Grammar Schools

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by registering something for your interests: I did not go to grammar school and I did not go to university, but I will return to that later. I commend my noble friend Lady Andrews on securing this extremely important debate and on the brilliance of her opening statement. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for referring to the brilliant work done by Stonewall, particularly on homophobia in schools, which should shame us all—I declare an interest as the founding chair of Stonewall—and for his reference to the work done by the Albert Kennedy Trust.

I am extremely grateful for the many briefings made available to us and the widespread concern that has been brought to my attention by NGOs, academics, the education sector, think tanks, teaching unions and a great number of parents. From reading their submissions it is clear to me that there is a broad consensus that grammar schools do not improve social mobility. Selective systems actually increase inequality in attainment and earnings. I will share some of the findings. While those from grammar school areas who do well—top attaining, top earners—do much better than those who do well from similar, non-selective areas, those who do not do well—the bottom half in terms of attainment or earnings—do significantly worse than their counterparts from similar, non-selective areas. In systems with more academic selectivity, educational attainment is more strongly related to family background. Again, the evidence shows that access to grammar schools, both historically and more recently, favours more affluent children, even when comparing similarly high-attaining 11 year-olds. Taking both these pieces of evidence together, it suggests, or rather confirms, that grammar school systems exacerbate existing inequalities across generations.

If anything, grammar schools lead to less rather than more social mobility. The implications for social mobility are not positive. The evidence again clearly suggests that selective systems exacerbate inequality both in terms of education and later labour market outcomes. These systems work well for those who end up at the top but are harmful for those who end up at the bottom. When this is combined with evidence that pupils from more deprived backgrounds have less chance of accessing a grammar school, even when they perform well in their key stage 2 test at age 11, it suggests—indeed confirms—that family background will play an important role in deciding who gains access and who will end up at the top or the bottom. Hence, these systems contribute to persistent inequalities across generations, hindering social mobility.

I refer to a matter raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. The Government’s intention to remove the 50% cap at religious free schools, where pupils can be selected on the basis of their religion as part of the admissions arrangement, would allow new and existing religious schools to select all their places with reference to religion. For many, including me, this would represent a significant step back in the efforts to make our education systems fairer, more inclusive, and more integrated. This rule is only part of the free school funding arrangements and is not underpinned by statute; the Government will not have to consult Parliament on this issue. I believe that Parliament must be consulted, as this measure would have profound consequences.

In my last minute I will refer to my own experience. At the age of 11, I did not even know that I was sitting the 11-plus. I failed it; I was written off. I was sent to a secondary modern school where I would be pointed towards going into a factory or similar job. I felt that I did not belong. If it had not been for a drama master who saw some spark of energy, I would have remained there, feeling that sense of complete disempowerment and disfranchisement. My father said that if I had not gone to stage school—taken as a child actor at the age of 12 to a fee-paying stage school—I would have ended up in prison. I believe that he was absolutely right, because there was a child who felt that he did not belong—my only option was to rebel.

My plea to the Minister is: rethink these proposals and focus, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord James, on making sure that every single child is never cast aside but is given the opportunity throughout their school years and beyond to achieve their amazing and unique potential.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, though I have to say, having spent 15 years working and legislating in the European Union, that I do not share his views of the Union or how it functions. I am reminded that one tends to get the answers one wants when one questions only the people that one chooses to target. Like others in this House, I am deeply concerned about the shadow that the European Union referendum casts across not only this country but the rest of Europe.

I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register, in particular as a rights holder of TV programmes. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is not here to hear me say that I agree with his every word—it is just as well, because it would probably worry him more than it worries me—particularly in relation to the BBC. Regarding his statement that the Government and both Houses should really be in the realms of a certain amount of give and take, I want to give by saying to the Government that there is much that I commend in the Queen’s Speech—much indeed—but the issue is how it is woven together. I may even stray into certain areas which we are not due to discuss today, because I think there is an interconnection between rights and responsibilities, between communities and the way in which we provide housing and health, for example. So there is much here and I commend the Queen’s Speech. As ever, the delight and the challenge will be in the detail.

If your Lordships will allow me, I will address something that is crucial for me and, I hope, for others, and that is the Bill of Rights. The Government are, perhaps, thinking twice on how to approach this issue. I welcome this. I note that there will be a proposal on which, I presume, there will be consultation. I urge the Government to publish online the responses to any such proposal and consultation. It is vital that we have the utmost transparency, especially when we are dealing with issues of fundamental human rights. We also need to be very careful about a disconnection with the universality of human rights. Arguably, as soon as we have a British Bill of Rights, those rights will only kick in when you enter Britain; you will lose them when you leave.

Equally, we must be extremely careful about the language that we use when referring to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The defamation of judgments undermines the very principle of the universality of human rights. When we selectively endorse certain judgments that please us in government, we undermine the very ones that we selectively grab by denouncing the others. I wholly endorse anything that improves, enhances and reinforces the universality of human rights.

Turning to culture, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, my noble friend Lord Macdonald and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The White Paper on the BBC charter review is to be welcomed, but I have some serious concerns, not least about the make-up of the board. Will it be sufficiently independent? I think that the mid-term review will prevent the BBC from having a long-term strategy. I believe that there is an intention to stress the BBC to work in other areas, much wider than those in which it currently operates. This is in order that, in five years’ time, the board—and certainly the Government—will turn round to the BBC and say, “Well, you are no longer a world-class leader; you are not matching exactly what we want you to do, so you need to do less”. This is a big worry for me. Equally, regarding the concept of distinctiveness, are we going to say, “Why are you doing popular programmes, because they are being done by the other channels? That is not distinctive; do something different”? How do we make programmes in the public interest? Who defines the public interest? We should also celebrate and support what the BBC does and encourage it further. The same goes for Channel 4. Channel 4 is a beacon of diversity, not only in the programmes it makes but in the people who work within and for it. The £26 million surplus is to be welcomed. It is another example of broadcasting success.

I turn now to education and particularly to education and the arts. My life was, arguably, changed by arts in education. I failed my 11-plus and I remember when I went to my secondary modern school they gave up on me. You could see it in the eyes of teachers who did not know what to do with this energetic rebel. Yet, a drama teacher—Bill Everett—saw something. It was because of him that I spent a lifetime in the arts and creative industries. And we are in the creative industries. Here in both Houses, we use our creative talents to imagine something better. We pool them to bring forward solutions to problems that other generations have tussled with for thousands of years. One of our brilliant policemen came up to me and said, “It is nice to see you still performing, my Lord”. I said, “Actually I gave up performing some years ago”. “No, you haven’t”, he said, “I have seen you in the Chamber”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, said, let us celebrate the enormous talent base in this country. Let us celebrate it around the world. It has not happened by chance; it is because we have invested in talent and education which changes people’s lives, hearts and minds. This is why I believe that all students should have access to drama as a subject in schools, taught by specialist-trained drama teachers with qualified teacher status. Drama is a distinct art form and should have its own subject status, separate to English, in both primary and secondary schools. For drama to be engaging before GCSE level requires trained and qualified drama teachers in secondary schools. In primary schools it requires high-quality, in-service drama training as a minimum. English teachers are not usually drama trained and drama should not be seen just as a method of English teaching.

I hope that the Government will seize this opportunity to review their narrative around the English Baccalaureate, against which the arts community fought so valiantly. It sent a damaging signal to downgrade the arts in education. This has happened. The number of children sitting arts GCSEs is declining steadily. It is down in music and drama, and film is excluded from the curriculum altogether. Teacher training places in arts education have been cut by 35% and the numbers of specialist arts teachers have fallen. This makes no sense for the arts and our creative industries. It makes no sense in wider educational terms either. We must reject the binary choice between science and arts. We need our young people to grow up to be problem solvers—to be creative and analytical, innovative and inquiring in their chosen profession. We do not need them to live their lives in closed silos, shut off from the possibilities of imagining other approaches and other ways.

I believe that, in the end, it is art that defines us as human beings. We underinvest in this and future generations at our cultural and economic peril. We need a curriculum that embraces arts in all its forms and places it at the centre of how we all explore the world.