Mr.Gibb: Nor is it the Government’spolicy. Mr.Chaytor: My amendments simply argue that we need to followthrough the logic of the all-party consensus that the old 11-plussystem—selection at 11 by an arbitrary test—does notdeliver the rise in standards that we want. I was grateful that thehon. Member for Gainsborough appreciated that there is no logic in thecurrent arrangements; they are arbitrary and arbitrary solutions do notnecessarily deliver the bestresults. On intake, itis not a simple matter of abolishing certain kinds of schools. I do notknow of anybody who has argued for the abolition of any grammar schoolssince the days of Margaret Thatcher, who was the last Secretary ofState to suggest abolishing grammar schools and abolished a largenumber of them. We have got to get away from the idea of abolishing schools or not supporting good schools. Wherever there aregood schools, I want more children to be able to attend them. However,we cannot consider schools in isolation from the wider system in whichthey operate. Themerit in my amendment is that the status quo would apply until 2010,after which there would be an end to selection throughout the country.However, selection would still be subject to the existing rules onparental ballots; in areas that are currently wholly or partlyselective, parents would still have the right to vote on whether to goahead with ending selection in 2010. That is entirely in line with our1997 manifesto policy that, ultimately, such matters should bedetermined by parents. All I am arguing for is that the Governmentshould change the default position and see through the logic of theirown position on selection—and the logic of the LiberalDemocrats’ position and the Conservatives’ officialposition. I do not wantto digress for too long, because lunch time is approaching, but while Iam on this subject I shall say a little more. I have retrieved theshadow Secretary of State’s quote that I mentioned, and it isimportant that we get it on the record. Recently, on Teachers’TV, hesaid: “Lookingback to my friends from primary school, the brutality of theeleven-plus and the ones who went to secondary moderns that is one ofthe problems with theeleven-plus.” I have tosay that there was not much grammar in that sentence. Hecontinued: “It'swhy David Cameron and I have said that we won't go back to theeleven-plus in parts of the country where it's disappeared, ’cosI think”— heactually said, “’cos I think”; I would notnormally expect him to use that word, but perhaps one of his brains wasnot in gear at thatmoment— “choosingat 11 whether someone can benefit from academic education ornot...there's too many kids who develop after 11 and are not inthe appropriateschool.” So there we haveit: the words of the shadow Secretary of Statehimself. A range ofoptions could be considered to replace the status quo. We need an open,transparent public debate, not framed simply by arguments about themerits of individual categories of school, but focusing on theimplications of particular admissionspolicies. I have arguedthat 11 is far too early to select children on the grounds of academicability. Given that we now have a national curriculum, it is almostimpossible to see the logic of segregating children at 11. I understandthat, 30 or 40 years ago, long before the national curriculum, thosewho did not go to selective schools did not pursue externalexaminations and, as late as 1970, therefore 50 per cent. of them leftschool without a single qualification to their name. I can see that inthose days there was at least a logic in segregating children at theage of 11. Now that all children follow the national curriculum up tothe age of 16, however, it is increasingly hard to understand what thepurpose is. As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, the realpurpose is social segregation, not the liberation of eachchild’s intellectual potential. I have proposed severalalternatives. For example, in certain areas—I know some of themwell, although I do not wish to name them—the best solution,which would be to the advantage of all children, would be to change thecharacter of the existing wholly selective schools so that they becamesixth form colleges. Perhaps, in other areas, the option of a 14-to-19school may be pursued, which would be an easy way of enabling morepeople to gain access to the current wholly selective schools. It mayalso be that, in some areas, parents would see the advantages of simplyallowing the existing grammar schools to expand on the basis of amixed-ability intake, whereby all children who entered after 2010 wouldbe of mixed ability. Myrecollection is that, early in the Government’s first term, Ipublished a Bill on the 10 per cent. issue. The proposals in my Billwere based on the argument that, having reached 10 per cent. byaptitude, the logical way of dealing with the remaining wholly orpartially selective schools would be to bring down the proportion ofchildren that they admitted from 100 per cent., to 90 per cent., then80 per cent., gradually in stages, until it also reached 10 per cent.All schools would then be able to select a maximum of 10 per cent.,either on grounds of ability or aptitude. There is an argument to bemade for universal entitlement to10 per cent. selection, sothat all schools would be able to select that proportion based onability or aptitude. I do not wish to pursue that argument, but it is apossibility. Mr.Leigh: A fascinating possibility just occurred to me. Thehon. Gentleman has made the interesting point that there is logic inallowing all schools to select 10 per cent. by ability. I understandthat that would be the view of the official Opposition. I suspect that,even if my free-for-all solution, which is viewed as so radical, everhappened, most schools would probably move to that position. So it is areal possibility that, if the different models proposed by the hon.Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehamptonand myself all happened, we would all veer toward the samething—which I suppose is life, is itnot? Mr.Chaytor: I am grateful for that intervention. The moresuch issues are discussed outside the traditional framework of blackand white or either/or solutions, the more we are likely to move towardsolutions based on sound educational reasons, rather than on historicalattempts to defend socialprivilege. One of theConservative party’s difficulties, which has trapped it over theyears and led its more forward-thinking members to abandon the oldpolicy of wanting a grammar school in every town, is that its argumentsare increasingly outdated, inaccurate or irrelevant. Conservativesalways refer to social mobility. A number of recent academic studieshave identified a slow-down in social mobility in this country. Forinstance, the LSE study lists a number of factors that may havecontributed to that, one of which is the change in the nature of theadmissions policy for secondary schools. However, the study doesnot—as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepingswrongly asserted—conclude that social mobility has slowed downas a direct result of the change in the admissions policy for secondary schools. There is no assertion in thatstudy of any relationship between cause and effect. It would be helpfulif the hon. Gentleman spoke to its authors and asked them exactly whatthey think about thatrelationship. Mr.Hayes: With all his understanding and knowledge ofeducation, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that there is nocause and effect between educational opportunity and attainment, andsocial mobility or that the abolition of grammar schools had no effectin that regard? If he is saying either of those things, he is steppingoutside the research data. He must knowthat. Mr.Chaytor: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that theorganisation of education can play an important role in the extensionof social mobility; it is not the only contributory factor. There arewider economic and social forces that are probably far more important.My key point, however, is that the hon. Gentleman was inaccurate aboutthe LSE report; it does not conclude that the slow-down in socialmobility is related to the changes in admission policies or thedeclining numbers of grammarschools. The Oppositionwill also quote at length from the league tables, and they have manyopportunities to do so. I imagine that they have teams of researcherstrawling through them to examine the GCSE, A-level and value-addedscores in many of our selective schools. It does not come as a surpriseto me—I do not think that it will surprise many Committeemembers—that schools that admit children with the highest levelperformance at age 11 are likely to produce children with the highestlevel of performance at 16 or 18. Similarly, it is not a surprise thatthe value-added scores in some selective schools are particularly good.Clearly, if the intake is full of young people who have the greatconfidence boost from knowing that they successfully passed a test toget into their secondary school, that will obviously increase theirexisting high levels of motivation even further, making it easier toteach and stretch them. The league table results—even thevalue-added results of individual schools—are not directlyrelevant to the wider debate about the basic organising principles ofhow we allocate children to secondaryschool. The otherclichÃ(c) to which the Tories always refer is the changing patternof entry to Oxford and Cambridge universities. Why we focus entirely onOxbridge is beyond me. The decline in the proportion of children fromstate schools over a generation was entirely the result of the direct-grant grammar schools opting out ofthe state system in the 1970s. It is utterly dishonest to draw anyother conclusion than that. They also refer to the work of Dr. JohnMarks, the leading intellectual advocate for their position. I shouldhave thought that John Marks is not entirely neutral in this debate,but I will return to other academic worklater. Mr.Clappison: Before the hon. Gentleman brushes over his lastremark about independent schools, the now independent grammar schoolsand social mobility, does he accept that the children who went to thosegrammar schools before the 1970s were chosen because of their ability,whereas, after the 1970s, children were chosen on the basis of theirparents’ ability to pay? That explains a lot about socialmobility, which the hon. Gentleman has damaged with hispolicies? Mr.Chaytor: It is true that the former direct-grant grammarschools—not all the former state grammar schools—thatopted out of the state system in the 1970s became fee-paying schools.It was actually Lady Thatcher’s policy that led them to moveout. However, we will not pursue that; it is a matter for anAdjournment debate on anotheroccasion. Socialengineering is the other issue that is always mentioned. Whenever theConservative party wants to block any kind of social change,improvement or extension of opportunity, it is all about socialengineering. It is beyond me why 1,000 years of maintaining elitistforms of education to protect the social privileges of an elite is notsocial engineering, but extending educational opportunityis. The hon. Member forBognor Regis and Littlehampton is a great advocate of streaming; hebelieves that schools should be forced to stream. It is difficult tograsp how that is compatible with his policy of devolving more power toindividual schools to decide themselves how they operate. It isimportant to say that, during the recent inquiry by the Education andSkills Committee into the White Paper, we considered the latestevidence on streaming from research by the Institute of Education andwe included a reference to it in thereport. TheChairman: Order. Before I adjourn the Committee, I shouldsay that it is my intention to suspend this afternoon’s sittingbetween 7 and 8pm. It being Oneo’clock, The Chairman adjournedthe Committee without Question put, pursuant to the StandingOrder. Adjournedtill this day at Fouro’clock. | 
