New statesman article....

[JamesDean]

When I was at a Warks grammar in the 1980s, the then (Tory) education secretary Kenneth Baker intervened directly to stop the local Lib Dem council shutting us down ... Pleased to say, the school is still open (as a grammar) and going strong

JD

[JSN]

"Labour controlled LEAs. Many other LEAs had to merge grammars with comprehensives as funding for schools was provided by central government which used its muscle in forcing the hand of LEAs. Only the Counties under dominant Conservative control managed to resist the pressure e.g. Kent or Bucks."
your not a politician by any chance
as Paxman would say ! just answer the question in plain English for us dullards.
under whose stewardship where more Grammars dissolved Labour or the Conservatives?

[tiffinboys]

Secondary schools were under control of LEAs. Central government could not order to close grammar or to stop LEA from converting grammars into comprehensives. Note the language of circular 10/65. It was 'request' to LEAs to covert grammars.

Labour LEAs complied readily and some of the process reached completion under conservative government of Ed Heath (June 70 to March 74). The subsequent Labour government (Callaghan Mar 74 to May 79) accelerated the process of closure of grammars and forced direct grant grammars to become comprehensive or independent by withdrawing their funding. So by 1980, only about 164 grammars remained out of nearly 1400 grammar schools in England.

Tony Blair described it as academic vandalism. The responsibility for the making the rules and legislation for the demise of grammars lies squarely on Labour's door.

[JSN]

Yes I actuality got that the first time round.
Governments can change( via parliamentary legislation) any LEA powers( we do not have a federal and state system as in the states) , they do it all the time !(U.K coalition government is a recent invention)
so again under which government ..Labour or Conservatives oversaw more closures of grammars?
it really is a simple question

[tiffinboys]

One can only accuse Conservatives of not repealing Labour's legislation; but not of closing the grammars.

[JSN]

o.k ,I give up
I have no alternative ways of asking the same question

[tiffinboys]

I could not give you a misleading yes/no answer.

Let's put it this way.
Was Labour responsible for closure of grammar schools?
Yes.

[Slogger]

Most closed under Ted Heath's government when Mrs Thatcher was Education Secretary. She signed the order to close mine (Earls Colne) which was the third oldest in England at the time. It was in Essex, which was a conservative council at the time. All politicians are liars.

[tiffinboys]

It is so sad to see good school closed.

Earls Colne Grammar School closed in July 1975, under the Government of Harold Wilson (Labour).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earls_Colne_Grammar_School" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


There was enormous pressure by Labour governments on the LEAs to convert grammar schools into comprehensive, from the time of circular 10/65. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_10/65" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Upon release in July 1965, the Circular used the word "request", but in practice, the DES used its financial muscle to weaken opposition to the change.
Local authorities relied on the central government to pay for the large number of new schools made necessary by the post-World War II baby boom. In Circular 10/66, the DES refused to pay for any new secondary school unless it was a comprehensive. As a result, a number of LEAs otherwise supporting the tripartite system, such as Bromley and Surrey, felt forced to go comprehensive.

Perhaps Essex was forced in that way too. Plus the Earls Colne GS was very small (just 230 pupils) , which may also be a factor in the decision to re-organize small schools, e.g. Halstead (a girls grammar school). Both Earls Colne and Halstead were merged into Ramsay School.

[southbucks3]

It's all about money, lack of money miraculously allows politicians to make decisions that transgress beyond political agenda or policy, and memories to go all fuzzy.

There simply was/is not enough cash to fund a tri system, and the two tier system had/has many failings and causes a lot of social stigma, that really is unhealthy in a Nation. Secondary schools were failing badly in the 60's, buildings and facilities, even furniture was dire, teaching was sketchy, and there was not enough cash to sort it out, as the grammars took two thirds of the available funding, even in leafy bucks there were truly awful examples of uppers thathave been closed down since.
We also had a few great technical schools for budding engineers and techies, which were sadly closed down or converted to uppers or colleges, again due to lack of money, particularly to pay for the specialist teaching. Many counties had no technical schools to start with, bucks produced the best engineers in the world for years, many of whom went to these schools post WW2.
Anyone living in bucks or Kent, regardless of political persuasion can recognise the true limitations of a two tier system, even if we choose to put on blinkers, because our kids happen to go to gramnar.

Lack of money is also responsible for the closure of over 1000 rural schools in the last ten years, and thousands more before, all under conservative rule, many under the pretext that small schools offer narrow learning, even though most rural schools had results above national levels. Far better to get parents to drive children 4-15+ miles every day, to a large school in a town than go to a local school, in what has now been converted into a luxury house after being sold at rock bottom prices to supportive developers!

So which party will re-introduce a proper tri level system? None....No money!