Left’s hypocrisy over selective schools

THE ISSUE of grammar schools and selective education came nicely to the boil this week – just in time for the teaching unions’ spring conferences.

Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening, did a tour of the studios yesterday defending the Government’s decision to allow a new generation of grammar schools to be founded – a policy popular with backbench Conservative MPs and, more importantly, parents.

In an effort to defuse the argument that selection damages social mobility Ms Greening insisted the new grammars must do more to include the children of “ordinary working families” and not become the preserve of the “privileged few”.

Predictably, the education “blob” – that is the teaching unions and assorted left-wingers – reacted with fury. Nothing seems to upset them more than the establishment of high achieving, popular schools. Kevin Courtney, General Secretary of the NUT, which gathers for its conference in Cardiff this weekend, described the policy as “indefensible”.

And Chris Keates, General Secretary of the NASUWT, whose members are heading for Manchester for their conference, said the government proposals were about “extending privilege, not about tackling the problems of argument is fatally undermined by the choices made by senior figures when it comes to educating their own children.

Shadow Attorney General, Shami Chakrabarti, for example, is a vocal opponent of selection for other people’s children – but she didn’t allow her principles to get in the way of sending her own child to £13,000-a-year highly selective Dulwich College.

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott excoriated Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for sending their children to selective schools – and then sent her own son to the £10,000 a year City of London private school. Shadow Leader of the Commons Valerie Vaz chose £18,000 a year Latymer Upper School while Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Debbie Abrahams opted for the £10,500 a year Bury Grammar for her two children.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry sent her children to a selective state school, as did Corbyn’s chief spin-doctor Seamus Milne.

All are virulent opponents of selection in education – but only for other people.

If selection is such a bad thing, as left-wingers keep telling us, why do they choose selective schools when it comes to educating their own children?

Nowhere is the “do as I say, not as I do” humbug of the left more stark than in the field of education. This was amply demonstrated when Rayner went on the BBC yesterday, and was promptly skewered on this hypocrisy by the programme presenter Nick Robinson.

He asked innocently wasn’t it “curious” for a party so opposed to selection that so many of its leaders send their children to selective schools? Wasn’t it a case of “one rule for them, and another rule for everybody else”?

And “aren’t they arguing for policies that they don’t believe in practice as parents”? Poor old Rayner! Torn between defending the indefensible and condemning her front bench colleagues she opted for meaningless blather.

But no doubt listeners got the message – if selective schools are the first choice of rich and privileged left-wingers, then just maybe they might be a good idea for our children. No doubt the government’s proposals for new grammars will be the talk of the teaching union conferences this weekend, and I suspect we will hear the usual ritualistic demands for private schools to be closed down and grammar schools to be abolished. If this ever happens spare a thought for senior Labour politicians – because where on earth will they educate their children then?

Not at the bog standard comprehensives like the rest of us surely?