Grammar and Faith Schools

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Nick Gibb

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I suspect that the Minister would reply that the Government want to expand the number of places in grammar schools, so that more children will get in. There is no question but that grammar schools outperform non-selective schools in terms of exam results, but the Government make a great leap in claiming that grammar schools are somehow intrinsically better for the children in them than other similar schools in the area. I want the Minister to consider for a moment that there is evidence to the contrary.

We know that when grammar schools were the norm, working-class children were far more likely to drop out of those schools. The Robbins report revealed that only 2% of children whose parents were semi-skilled or low skilled then went on to university. The Minister’s claim that disadvantaged grammar school pupils are more likely to go on to a Russell Group university, which I have heard him repeat often, is based on research that does not control for prior attainment. He also often mentions the Sutton Trust research. The 2011 report concluded:

“Given their selective intake, grammar schools would appear to be underrepresented among the most successful schools for Oxbridge entry”.

All I am asking the Minister to do is consider the whole range of evidence on this subject and base education policy on it accordingly. This morning before the Education Committee we saw what happens when Ministers do not do that. He was forced to admit that in areas of selection, the impact on children in non-selective schools is mixed. Until now, he has been fond of citing one report by the Sutton Trust, which says that there is no negative effect on children who are not in grammar schools in areas where there is selection, but against that the Education Committee was able to cite Dr Becky Allen, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Education Policy Institute, and the education journalist Chris Cook, who found that the only thing that shifts in areas where selection is introduced is who does well, not how many do well, and that, put simply, the better-off do well at the expense of the rest.

Policy Exchange set out clearly the stark impact in terms of lost opportunities and earnings for those who do not attend grammar schools, and the Institute for Social and Economic Research says that for girls there was some raised wage potential, but not for boys.

[The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The evidence this morning was that there was no negative effect in areas of selection or a slight negative effect of one tenth of a grade in those pupils in non-grammar schools in selective areas. There are other reports that say that the negative effect is slightly higher, but what the hon. Lady is describing and what those reports are describing is the current situation, and it is the situation that prevailed when Labour was in power for 13 years. The consultation document seeks to find a solution to that problem by requiring all new grammar schools that are established and all grammar schools that want to expand to help raise the academic standard in those non-selective schools in those areas—something that her Government did not propose, and her party today are not proposing.

[Lisa Nandy]

What I am asking the Minister to understand is that this new approach set out in the consultation document is based on no evidence. If he says that we have to discount all the evidence that we have had about the education system thus far, it is incumbent on the Government to prove that this new, expensive approach, which will be highly disruptive to children’s education and to the education system as a whole, will be better for children. This morning at the Education Committee the Minister was forced to admit that there is no evidence that it will be better.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) put to the Minister a simple proposition: there are areas of the country, as we have already heard, where selection still exists. Kent is the one that my hon. Friend mentioned to the Minister when he said that if the Minister is so sure that the new system will work and if he is so keen to explore new ways of working, why does he not pilot it in one area of the country. I ask him please not to inflict an experiment based on such flimsy evidence on millions of children who cannot afford for the Government to fail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Nick Gibb

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we will shortly make an announcement on the details of the internal review.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

11. Whether the guidelines he plans to produce for the discretionary learner support fund will have a statutory basis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Nick Gibb

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I understand the concern felt by parents in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Our policy is to inform the lead proposers of the outcome of their proposals, and we expect them to inform all those involved. I assure my hon. Friend that we are actively engaged in discussions with all the parties involved with the aim of finding a solution in relation to the Bristol free school project. Indeed, the project’s lead official has been meeting and talking to officers from the city council.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Given that the Secretary of State seems to be unable to find money for schools that desperately need rebuilding, will the Minister tell us how much money his Government have promised or awarded to free schools?

[Mr Gibb]

We announced in December that the capital allocation for 2011-12 would be £800 million for basic need, £858 million for capital maintenance and £185 million for devolved capital, which amounts to £2 billion out of a £4.9 billion capital budget. The difference between those two figures covers the BSF commitments and an allocation for free schools.

Free Schools

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Nick Gibb

Monday 31st January 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Lisa Nandy]

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will put in place mechanisms for public scrutiny of the financial backing of individuals and organisations who are involved in setting up free schools.

[Official Report, 13 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 567W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Gibb:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on 13 December 2010.

Unfortunately, we incorrectly believed that Academy Trust annual accounts were published on the Charity Commission's website, when in fact they are published on the Trust's website and the Companies House website.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Gibb]

Once a Free School proposal is approved to progress to business case and plan stage, the main elements of the proposal forms will be put on the Department's website. We will redact personal information to comply with obligations under the Data Protection Act, and other information where we have judged that commercial interests would be prejudiced should we publish the proposal in full.

The Department will conduct due diligence checks, including financial checks, on companies and individuals associated with a proposed Free School. The vast majority of proposers to date are not associated with or supported by third party organisations.

Once a Free School is established, the Academy Trust will be required to publish annual accounts in accordance with the Companies Act 2006. These accounts will be available on the Charity Commission website.

The correct answer should have been: