Chris Keates, the general secretary of the NASUWT teachers” union, said: “There is already more than an “element’ of selection in the system”.
Advertisement
In an effort to offset these problems, May said she’s considering whether new grammar schools should be required to take a quota of poor children, or to establish and run parallel non-selective schools.
The job of education in the 21st century is to maximise opportunity for the maximum number of children whatever their background.
The Prime Minister unveiled a series of ambitious education reforms on Friday, reaffirming her commitment to lift the ban on new grammar schools. Greening told the Commons that the government wanted a schools system that worked for everyone, but the opponents of grammar schools argue that these selective institutions do not work for everyone.
But May insisted there would be no return to the “binary” system of grammars and secondary moderns of old, even though children would still either pass or fail exams to enter selective schools at age 11 and upwards. Even more to the point, nearly none of the “experts” spewing out fear and loathing over the dire effect of grammar schools makes reference to the vast wastelands to the North, where their absence has been most deleterious.
Education Secretary Justine Greening told Parliament on Thursday that the government believes in so-called “selective grammar schools” but did not believe in a return to a “winners and losers” style split caused by 11-plus tests.
Labour have pledged to fight the grammar school plans “every step of the way”, while Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron predicted the “out-of-date, ineffective approach” would be defeated in the House of Lords, where Mrs May does not enjoy a majority.
“The Conservatives have to stop harking back to a bygone era – grammar schools are not the answer to raising standards in our children’s schools”.
Andy Woolley, South West regional secretary of the NUT, said: “Teacher retention and recruitment is at dangerously low levels, assessment is in disarray and insufficient school funding is impacting on the quality and range of educational experiences teachers can offer students”.
Sam Freedman, of the charity Teach First said: “Education experts are united that the evidence shows grammar schools harm social mobility”.
Responding to a question from the audience, Mr Gibb said: “A selective education can differ from that because you may want to go beyond the Ebacc combination”.
Responding to her opponents, Mrs May said: “We help no one – not least those who can’t afford to move house or pay for a private education – by saying to parents who want a selective education for their child that we won’t let them have it”.
In a time of great division in British politics, we shouldn’t underestimate the unifying potential of Theresa May’s grammar schools proposals.
The prime minister claimed that restoring academic selection to state schools, which mostly disappeared in England and Wales when comprehensive schools were introduced in the 1960s, would help to increase social mobility. “It is a future in which every child should have access to a good school place”, the PM said.
One person who is keen on the idea of an expansion is Patricia Bradwell, executive councillor for Children’s Services at Lincolnshire County Council, who welcomed Theresa May’s comments on grammar schools. Former Labour prime minister Tony Blair totally banned the creation of new grammars in 1998.
Advertisement
And Cabinet colleague Sir Michael Fallon – whose own constituency in Kent saw the opening of the first new grammar for half a century a year ago – denied that youngsters who miss out on selection will be consigned to “sink schools”.
