§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
10.26 pm§ Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)It might be helpful if I mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) will be using some of my time to make a contribution to this debate. I have previously advised my hon. Friend the Minister, who is to reply, of that fact.
I am concerned about the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire, and specifically in Rugby. It will help my hon. Friend the Minister if I tell him that the Labour and alliance-controlled Warwickshire county council has set up a working party to examine secondary education in the eastern and southern areas of Warwickshire. My hon. Friend will recall that it is now official Opposition and alliance policy to phase out grammar schools and it is certainly the intention of the Labour party to phase out grammar schools within two years.
I put it to my hon. Friend that that does not augur well for a fair decision in Warwickshire based on an impartial assessment of the facts presented to the working party. My hon. Friend will recall that Mrs. Shirley Williams, in the days when she was known as "Shirl the pearl," was responsible for the infamous Education Act 1976 which sought to destroy the grammar schools. That lady has now moved to another party, but it is significant that she has taken her philosophy with her and that the Labour party and the alliance remain committed to the destruction of the grammar schools. I find it most disappointing that those two parties are now hell-bent on destroying part of Britain's heritage.
You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are about 150 grammar schools in England and Wales. They cater for about 100,000 pupils. The quality of education in those schools is frequently not equalled elsewhere. It is particularly interesting to reflect on the fact that in philosophies as divergent as China and Germany, in France and the United States, selective education has been retained.
I want now to turn to Warwickshire and specifically Rugby. In the mid-1970s, the then area education officer in Rugby surveyed parents, seeking their opinion on the desirability of change. About 65 per cent. of parents then expressed the view that the present system of grammar and high schools should be maintained. I am unaware of any major change in public opinion since that survey was carried out. The only change of which I am aware is in the political control of Shire hall at Warwick.
The driving force, therefore, for change in Rugby's secondary schools is not educational; it is blatently political, and that is a poor reason for destroying proven schools.
In that connection, my hon. Friend will have noticed an early-day motion which states:
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take fully into account the strength of local support for grammar schools when any proposals for their abolition are submitted; recognises their influence on educational standards; and recalls that the much praised education system in Germany consists of the equivalent of grammar, technical and secondary modern schools.So far, more than 60 hon. Members have signed that early-day motion.126 In a speech in his constituency on 7 December 1985, my hon. Friend the Minister— the speech makes excellent reading—said:
In an article by Professor Anthony Flew, New Society, 17th November 1983, we can see quite clearly that, measured in terms of university entrants, working class children are actually worse off under the comprehensive system than they were under the old selective system, and worse off even than they were in the 1920s.Again, I quote from the same excellent speech:The National Council for Education Standards concludes from their study of the 1981 and 1982 results that better examination results are associated with the selective system of schools, whether it be a fully selective system of grammar and secondary moderns, or a mixture of selective and comprehensive schools…The proportion of school leavers achieving 5 or more 'O' levels and one or more 'A' levels in England rose during the 1950s and the 1960s, but then levelled off and only in the last few years has risen slowly again. But if I look more closely still, I find that it is the results of the independent schools that brought about that rising pattern.The Minister's comments and the NCES findings are borne out by the figures from the Warwickshire county council. It is significant, if we compare the percentage of pupils obtaining five higher grade results at O-level in each of the four education areas of Warwickshire from 1979 to 1985, that the eastern and southern areas come out best. Those are the areas which have maintained selective education. That is not a coincidence. I must stress that those are overall figures which include all secondary education in each of the areas. The inescapable conclusion is that, using examination results as a bench-mark, the present system benefits more pupils than does a single comprehensive system.It has been suggested that the difference in examination results between Rugby and, for example, the central area of Warwickshire is caused by the fact that more pupils in Rugby are entered for examinations. If that is the case, it suggests that children in Rugby, with its combination of high schools and grammar schools, have better education and examination opportunities than those in the neighbouring comprehensive system.
That is not an argument for change. The majority of parents have confidence in the present schools. Parents know that grammar schools provide a ladder of opportunity for those from less well-off backgrounds. In addition, in the high schools of the eastern area, there is a safety net that ensures that pupils can transfer at the age of 16 to grammar schools or to the college of further education to take their A-levels. A clear safety net exists which enables pupils to leave the high schools and to take A-levels.
It is extraordinary that, at a time of some financial constraint, Warwickshire county council can contemplate such a major change for so little reason. If funding is available, it should be used to improve existing schools for the benefit of our children.
It is sometimes argued that there are good social engineering reasons for introducing comprehensive education. Social engineering does not rate highly on the lists or agendas of most parents, and in any case the social mix which occurs within a grammar school is one of the keys to its success. That must be contrasted with the situation in many areas where parents vote with their feet and decide to move to make sure that their children are within the catchment area of a comprehensive school considered to be better than its neighbours. That seems to be a social engineering at its worst.
127 The Coventry Evening Telegraph is one of our excellent local newspapers. In this evening's issue there is a report of a visit by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to Stratford-on-Avon. The report says:
Dr. Boyson said people from many backgrounds had gone through grammar schools.Not only is the grammar school serving them but it's also serving the community.People had the opportunity to come through to the highest standards".That is the opinion of my hon. Friend and I certainly subscribe to that view. I suspect that my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) also subscribe to that opinion. It is important, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give clear weight to it when he replies to the debate.I should now like to draw attention to a significant local publication. The fact that it came out only once should not reduce its importance. The publication, "Rugby Labour Herald", is dated January 1983. I suspect that this is both a first and last edition. There might be some significance in its date, because at that time the Labour party was in opposition on Warwickshire county council. Now it is in an unholy alliance with the SDP and the Liberals and is in control. The headline in that publication is "Education—what a mess!", and it reads:
Proposals to phase out the grammar stream provision at Dunsmore and to close Fareham will not only mop up the surplus places, but will lower standards and cut options.It seems that at least in 1983 the Labour party was equating the phasing out of a grammar stream with a lowering of standards. Clearly, that is different from the dogma that is currently being preached, not just in Warwickshire but in the rest of the country.I should now like to quote from the National Education Association newsletter. Under the heading, "Views of a young member," it says:
For the past three years I have been an active member of the Labour Party (and the Socialist Education Association). While my interest in education has increased over this period, so has my disillusion with the Labour party's attitude to the subject. This year I have not rejoined, partly as a result of the local Party's education policy, which you may find interesting. I am not opposed to all the comprehensives and 6th Form colleges—we already have comprehensives and a non-advanced further education college on the Wirral which cater for particular needs, and appear to do so adequately. But I am strongly opposed (like a majority of people in the affected area) to the abolition of all school sixth forms, coupled with an end to selection in an area where (i) people want it (ii) it works well, proved not least by examination results. Furthermore, as an active member at all levels in the Labour Party, it is clear to me that the decisions have been reached on purely political grounds, with little consideration for standards. The local Labour Party is experimenting with the futures of children for the sake of ideology!One cannot help but believe that that young Socialist member speaks with the voice of experience, and I cannot help but agree with what he says. Change for the sake of change should be rejected.I speak principally as a consumer of education. I have six sons, five of whom were educated at one of our grammar schools. I am familiar with both the excellence and the quality of education at Lawrence Sheriff school. I am anxious that other boys should benefit from that school, as mine have, and I oppose the wilful destruction of proven schools for doctrinaire reasons. I maintain that change for no other reason than political dogma is wrong.
§ Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has a passionate concern for education standards which is as well known in Warwickshire as it is in the House. We should be grateful to him for introducing tonight's debate.
As my hon. Friend said, the threat to the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire is the product of ideological prejudice on the part of the Labour, Liberal and SDP parties in Warwickshire. My hon. Friend demonstrated that ideological attitude of the Labour party. But the Liberal party is also in this up to the eyeballs. The commitment to abolish selective education was in its manifesto for the last county council elections. Since then the Liberals have held the balance of power in Warwickshire. The schemes are being advanced against that political background. The Liberal spokesman is on record in last week's edition of the Evesham Journal as saying that the alliance is set to support the comprehensive scheme. That is of a piece with its faddish and ideologically prejudiced approach to education which can be seen in a range of ways.
We have witnessed the introduction of peace studies, the appointment of racism awareness advisers and now the movement towards the abolition of selective education in Warwickshire. This makes no sense. It certainly cannot be justified by an argument about falling school rolls. School rolls are falling in Warwickshire and all who are concerned about the education of children in Warwickshire recognise that there must be a constructive response. However, the comprehensive scheme proposed by the Labour/alliance coalition would result in comprehensive schools which are so small that, by reference to their own theory, the protagonists of the comprehensive system must find them inadequate. The argument about falling school roles certainly cannot apply in Stratford-upon-Avon where the population is growing.
If the Labour and alliance parties have their way, we shall have a botched-up scheme. Existing buildings will be adapted to unsuitable purposes, split-site schools will be introduced and schools will be split by arbitrary choice in terms of age range. It is not clear whether we shall have 11 to 16 federations with a separate sixth form, or whether we shall have a middle school where children who arrive at the age of 11 years, having established themselves, are expected to move to other premises at 13 years of age.
Whatever the variety of botch, it is certain that the cost will be massive. The ratepayers of Warwickshire are well disposed to paying to improve existing schools. They favour spending money to get rid of temporary classrooms and to ensure that there are enough books and equipment. There are some valid objects for expenditure in Warwickshire, but the ratepayers are not in the least interested in subsidising the ideological fantasies of local politicians.
We do not know the cost of the scheme, because no figures have been produced. The options paper was circulated a year ago—in April 1986—yet the detailed costings have not yet been produced.
Those of us who are inclined to be of a suspicious turn of mind are becoming increasingly convinced that the figures will not add up. Every time the figures are due to be vouchsafed, the meeting is deferred. We were led to expect that the figures would be produced in December, 129 and then again in January. Now we are told that there will be a meeting at the end of April, at which all will be revealed.
The costs are uncertain, but what is certain is that the proponents of comprehensivisation in Warwickshire are ignoring the excellence of the schools that they intend to abolish.
More that 75 per cent. of girls at Shottery girls grammar school, in Stratford, go on to higher education. Last year, the record of A-level passes was 89 per cent. and of O-level passes 88 per cent.
The school has an outstanding reputation and record of achievement in mathematics and physics. In mathematics, at O-level last year, of 64 candidates, 63 passed. There were 24 A grades and 30 B grades. Now, in the first year sixth, 25 girls are embarking on A-level mathematics courses and a significant number of them are interested in becoming engineers. In physics, at O-level, of the 64 girls who took O-levels last year, 59 opted for physics and 52 passed, 16 with an A grade and 20 with a B grade. This impressive record is not a flash in the pan.
Britain is not so well endowed with competent mathematicians and physicists that we can afford to jettison a school such as Shottery, which is a centre of excellence that recruits girls from all over Warwickshire. Yet the proposal being put forward by the education committee of the county council is that the school should become part of a split-site comprehensive where 11 to 12 year-olds should be catered for.
King Edward VI school in Stratford has an impressive record of achievement. More than 75 per cent. of the boys go on to higher education and the A-level pass rate is 89 per cent. The average pass at A-level is in 3.5 subjects and at O-level in eight subjects. Last year, five boys, and the year before, seven boys, went on to Oxbridge.
The school has recently raised £350,000 to build a new technology block. It has been achieved on the basis of strong local support and benefactions from old boys. It has been at no cost to the local authority. The school is voluntary aided and it has the option, if the comprehensivisation scheme is persisted with, to go into the private sector, but the governors and all concerned would be deeply reluctant to do that. It would be an act of educational vandalism on the part of the education authority to pitch out of the state sector a school with such resources, standards and traditions.
My hon. Friend mentioned the element of tradition to which we should have regard. King Edward VI school was the school at which Shakespeare was educated. It should be preserved as part of our heritage, and certainly not treated as the plaything of wanton, arrogant latter-day educational ideologues.
I am sorry to have to say that there is a third grammar school in my constituency which is under threat. It is the Alcester grammar school, which dates from 1600 and which continues to attract boys and girls from a wide area. In 1980, there were only 95 pupils in the sixth form. There are now 164, which is testimony to the popularity of the school. Once again, there are examination pass rates of 80 to 85 per cent. at O and A-level, and some 80 per cent. of the sixth form go on to degree courses at university or polytechnic. It is being proposed to destroy the school to create a split-site school, with all the teacher stress and administrative difficulty that that would involve.
The proposals that are being hatched by the education committee of Warwickshire county council ignore the 130 wishes of parents, pupils, teachers and governors. The consultation process that has been proceeding fitfully is widely regarded as a charade and it has been the source of considerable bitterness. The councillors in question are ignoring the preferences of families.
Those who send children to Shottery and King Edward VI happen to be prefer single-sex schools. Those families happen to prefer smaller schools for their children, because they see the merits of a school in which the children are known and they see that in smaller schools discipline can be easier to maintain. Those families prefer an arrangement whereby the sixth form is contained within the school. They see that the older children benefit from the continuity of teaching, benefit socially from the opportunity to take a degree of personal responsibility for the younger children in the school and benefit from a more formal structure than a sixth form college would allow.
Those parents are not putting forward arguments for the preservation of their cherished grammar schools, without any regard for other children in the country I hear no defence of the 11-plus as such. I believe that the schools in question would welcome a different system of assessment and more flexible transfer arrangements. Those schools have an honourable record of being willing to help others, especially in terms of sixth-form provision.
Although the parents, whose children are threatened by the proposed development have full consideration for the educational prospects of less able children in the county, they are absolutely rightly concerned for the future of their children. They believe that bright children equally have educational needs that should be considered. They happen to believe that the future of their children is best secured in a selective system, which provides a certain concentration of ability and the stimulus of the peer group, enabling the children to move on and achieve their potential.
The education committee in Warwickshire is in danger of destroying good schools that parents want, in the name of a theory experience of which in our country provides, to say the least, no evidence that it is in the pupils' best interests.
In conclusion, I cannot do better than to refer to comments made to me by Mrs. Janet Purves, chairman of the King Edward VI support group. As she put it, Warwickshire county council. cannot solve the problem of falling rolls in schools by abolishing schools of proven worth. The council should set out to improve standards in all schools and allow the grammar schools to continue to provide the education which the parents so obviously desire for their children.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate on the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire. I congratulate both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on the way in which they presented their case this evening.
As my hon. Friends know, when a local education authority wishes to establish, discontinue or make a significant change in character or significant enlargement of the premises of a school, or to change the organisation or pattern of provision of its schools, it must first publish proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980, 131 explaining its intentions. There then follows a two-month period during which statutory objections to the proposals may be submitted to the authority. A statutory objection is defined as one made by any 10 or more local government electors for the area or the governors of any voluntary school affected by the proposals or by any other local education authority concerned.
The authority has a further month in which to submit the objections it has received to the Secretary of State, together with its comments on the objections. If such objections are made, or if the Secretary of State has given appropriate notice to the local education authority, or if the school concerned is a voluntary school, the proposals fall to be decided by the Secretary of State and may not be implemented without his approval. The Secretary of State may approve the proposals, with or without modification, or reject them.
When the Secretary of State is considering proposals that have fallen to him to decide, he must judge each 132 proposal or set of proposals on its merits, taking into account both the case of those making the proposals and the views of those objecting to them.
My hon. Friends will, I am sure, appreciate that it is important for the Secretary of State to avoid prejudging the issues where such proposals are concerned. They will understand, therefore, that I am unable to say anything about the future of the schools which are the subject of this debate. I can, however, assure them that I have listened carefully to what has been said tonight, and that their points will be taken into account, along with any other representations which we may receive, before a decision is reached on any proposals which may come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Finally—and again I have to say "without prejudice" to this case—I wish to assure my hon. Friends that the Government are determined to preserve quality in education wherever and whenever it is to be found. As they know, I have said that on numerous occasions before, and I gladly say it again.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.