1. Article 2 Protocol No 1 of the European Convention on
Human Rights gives parents the right to choose an education for their children
‘in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions’.
Although this is now part of our law (Human Rights Act, 1998), it is honoured
more in the breach than the observance. The main thrust of recent government
policies has been to force children to attend their local school, regardless
of the religious, philosophical or academic ethos of that school. This suits
the bureaucratic and political mindset, but it directly conflicts with the
rights of parents.
2. We should like emphasise that the requirement by adjudicators
that parents whose children are entered for the 11-plus exam must state
their preferred choice of school BEFORE they know whether or not their child
has qualified for a place at a grammar school are vindictive and anti-choice.
This requirement clearly militates against parents who believe in ‘equality
of opportunity’ as against ‘equality of result’. It also
complicates the admissions system unnecessarily: without this requirement,
pupils who achieve a place at a grammar school could immediately be removed
from the LEAs’ admissions process to reduce the numbers in the system.
3. A fundamental point arises out of the evidence presented
by Professors Coldron, Fitz and West on 10 September. In answer to a question
(Q35) from Andrew Turner MP, all three professors admitted they believed
that: ‘Selection in any shape or form is damaging to the education
of pupils, and, therefore, if [they] had [their] way, [they] would abolish
selection in any shape or form in totality.’
This
is a very disturbing admission from three influential academics, who might
be expected to present an unbiased view based on objective evidence, rather
than their ideological beliefs. It is contrary to all objective evidence,
which shows that taking the performance of grammar and secondary modern
pupils together, a selective system produces results, on average, (around
10 per cent or more) better than a totally comprehensive system –
see, for example, The Betrayed Generations: Standards in British Schools
1950-2000 by Dr John Marks, CPS 2000; Grammar Schools in the Twenty-first
Century, NGSA 2001; and information on the National Grammar Schools Association
website, www.ngsa.org.uk.
Against
all the unmanipulated (ie not adjusted for value-added measures, or estimated
levels of free school meals) your expert advisers are suggesting that
selective schools show only ‘very tiny’ advantages in exam
results over the comprehensive system. They base this observation on the
work of Schagen and Schagen. But value-added places too much emphasis
on intermediate results, rather than final results. Hence, value-added
results often conflict with the results that come out of the system.
Amongst
a great deal of other evidence showing the superiority of selective schools,
Dr Marks quotes the following GCSE results:
Data
for GCSE for 2002 (Statistical First Release 26/2002. 17 October 2002)
School
Type |
%
5+A*C |
Pts/Pupil (8 best)
|
Pts/Pupil (All)
|
Grammar |
97.3 |
52.4 |
63.5 |
Secondary
Modern |
38.6 |
30.6 |
34.1 |
Comprehensive |
48.4 |
33.9 |
39.0 |
Selective
System |
58.2 |
37.9 |
43.9 |
(Presumably ‘8 best’ and ‘All’ refer to subjects)
Dr
Marks has also noted that secondary modern school pupils in England achieve
GCSE results which are only slightly below those for comprehensive school
pupils. Also that the secondary modern schools’ results are particularly
good for English and Mathematics, where they are, on average, better than
those for about 900 comprehensive schools, a third of the total. On the
measure of 5 or more A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent), secondary modern schools'
results are, on average, better than those for 700 comprehensive schools,
a quarter of the total. Moreover, Fred Naylor has noted that since 1967,
secondary modern schools have improved their percentage of pupils gaining
5 or more A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent) at 6 times the rate of comprehensive
schools.
It
seems remarkable that neither the Select Committee, nor its expert advisers,
seem to have taken any account of such evidence in their deliberations.
We should also point out that information from Comprehensive Future and
the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education invariably ignores
evidence on standards that does not favour their ideology.
When
around 50 per cent of pupils are now achieving 5 or more A*-C GCSEs, this
measure is obviously unsuitable for the top 20 to 30 per cent of pupils.
To measure their performance, it is necessary to look at 5 or more A*-A
grade GCSEs or 5 or more A*-B grade GCSEs. For example, on 20 May 2003,
Graham Brady MP received a written answer to a Parliamentary Question
about the percentages of pupils gaining 5 or more A*-A grade GCSEs and
5 or more grade A*-B grade GCSEs in wholly selective areas, wholly comprehensive
areas, and nationally, for the year 2002. The answer from David Miliband,
the schools standards minister, was as follows:
|
Wholly
Selective LEAs |
Wholly
Comprehensive LEAs |
National
Averages |
5 or more A*-A
grade GCSEs |
15.1% |
8.6% |
9.7% |
5 or more A*-B
grade GCSEs |
32.1% |
23.1% |
24.6% |
4. We should also emphasise that some grammar schools get 10 or more applicants to take the voluntary 11-plus exam for each available place. This clearly shows that parents and their children are prepared to face extremely fierce odds in the hope of achieving an education in accordance with their philosophical convictions and human rights. It also shows that parents would like the choice of more, not fewer, academically selective schools. (Of course, parents may choose to have their child educated in accordance with the comprehensive ideal, but this should be understood as a philosophical/political choice, rather than an educational choice which is based on evidence about which system produces the better academic results.)
5. All of the above is, of course, relevant to school admissions. Parents in all parts of the country want a choice of selective schools. Politicians, however, have control of taxpayers’ money. So they have a duty to supply that choice wherever possible. They also have a duty to ensure fair, acceptable and objective admissions criteria to cater for that choice.
National Grammar Schools Association
15 October 2003.
|
|
|