Grammar schools are an electoral loser for the Tories

Can I ask a question?

If support for grammar schools is a litmus test of a truly Conservative policy why didn't the Thatcher and Major Governments reintroduce them?

Introducing grammar schools has not been the policy of a Conservative Government since 1964. Since 1997, when a rather odd pledge was made in the manifesto, the Party has argued for the re-introduction of some selection, but always half-heartedly. It denied that it was in favour of the eleven plus. The policy, in truth, has always been incoherent.

There is a good reason for this reticence. The Tories worked out about 30 years ago that grammar schools were a vote loser.

There is a robust intellectual debate (see here, here, here, and especially here) going on about the impact of selective schools on mobility and long may it continue. But the politics shouldn't just be ignored. The Tories have never won an election advocating the re-introduction of grammar schools.

Margaret Thatcher understood this. Should David Cameron be expected to ignore it? David Willetts is trying to find an elegant intellectual way off an electoral hook.

Comments

[John Allen]

No government in a long time has advocated closing the remaining grammar schools either, because everyone knows that the pupils they serve would be let down by the alternative. Without hypocrisy at some level, this can't be squared with the other truth that nobody advocates reintroducing them because it would be unpopular, and potentially unfair on the pupils who would be left behind by selection.

In ignoring this hypocrisy, Willetts isn't being elegant. He may be right that the poor are let down by grammars. But Blair's academies are not necessarily the answer (as the Tories have until now been pointing out). Many are no better at raising standards than the schools they have replaced.

The Tories need to tell us what degree of selection they would support, and at what level. They then need to devise a school system to this end, preferably based as closely as possible on the 'comprehensive' school since that model is broadly acceptable to the public. We can then vote for this, or not, at the next election. Getting off this hook would be much easier if there was a cogent new policy to rest on.

The times had a paragraph titled "grammar rethink" which suggested (although there was nothing to indicate it in the rest of the text) that there was a change of policy. Its possible, i suppose, to argue in the most literal sense that it was being thought about again.
I was surprised by this as i was fairly certain that it wasnt conservative policy to set up new grammar schools.
P.M. also seemed to suggest that this was something new though i cant remember the exact wording and presented it as new Cameron inspired in contrast to "traditional" thinking and opposed by "traditional tories".
What is written here suggests there has been no real change (or at least not such a simplistic one)

[IRJMilne]

I think Mr Cameron has lost votes in a few areas - he'll lose a few votes round here (London Borough of Sutton), where the grammar school system is very popular.

I'm not long out of a grammar school, and have always regarded support for the grammar system as a touchstone issue. So long as the current grammar schools are safe, it's not an issue on which I would drop my vote for the Tories.

But I now disagree with them on civil partnerships, grammar schools, party funding, house of lords reform, relative poverty - they annoyed me over Patrick Mercer's sacking, I thought "disproportionate" was the wrong word on the Lebanon war, they still don't have a health policy, and people like Cameron and Osbourne strike me as too young. And can I trust a man who cycles to the Commons but has his suit and papers brought behind by his chauffeur?

It all stacks up, you know, over time. This really could be a votewinner for UKIP - enough of a votewinner to cost Cameron the odd crucial seat here and there. It might only take a couple of dozen votes going that way in some areas.

The obvious point also has to be made, that there's no point winning power if you're implementing the other side's ideas.

[Ken]

Indeed, what some of the advocates of grammar schools at ConHome should remember is that Thatcher supported abandoning grammar schools at the time they were abandoned. One of the reasons I find it hard to like her, I must admit.

[Ross]

The Grammar-Secondry Modern system is better than the Comprehensive system but they are not the only two possible models. Selection by the governement of which pupils o where is still an incredibly statist idea, and something like a voucher system would be superior to either.

Of course Daniel Finkelstein is wrong to say that "David Willetts is trying to find an elegant intellectual way off an electoral hook.", for the simple reason that few people were aware that it was current Tory policy and therefore it could have been ditched painlessly by simply keeping silent about it.

[Anthony Back]

The people who object to academic selection must explain why selection in sport, music, singing etc, etc is OK but selection for academic ability is a breach of human rights. The idea that setting in schools can achieve an ethos of work for the high-flyers is fantasy as anyone who has taught in schools of various types can testify. The dominant culture is quickly that of the tough more assertive types and academic excellence is sacrificed on the altar of an egalitarian pipe dream. The 11+ is not the only way that selection can take place and indeed in many countries there is swapping between schools at later stages after experience of and suitability for the type of work has been gained.

If Cameron expects his followers to tamely accept his diktat on this very important subject I can assure him that here is one potential Tory voter that he will lose. I doubt that I am alone.