Memorandum submitted by the National Grammar
Schools Association (SA 37)
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 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% 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. 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 five 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 five or more A*- GCSEs
(or equivalent) at six 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% of pupils are now achieving five or more
A*-C GCSEs, this measure is obviously unsuitable for the top 20
to 30% of pupils. To measure their performance, it is necessary
to look at five or more A*-A grade GCSEs or five 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 five or more A*-A grade GCSEs and five 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 CGSEs | 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
|
