26. Memorandum submitted by Rick Watson,
Bucks Parents for Comprehensive Education (DP 38)
It has recently and belatedly come to my notice
that the Education and Skills Committee of the House of Commons
is conducting an inquiry into "Secondary Education: Diversity
of Provision" and is asking for written evidence to be submitted
by 25th November.
As secretary to Bucks Parents for Comprehensive
Education, I would welcome the opportunity to provide such evidence,
or indeed to arrange for a representative to provide verbal evidence
if that is possible. As a group of parents whose children are
being educated in the LEA which currently tops national performance
tables, we would encourage the committee to look very closely
at Buckinghamshire as an example of the effects of a fully selective
secondary education system on "Diversity of Provision".
At such short notice, it has not been possible
for me to collect and collate the data which I would wish to present
to you, partly because I would be dependent on the hard-pressed
LEA to provide most of it. What I can do is comment briefly on
some of the claims made about the success of this area as they
impinge on diversity of provision.
We have a fully selective system which claims
to provide:
1. The "best" standard of secondary
education in the country.
2. Schools appropriate to the academic
ability of each pupil.
3. More choice for pupils and parents than
in a comprehensive system.
COMMENT
Claim1/ The "best" standard of
secondary education in the country.
It is true that we lead GCSE league tables.
This approach to measuring success disguises the polarity of performance
across the county. Our Grammar schools do of course perform to
top national levels, but results are in fact comparable with the
top 25% of pupils in many non-selective areas. While some of our
"Upper" (Secondary Modern) schools do perform excellently,
in Aylesbury two out of three have been in special measures, while
a third in High Wycombe was forced to close and re-open, at considerable
expense, under a new name. While we acknowledge that there can
be failures in all systems, this polarity we believe to be symptomatic
of a fully selective system, and a type of diversity of provision
which is both undesirable and avoidable.
Two demographic factors also contribute to apparent
performance. Firstly, the socio-economic make-up of the area,
a factor known to be a major contributor to educational performance,
as acknowledged by Ofsted. Secondly the geographic position and
shape of the Buckinghamshire, which facilitates migration of pupils,
mostly into the Grammar Schools. For example, in Buckingham the
Grammar School famously praised by the local MP for Buckingham
and Winslow in the 1999 Commons debate on the future of Grammar
Schools, buses in approximately 50% of its pupils from outside
the LEA. This, of course, has a significant effect on both LEAs.
While proponents of selection use this as a
demonstration of the popularity of our system, they tend to omit
to comment on the absence of similar migration to the neighbouring
(successful) Upper School in Buckingham, or the exodus of non-selected
pupils to private schools or comprehensives in neighbouring LEAs.
Similarly, claims that people move into the area for our system,
often, on closer examination, prove to mean for our Grammar Schools.
Each year many incoming parents get a shock after the 11+ and
place their children elsewhere.
While acknowledging the GCSE results, we would
therefore ask the Committee to study the significance of factors
other than selection in our achievements. We believe that overall
we would do better academically without selection.
Claim 2/ All pupils attend schools appropriate
to their academic ability.
We have two types of school to which pupils
are selected by a verbal reasoning test taken at (in most cases)
age 10, not 11+. Even proponents of selection find it hard to
produce a convincing defence of this method of testing when presented
with the evidence. For example, if it is a valid and trusted system:
Why are there so many appeals each year? Why are parents being
actively encouraged by junior schools to coach, or pay for coaching
for, their children to achieve higher marks in the test? Why are
their so many A* GCSE pupils transferring to Grammar School in
year 12? Why is it that there is a gender imbalance and that ethnic
minority groups are under-represented at Grammar Schools?
We believe that this is a crude, inaccurate
and discriminatory segregation of a wonderful variety of children
into two mythical "types" served by two types of school.
The test is designed to justify the existence of and fill Grammar
Schools, not meet the best interests of each individual pupil.
It must be remembered that the future education of many individuals
can be decided on as little as one mark difference at 11+. Effectively
the test results are random around the chosen cut-off point, irrelevant
as a predictor of performance, and completely discount aptitude
and choice.
Claim 3/ More choice for pupils and parents
than in a comprehensive system.
Diversity of provision is difficult in a selective
system. For example, it is argued that some children benefit from
single sex schools, and Buckinghamshire has several. They are
all Grammar schools. Over 70% of pupils therefore do not have
that choice. Subject choice is also dictated by the 11+ result.
If any school attains specialist status some pupils lose that
option, again over 70% if it is a Grammar School, approaching
30% if it is an Upper School. In practice many more Grammar Schools
have applied and succeeded in that bid.
To use Buckingham as an example again, the Grammar
School is at present applying for Specialist School Status in
Science. While the bid clearly describes benefits to the whole
community, the exclusion of 70% of pupils from that specialist
school by means of the 11+ is at best educationally questionable.
Conversely, it is assumed that pupils gaining a certain mark at
11+ would not want to choose the excellent GNVQ courses in Engineering
or Health and Social Care available only at the Upper School,
or that different language or science choices can be predicted
at that stage, by that test.
We believe that the selective system in Buckinghamshire
is far less flexible for each individual pupil. Diversity of provision
within and between schools is completely meaningless while a fully
selective system operates. All pupils have less choice, with the
non-selected majority having least.
PARENTAL CHOICE
AND CURRENT
LEGISLATION ON
SELECTION
This group has now been campaigning to end selection
in Buckinghamshire for three years. Parental support has been
overwhelming at school gates and on market stalls. To ignore this
growing movement seems irresponsible at a time when population
increase is planned and many schools are already over-subscribed,
and we are convinced that an objective consultation of parents
and educational professionals would condemn the 11+ and allow
constructive discussions on future development. Unfortunately
current legislation leads to confrontation, not co-operation.
The LEA considers itself to have an electoral mandate to support
selection despite the obvious mixed agendas, low turnout and party
loyalties of local elections. Consequently, they quite reasonably
would not use taxpayers money on parental consultation. We cannot
expect support from local MPs. In Parliament, the MP for Buckingham
and Winslow described us as being part of a "centrally co-ordinated
campaign by egalitarian hooligans and educational vandals"
attacking the best schools. Contrary to his assertion, it is my
experience that we are in fact what he says we are not, "well-meaning,
independent-minded individuals", acting for the well being
of our children and future generations. Our support crosses all
party lines and exists in all types of schools but yes, of course
we would use practical and financial support if offered. We are
sure that a pro-Grammar School lobby would soon raise substantial
sums to campaign for the status quo should a ballot on selection
be triggered.
In practice, current legislation makes it near
impossible to translate our support into the petition of over
18,000 specific individuals collected within one school year which
would trigger such a ballot. We are initially dependent on a parent
in every school acting promptly in September to request a parental
list, and on the time it takes each school to produce and forward
it. We then have to target those most likely to support us, either
by house calls or post until we have enough signatures. Surely
the public would be better served by open, objective discussion
and direct consultation of all parents through existing school
communication structures which we cannot use, by law.
Teachers and education administrators should
also be encouraged to participate in the debate. Many of our strongest
supporters are teachers, but very few feel free to speak publicly
about the social and educational effects they observe as a consequence
of the 11+ test. County officials, who are in the best position
to observe any administrative, financial, social and environmental
consequences of selection, are also in a difficult position, as
their role is to deliver the policies of the current political
administration.
We would much prefer this to be a politically
neutral development discussion and consultation. At present the
County Council will not even discuss selection or its many impacts.
SUMMARY
Politicians have recently spoken of a post-comprehensive
era for secondary education. Buckinghamshire and other fully selective
LEA areas are still in the era of pre-comprehensive education.
In the context of "Diversity of Provision" we feel that
it would be in the interests of the nation's children to look
closely at the shortcomings of the past in order to avoid slipping
back to a system designed for the needs of post world war two
UK society.
An independent academic study, such as that
carried out in Kent, would provide the Committee with much of
the quantitative evidence required to facilitate an objective
debate. Unfortunately, on that occasion the study was incomplete,
as the LEA would not release all relevant data in the confrontational
climate engendered by the approach to parental choice that is
made inevitable by current legislation.
It must also be realised that considerable research
would be required to evaluate the largely anecdotal evidence of
damage to self-esteem and hence educational performance of individuals
caused by failing the 11+. I use the word "failing"
quite deliberately. We are criticised for publicly using the word
"fail", but how is the 11+ remembered in common language?
By use of the words "pass" or "fail", which
stay with individuals for life. Try asking. Despite constant re-assurance
by parents and teachers this is how children feel, and is the
main reason for people joining our campaign.
The experience of this group of parents is that
our current system of compulsory selection by verbal reasoning
test at age 10+, is educationally unsound, psychologically damaging,
socially divisive, environmentally irresponsible, financially
wasteful and minimises choice for the majority. It should be replaced
where it exists, and never be re-introduced. We do not attack
individual schools or types of school, but these negative symptoms
of the system, not least inequality of provision.
The end of year newsletter from the Grammar
School mentioned above congratulated the parents for raising £22,000
towards the Specialist Status bid. On the same day, the Upper
School next door was explaining and apologising to parents for
having to reduce by one the number of classes in each year, thus
disrupting tutor groups and increasing class sizes, due to their
budget deficit. This imbalance is reflected countywide.
We are delighted that the Education & Skills
Committee is investigating this issue and hope that you will take
into account our experiences and observations both of selection
and the procedure for challenging it. If we can be of further
help please do not hesitate to contact me.
November 2002
| 
