Magazine article The Spectator

The Spectator's Notes

Magazine article The Spectator

The Spectator's Notes

Article excerpt

A question unasked in all this row about the Conservatives and grammar schools is, 'Why did the Tories, in power for 22 of the 42 years since Labour first tried to make comprehensives compulsory, never bring grammar schools back?' The answer is numerical, and it explains the problem with which poor David Willetts is wrestling. At their height, grammar schools educated about 19 per cent of the secondary-school population. This meant that dissatisfied parents always outnumbered satisfied ones. Although many secondary moderns were good, broadly speaking, parents whose children were not at grammar schools felt ill-treated. This was especially true of those parents, often likely Tory voters, who had high aspirations for their children which were dashed when they failed the 11-plus.

Perhaps if grammar schools had admitted, say, 40 per cent of the nation's pupils, the electoral weight on their side would have prevailed, but 19 per cent was never enough.

So what the Tories are trying to do today is to escape from being the permanent representatives of a minority interest in education. They should never disparage grammar schools in their attempt to do this, and they should not say that selection is wrong.

That was the trap into which Mr Willetts appeared to fall in his speech. But they are surely right that the next big thing in education will be not selection, but school independence. Tony Blair's city academy programme is the germ of this, and Mr Willetts should be backed in wanting to expand it so much that the 'bog-standard comprehensive' will become a thing of the past.

Hazel Blears, who wants to be deputy leader of the Labour party, declared last week: 'I went to a grammar school. My brother didn't. I'm in the Cabinet. He's still driving buses. So I don't like grammar schools.' The non-sequitur in these words is breathtaking. Would she like grammar schools better if she were now driving buses, or if her brother were in the Cabinet and she wasn't? So breathtaking, in fact, that one wonders what on earth they taught her all those years ago at Wardley Grammar School.

Defending Gordon Brown, whose deputy she too wishes to be, Harriet Harman says, 'He's not saying people have to have a moral compass; he's saying he has one.' So a moral compass is like satnav in your car -- a useful and posh but not essential addition to the business of getting about. If you think that, you haven't got one.

Last week, I obtained proof that some people do possess a moral compass.

Somewhere between Clifford Street, W1, and St James's Park, I dropped my black book containing many, many years of telephone numbers, but no information about whom to contact when you find it. In the park, I realised I had lost it, and retraced my steps, to no avail. I went to Savile Row police station, but the queue was so long that I lost heart and left. A call to the police, which took a day to get through, revealed that you have to put your report of lost property in writing before they can attend to it. Then I got a call from my brother-in-law. A man had found his number in my book and had rung him, searching for the owner. I rang the man. His wife had found the book in the street, he told me, and he had started to work through the numbers (my brother-in-law's name begins with B) to find the owner. I asked if I could give the couple a present in thanks, but they said please could I contribute to a charity run by their synagogue instead, which I did. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.