mile area or who are on the border and those who live just beyond it and who are supplied with free transport as a result? Is he aware that there is growing resentment about this? Will he seriously consider the possibility of standard fares for all? Although it is right that the right hon. Gentleman should not give an instruction, when does he intend to give some form of guidance to local authorities on this matter?

I issued proposals to the local authorities, and the county councils are very much opposed to any change. There was nowhere any desire to have exactly the same system as the hon. Gentleman has outlined, which is a good summary of what I proposed. Without local authority support, it is impossible to change the system.

I do not follow my right hon. Friend on the last point. The fact that the local authorities are unable to agree or to give guidance to my right hon. Friend does not mean that he has to abdicate his right to legislate on this matter.

Legislation would be required to change the statutory distances. The main difficulty, however, is that some element of the cost is borne by the local rates, and local authorities already have substantial difficulty in maintaining their expenditures within the guidelines of Government policy. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to try to impose a policy which they were all against.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of GCE O-level candidates obtained two or more Grade 1 passes in 1967; and what was the equivalent percentage in 1975.

The exact information required is not available. Until 1975, GCE O-level examination results were reported only as passes or failures. Since then Grades A to E have been awarded, of which A, B and C may be taken as equivalent to the former "pass". In 1967, 80 per cent. of the 234,000 pupils who left school after attempting O-level achieved two or more passes; in 1975, 64 per cent. of the 340,000 who attempted O-level achieved Grade C or above in two or more subjects.

I accept that the statistical evidence is not easy to interpret. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Labour Members obviously did not listen to the answer. I accept the problem of making comparisons over a period of time, but does the Minister accept that recent reports and studies of examination results have enhanced parental and public anxiety about standards? Will he accept that it is time that Ministers gave time to responding to that aspect rather than put the best possible gloss on each piece of evidence?

I was unaware that I put a gloss on some rather complex evidence. The most significant feature is the very greatly increased number of pupils who are taking O-levels. That is partly the result of the raising of the school leaving age. The other evidence is susceptible to more than one explanation, and I would not wish to hazard a view at this stage.

Will the Minister turn his face firmly against those who would propose the abolition of "failure" and ensure that, whatever changes take place in the examination structure, those who pass pass and those who fail fail, so that we know which is which?

I do not wish to comment at this stage upon proposals to change the examination structure. I should be delighted to aboblish failure from our society.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will institute an inquiry into the numeracy of children.

We are convinced of the importance of numeracy, but we are not equally convinced at present that an inquiry is the best way of proceeding.

Will the Under-Secretary accept that many people are worried that a number of children who are likely to leave school this year can barely add up? Will she consider the possibility of establishing an emergency teaching course, using the so-called cascade system, which has been so successful in the United States and which might go some way to alleviating the likelihood of a large number of teachers and school leavers being in the dole queue in the autumn?

Views about the ability of people to be numerate or literate are based on subjective comment rather than on statistical evidence. We are concerned about this matter and it is now being studied by the Assessment of Performance Unit, whose report we await.

On what evidence does the Department believe that there is no real problem of numeracy? If the Department is now seeking to rely on a future report by the Assessment of Performance Unit, what has the Department been doing in the last 20 years?

I have no idea where the hon. Gentleman got the idea that I believe there is no problem of numeracy. He seems to have made it up, because the idea came from no words of mine. Work is being carried out by such people as the National Foundation for Educational Research and the Schools Council on numeracy training in mathematics and allied subjects over the years. Furthermore, Her Majesty's Inspectorate is now carrying out a survey of primary and secondary schools, which we are coupling with the work of the Assessment of Performance Unit into difficulties and ways of removing difficulties associated with numeracy. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman drew his conclusions before he even asked his supplementary question, which he based on something that had never been said.

Is not the hon. Lady aware that the situation concerning numeracy is even worse than that in regard to literacy? Does she not appreciate that a recent conference of vice-presidents of technical institutions stated that pupils coming to them at the age of 16 had obtained a standard of numeracy of only 11½ years? Will she please be less complacent on this vital issue?

I am aware that many comments and assumptions are made by many people in education, and not just about standards of numeracy. However, I am not aware of any sensible, valid statistical evidence. Indeed, it comes ill from the Opposition to be arguing and commenting on numeracy when basing their comments on a total lack of understanding of what is involved in the statistical evidence in judging any kind of assessment of numeracy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are characterised by a negative approach to the educational system, about which most of them know very little, and seize avidly on every condemnatory report which is published and never pay the slightest attention to the workings of the system in general? It would do them all good to study the primary sector system, because they would then discover that it is the pride and joy of international education.

I fear even more the results of Conservative Members having studied published works. In spite of their claims about the efficacy of past education, when presumably they were at school, their dislike of present standards of education does not lead them to draw sensible conclusions and the standards which they apply in judging the findings of published reports is such that they wildly extrapolate anything that seems to convey their own prejudices in a way that makes people quail.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many parents will be unable to send their children to the comprehensive school of their first choice in the forthcoming academic year.

The Department does not normally receive this information from local education authorities, and in any event it is too early to say what the position will turn out to be next term because the allocations have not been completed in all cases.

Will the hon. Lady take the opportunity to advise the Secretary of State to consult parents in the South-West Hertfordshire area who have failed to obtain a first choice for their children in comprehensive schools, with the result that they feel there is a diminishing influence among parents in terms of school choice? Will she ensure that the fullest opportunity is taken to restore the Watford Grammar School to a proper place in our educational system?

Such choice of school cases which have been passed to my Department are being carefully considered on all the facts at our command. We shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as a decision has been reached.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Tameside 90 per cent. of parents have a first choice and that out of 800 children only 240 places can be allocated? Is she further aware that only 60 of those pupils who are so placed will be girls? In these circumstances, what does the Department propose to do to bring back real parental choice to Tameside as existed before the Tories were elected to power there?

I think that the final part of my hon. Friend's question is for my right hon. Friend later. It seems to me to be an excellent example of what is really meant by parental choice as evinced by Conservative Members.

Will the Minister explain how it comes about that parents have their first choice if they then prefer to choose a second school, having been given the option by the council?

I think that the hon. Gentleman does not really understand his own question. If parents are given a choice of school in a system which they know is intended to be comprehensive, it is a rather different matter from where parents have a choice of schools in a system which is divided between grammar and secondary modern schools, where, one presumes, the situation in the past was that less money was spent on secondary modern than on grammar schools.

Is my hon. Friend concerned at the proposal of the Tory-controlled Calderdale Council to reintroduce selection into Elland, in my constituency, where it was abolished 17 years ago, by proposing not to provide temporary accommodation for a temporary increase in the number of pupils wishing to attend Brooksbank School, thereby denying to parents the opportunity to send their children to this school and enforcing selection because their children must attend schools outside the area?

My hon. Friend knows that we on the Government side are very much opposed to selection with all its inaccuracies and difficulties, and that we believe in comprehensive education. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend will know, many of these matters are very much within the power of local authorities to decide.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the present staff-pupil ratios in primary and secondary schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the national average teacher-pupil ratio for the academic year 1975–76.

Definitive figures are not yet available, but preliminary estimates for January 1976 show that teacher-pupil ratios in maintained schools in England and Wales were then about 1 to 23·9 in primary schools and 1 to 17·0 in secondary schools, giving a combined national average of about 1 to 20·3.

Since parents are very concerned about educational standards and about class sizes, does the hon. Lady accept that parents are increasingly concerned about the lack of balance in terms of priorities in education? Does she accept that many parents would be prepared to pay more for school meals and to obtain more resources with a view to reducing class size as a result?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the school meals subsidy is a national matter, whereas the amount spent on teacher employees and the number of teachers employed, are matters for local education authorities. There is no simple balance between one and the other.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that, despite any restrictions on public expenditure, there will be no significant worsening in the pupil-teacher ratio? Will she suggest to local authorities that if they want to make cuts in education they should start by looking at administration costs, which have been grossly swollen since local government reorganisation was pushed through the House by the Conservative Government?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend has said. The rate support grant settlement was based on the assumption by my Department that local authorities would maintain their existing staffing ratios. Where they make other cuts is a matter for them.

On 14th July the Secretary of State urged local authorities to set up part-time courses, three days a week, for 16-year-olds, to help cope with the youth unemployment problem. What effect will that have on the teacher-pupil ratio? Has any estimate been made of cost? If the costs increase, how are local education authorities to find the money?

I am not sure that it will have any effect specifically on the teacher-pupil ratio. The aim of the 16–19 provision was partly to deal with children who might not be willing to stay on at school or were not interested in doing so. I do not think it can have any direct effect such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Will my hon. Friend give the figures for teacher-pupil ratio north of the Trent and south of the Trent? Concerning school meals, will she treat with indifference the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)? If we put up the price of children's meals, a good many children of poor families will not be able to afford them and will therefore go without their main meal of the day.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have already dealt with that supplementary question by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) concerning school meals. I cannot offhand give my hon. Friend the pupil-teacher ratios north and south of the Trent, but I shall write to him with that information.

Although the pupil-teacher ratio is of the utmost importance, does not the Under-Secretary agree that the quality of teachers is even more important? Will she tell the House what the Department is doing to improve the quality of young persons coming into the teaching profession?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman would have us do. We are certainly doing our utmost to see that people accepted for training as teachers are suited for such training. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is always the case, in a difficult employment situation, that perhaps those who do a little better get jobs more easily than those who have less high qualifications. But it is, I am sure, the case that most of our teaching force are people of a very high quality. It is to be regretted that we are not able to employ more of them in our schools at the moment rather than make the assumption—which I recognise is common to the Conservative Party—that those who are successful deserve to be so and that the others are automatically failures.

Although I recognise the importance of the pupil-teacher ratio, may I ask the hon. Lady whether she is aware that there has been a fall of 25 per cent. in the average number of pupils per teacher in the last 25 years? Is she further aware that it was hoped that this would lead to an increase in education standards but that this has not happened? Does not this indicate that the quality of teachers and also the assessment of teaching method are equally as important as pupil-teacher ratios?

I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is only too willing to seize on any piece of evidence, however unrelated, to try to prove his assumption that methods of teaching and the results of teaching in schools are getting worse. But I know of no statistical and objective evidence to support the contention that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward not only today but continually. He is always willing to draw very sweeping conclusions from evidence which does not necessarily point in the direction that he suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will have discussions with local authorities with a view to bringing about an increase in the staff of further education colleges so as to provide greater training facilities for unemployed school leavers in September 1976.

No, Sir. The Government have made provision in the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 to take account of some increase in staffing to match the forecast growth in the number of students, and the Training Services Agency provides additional resources for training facilities at colleges in appropriate cases. It is for the local authorities to decide whether additional staff are needed at particular colleges to provide greater training facilities.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the co-ordination between the Training Services Agency and the further education colleges makes the most efficient use of the manpower we possess and are prepared to pay for in order to alleviate the problem of youth unemployment?

I think there is a good relationship between the TSA and the local authorities, but, as my hon. Friend will realise, in any event I have no power to make any direct payments to local authorities for particular purposes. The rate support grant settlement would, of course, be a very blunt instrument for what my hon. Friend has in mind. Naturally, if he has any particular problems and lets me know about them, I shall take them up with the TSA.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement as to any future policy initiatives he is considering with regard to young people within his remit, excluding the establishment of committees composed principally of officials.

My right hon. Friend has no statement to make at the present time.

Does the Minister agree that the appalling track record of the youth department, coupled with his own lack of interest in and sympathy with the needs and plight of young people, surely deserves an entry in the Guinness Book of Records?

I really do not understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's question, save possibly to be insulting. I am at least establishing a national youth forum. It was the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, as a member of the Conservative Administration, who abolished the old National Consultative Council. I am ensuring that it will have at least one-third of its permanent membership composed of young people under the age of 26. That is great progress by the standards of the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about the Schools Council's proposal of a single examination to replace GCE and CSE.

The Schools Council recommended to me on 8th July that I should approve the establishment of a common system of examining at 16-plus. I am considering the recommendation but cannot at this stage give an indication of when I shall reach conclusions. As I said in my reply on 6th July to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), the Schools Council recommendations are of very great importance and it will not be practicable or desirable to reach immediate decisions about them.

I am sure that we all welcome the Secretary of State's caution. However, will he look very critically and warily at this proposal in view of the considerable hostility it has aroused already? On this issue at least, will he take a firm stand for academic standards as the paramount consideration in reaching a decision?

I understand the hon. Member's point of view, but on the one hand to commend me to a course of caution and on the other to commit me to a proposition is not wholly consistent.

Will my right hon. Friend be cautious from another point of view and ensure that there is no neglect of the third mode—the school-based mode—which in the present CSE system has been developed so successfully in South Yorkshire?

The proposal suggests that modes 1, 2 and 3 should all be used in any examination system.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent comment by a leading headmaster that examinations are a test not only of those who take them but also of those who teach? Perhaps this is the reason for the growing disfavour with which examinations are regarded.

I have no particular affection for examinations. If a body puts proposals before me, I shall examine them. There is much to be said for some reform of the present system. I should, however, be allowed a little time to consider these proposals, because my predecessor in the Conservative Government, the present Leader of the Opposition, took 13 months to reply to a suggestion about the number of grades of A-levels.

Whatever conclusion my right hon. Friend reaches, does he agree that any examination at 16 is a very poor guide to the skills, attainments, aptitudes or abilities of an individual, let alone his prospects for the future? Does my right hon. Friend agree that employers should take more note of an employee's skills and aptitudes rather than rely specifically on this subjective form of testing?

I agree that one should not attach undue importance to examinations. However, from the point of view of motivation of the pupil and the need for sonic sort of assessment, there is unanimous agreement that there should be some kind of examination system. The question we must consider is how best it can be devised and administered.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals following the Schools Council's proposals to scrap the GCE O-level and CSE examinations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from industrialists concerning the Schools Council proposal to scrap the GCE O-level and the CSE examinations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had regarding the replacement of CSE and O-level by a single examination.

I have received 70 letters about the Schools Council recommendations on a common system of examining at 16-plus. Of these, three are from industrial interests. In general, my replies have assured correspondents that their representations will be borne in mind. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has not made direct representations to me but has sent me a copy of a statement which it has made to the Schools Council.

Will the Secretary of State try to educate his Minister of State into the view that as far as university entrance is concerned it is one of the facts of life that selection cannot be eliminated and, therefore, there will be failures? It is only a question of how best one can measure selection and decide who are the failures.

That is a very interesting piece of philosophy, but it does not fit in with the correspondence I have received about the 16-plus examination.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there is disagreement about the detailed application of any new system of administration of this examination, there is widespread agreement among all sections of the educational movement that a common system of examination is necessary because of the dreadful expense, overlap and waste of public money that is going on under the present system? Does he also agree—

Order. We are due to rise on Friday.

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says about a common system examination, but I shall not come to a view on it before we rise on Friday.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, if present trends continue and all these fashionable views continue to pour forth from such bodies, we shall have children claiming social security at five and pensions at 16?

I have heard the hon. Gentleman to better advantage than he is showing this afternoon. As a matter of history, the Schools Council was established by a Conservative administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will issue a circular to education authorities advising them to avoid the proliferation in schools of posts and special allowances related to administrative duties rather than teaching responsibilities, particularly in the context of secondary reorganisation.

No. It is for local education authorities to decide, within the limits prescribed by the Burnham Committee, the number of promoted posts in schools and the duties attached to them.

Does not the Burnham Committee have a lot to answer for in this respect? Does the Secretary of State recognise that dedicated teachers find that it is to their financial disadvantage to concentrate their efforts in the classroom? They find that it is more rewarding to be year tutors, the person in charge of the resources centre or the person in charge of the library. Will he accept that teaching is being downgraded financially in favour of administration?

There is a good deal in what the hon. Member says. However, he is inviting me to make a far more radical change in the relationship between central and local government than I have so far contemplated.

Is it not a fact that the present promotion system has the effect of taking teachers out of the classroom and putting them into the administrative section? Is it not the duty of the Department to negotiate a better system with the unions concerned so that much greater emphasis is placed on teaching and there is some form of democratic administration in schools, with a diminution in the headmaster's powers and a greater emphasis on those of the teachers?

All these problems should be the first concern of the teachers' unions and those who are party to the arrangements. I am not party to them and I do not employ teachers. However, I shall convey my hon. Friend's views to those who are concerned with this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will disband the Schools Council.

This issue was debated at length in this House on 21st July. My right hon. Friend welcomed the withdrawal of the amendment to the Education Bill which sought to discontinue the Schools Council.

Does the hon. Lady accept that, whatever might be the obvious advantages of having an independent body such as the Schools Council to give advice, the proposals that the council has put forward in recent years, particularly those relating to the existing examination structure and its future, have led to a loss of confidence in that body by one of the most important elements in the education structure—namely, the parents?

The hon. Member is making a sweeping assumption. He is concentrating on one aspect of the Schools Council work—that of examinations. I am not aware of any evidence of gross dissatisfaction among parents with the present system such as he outlines. Certainly there are other aspects of the council's work. It gives advice to my right hon. Friend and to teachers on aspects of the curriculum and it produces all kinds of information to assist teachers. In this aspect of its work it is of great value to schools. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are too fond of concentrating on one aspect of the council's work and criticising it in a very ill-informed way.

Once again, Opposition Members are trying to destroy the Schools Council. That is characteristic of the way they behave. They want to destroy a great deal of our educational system. The statement made by the hon. Member that the council has lost the support of parents is absolute nonsense. The Schools Council is a valuable body which takes account of what is happening in education—unlike hon. Members opposite—and endeavours to advise my right hon. Friend on the best way to advance education.

It was notable in the debate we had on this matter on the Education Bill that hon. Members opposite sought to have the Schools Council abolished but had no proposals about what should be put in its place.

Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a need for reform of the composition of the Schools Council? Will she recommend this course to her right hon. Friend so that the customers of the education service—the representatives of industry, the trade unions, commerce and the professions—are better represented on the council? Education is too important to be left to educationalists alone.

The hon. Member was either not listening or he has a very bad memory. When we debated this matter, I made it plain that reform of the membership of the council was under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children aged between five and nine years are currently attending schools which were built before 1870.

It is estimated that about 1 million children aged from five to nine years are in schools with some or all of their teaching accommodation dating from before 1903. It is not known how many of these are in buildings dating from before 1870.

That is a terrible indictment. Would it not be better by far, if the Government were serious about giving equal opportunity in education, for them to spend more money on trying to improve these schools rather than squander money on forcing through comprehensive education against the wishes of the local authorities?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, fortunately or not, we have not squandered and are not squandering money on introducing comprehensive education. Furthermore, if the failure to replace primary schools dating from 1870 or 1903 is an indictment, it is an indictment of successive Governments and not merely of this Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us attended educational institutions built long before 1870 and that we have finished up here none the less?

I am not quite sure what conclusions my hon. Friend would wish me to draw from his statement. Certainly I agree that the age of buildings does not necessarily relate to the quality of education provided therein. I have always understood that many Conservatives, when discussing public schools and grammar schools, place great emphasis on the length of time that the establishment has been in existence and upon the age of the building.

Will the Under-Secretary try to persuade the Derbyshire County Council that it is better to spend £2 million to bring up to date many of the schools dating from before this century than to try to impose comprehensive education against the wishes of the parents in Derbyshire?

I understand that the authority in Derbyshire is doing and has done what it can to improve the primary schools there. I am well aware that it has a particular problem, as has been drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am not aware that the authority is spending so much on comprehensive education that it would be possible for it, by redirecting resources, to improve overnight all the primary schools which present these problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have not yet submitted plans to his Department for the introduction of comprehensive secondary education.

One authority has not submitted proposals for the introduction of comprehensive education in any part of its area. Six others have not yet indicated their intention to end all selection and introduce a fully comprehensive pattern throughout their areas.

Is the Minister aware that local education authorities which have not yet submitted their proposals are merely trying to stand out against imposed uniformity from the Labour Government? Is he further aware that they are doing so with the full support of the European Convention on Human Rights, which his Government have just signed, and with the full support of parents throughout the country?

But not with the full support of this House, since it gave a Third Reading recently to the Education Bill.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is reported that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has stated that if the decision over Tameside were reversed by legislation it would probably be challenged in the courts? Does that not call into question the authority of Parliament?

I agree with my hon. Friend if that comment were made. The remark has escaped my attention, as does so much that is said by the hon. Gentleman.

Does not the Minister agree that it would be premature for local authorities to submit plans for reorganisation unless the Secretary of State can first guarantee that the necessary resources for such reorganisation will be made available?

No. It is always better if one is embarking on a journey to have a map and to know one's destination. That is what planning is all about.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great distress that is being caused to many parents and children at this time by the activities of the Tory Redbridge Council, which is insisting on retaining only two grammar schools in its area and upon imposing unsatisfactory selection methods in its comprehensive system of education?

Yes, I am aware of that. It reflects a doctrine commonly advanced by the Conservatives that it is possible to have selection and non-selection coexisting. That is a logical contradiction, not a practical one.

If the Government were convinced of the true merit of comprehensive schools, should there not be an inquiry into the results of existing schools to convince the sceptics that the Government are right, instead of the Government driving headlong onwards as at present, which will cause revolt against existing comprehensive schools?

The hon. Gentleman never misses a chance to knock our education system. I do not remember a cry from the Conservative Benches for an inquiry into the standards of grammar schools. Some small country grammar schools had very poor results, as the hon. Member knows. He did not ask for an inquiry into them. He knows, equally, the difficulties of inquiring into educational attainment at schools which are called comprehensive but which are creamed by the persistence of selection in many Tory authorities.