Orders of the Day — Grammar School Places, Surrey

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 19 March 1964.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Christopher Chataway Mr Christopher Chataway , Lewisham North 12:00, 19 March 1964

The hon. Member has been able to raise the case of his constituent without mentioning his child's name, and I should like to say straight away that in many other cases we might follow his example. It seems an unhappy thing that the name of a child should be given publicity in circumstances which may be embarrassing or even harmful to that child.

The hon. Member has had a long correspondence with the Minister over this matter, and it has been explained, both to the parents and to the hon. Gentleman that local education authorities have a large measure of freedom in determining both the way in which their secondary organisation is arranged, and the means by which they carry out the selection procedures which are necessary. It has been explained that the Minister can intervene only where he is satisfied that the behaviour of a local education authority has been unreasonable.

In this instance we certainly could not feel that the action of the Surrey County Council has been in any way unreasonable. I do not think that, in the few minutes at my disposal I can go into the means by which both Lanes and Surrey carry out their tests and make their selections for grammar schools. But perhaps I should say that, in Surrey, if a child has a mark in the Moray House test—which operates also in Lancs—of less than 345 he, in the normal course of events, goes to a secondary modern school.

The child with whom the hon. Member is concerned had in Lanes a mark of 340. This was sufficient in Lanes for him to be admitted to a grammar school but in Surrey, in the ordinary course of events, it would have resulted in his going to secondary modern school.

Both in Surrey and Lanes the placing of children at 11 is, I am glad to say, not done entirely on the basis of written tests. It is done also on the basis of the teachers' records and the child's achievements over a period. But Surrey has, in this instance, made to the hon. Member's constituent the offer of a grammar place and that brings me to his question of whether the education the child is receiving is a grammar education.

The answer to that is "Yes". My right hon. Friend has made it clear that Surrey organises its grammar provision both in grammar schools and in bilateral schools. I find it unfortunate that the hon. Member should have used the word "demote" on a number of occasions and that he should have suggested that a child who finds himself in a bilateral school is bound to have fewer opportunities than a child in a grammar school.

This I would contest. In many counties there is a move towards comprehensive education. If this child had moved to London, for instance, where again the number of places in the grammar schools is limited but where there are opportunities for pursuing advanced academic work in comprehensive schools, he would almost certainly have been placed in a comprehensive school.

In Surrey he is being placed in a bilateral school but is none the less receiving a grammar education and I believe that it is no service to the child or to the status of these schools to suggest that it is impossible to carry on serious academic work otherwise than in a grammar school.

The hon. Member asked, secondly, what would happen if the family were now to move from Surrey to another county. If they do, Surrey will forward to the new authority all the information which it received from Lancashire about the child's results in the Lancashire tests, together with any information which Surrey may have about his progress since. Whether he would then be moved into a grammar, a comprehensive or a bilateral school would depend upon the way in which education was organised in the county to which he went.

The point which I wish to make with all the emphasis I can is that what matters most is surely the education that a child receives. It matters far more than the label that happens to be placed upon the school where that education is given.

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that in this cafe Surrey has treated the parents—the hon. Member's constituents—fairly and has abided by the practice by which authorities accept each other's assessments of a child's suitability for a grammar education. Surrey has placed the child in a bilateral school, where he is receiving a grammar education, and I hope that he will, as a result, reach the high academic attainments that has present performance suggests is within his capability. This is not, however, an instance when my right hon. Friend could intervene on the ground that a local education authority had acted unreasonably.