Graham Brady, who was "severely reprimanded by the Chief Whip and told to stick to his brief" as Shadow Europe minister after making comments on grammar schools, saying a few days ago that

"selection raises the standards for everyone in both grammar and high schools in selective areas. I accept the party’s policy on grammar schools. But it is vitally important that policy should be developed with a full understanding of all of these facts – which might lead to the introduction of selection in other ways, including partial selection in academies and other schools."

Iain Dale said that Brady had been "an excellent Shadow Minister, both at education and now with the European portfolio" and that "[t]he Party would take leave of its collective senses if it allowed this to escalate any further." But it has.

He was tipped to be facing the sack in Cameron's next reshuffle, expected after Gordon Brown names his new Cabinet at the end of June. But he has instead decided to jump before he is pushed, and be David Cameron's first frontbench resignation since becoming leader instead, by quitting his Shadow Europe minister role. In a statement Brady said:

"Faced with a choice between a front bench position that I have loved and doing what I believe to be right for my constituents and for the many hundreds of thousands of families who are ill-served by state education in this country, there is in conscience only one option open to me."

And in his resignation letter to David Cameron he expressed his "sincere regret" in having to leave the front bench, but:

"Although you made it clear when you became leader that you were not planning to introduce more grammar schools, unfortunately (shadow education secretary) David Willetts' argument that grammar schools impede social mobility has gone much further and undermines the schools in my constituency which continue to achieve excellent results for children of all abilities and from all social backgrounds."

It seems that the Great Grammar School Row, which had seemed to me to be cooling, will begin to heat up again with the resignation. I think that only way that this will end soon is for David Cameron and David Willetts to make a strong commitment to academic selection in schools and to make a statement in favour of the existing grammar schools remaining open for those who wish to go them. Otherwise I can see this argument running on and on and breaking out at most inconvenient times for the Party.

As far as I can see, it is far better to commit to selection than to grammar schools anyway, as no-one can argue that selection within schools does no good for the children involved, even if they can find some against grammar schools. Parents want what is best for their children - hence why so many more are scrimping to pay for private schooling or moving house to get into the catchment area of a good school. A commitment to selection within schools, at the very least, and allowing schools to select their own intake should be able to end this current row, and maybe even generate extra support from parents.

Image from GrahamBradyMP.co.uk

Sources: BBC, The Times - article 1, article 2; The Telegraph - article 1, article 2; ePolitix, Iain Dale's Diary

The Conservative Party are moving away from grammar schools and academic selection in the state sector, with David Willets claiming that:

"We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids...
This is a widespread belief but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it."

They are abandoning grammar schools and turning support towards city academics instead - and I just can't see the benefit in doing so. Facts such as just 3% of those in the top state schools were poor enough to be entitled to free school dinners, compared to 14% nationally, are not sufficient support for it's abandonment. 'Middle-class' children do tend to have a higher intelligence because their parents tend to. Just because there is a gap doesn't mean the system isn't working.

Abandoning grammar schools and the idea of academic selection is not very clever. Selection in schools is necessary. It is the only way in which every child can get the appropriate attention and help from their teachers. At the very least, classes need to be made up of children of as comparable level of intelligence, aptitude, or skill at a particular subject - otherwise either those who find the subject hard get left behind as the rest of the class moves on or the opposite happens and the education of the children who are better at the subject get neglected as such a disproportionate amount of time needs to be spent on one or a few pupils in a class.

A better way to combat inequalities in the system would be to cut the area from which schools are able to select. This means that their should be a pretty good reflection of the social dynamics of the area in the schools. Some schools have far too large a catchment area. The secondary school I went to [a state, non-grammar, but selective school] had pupils being bussed in from over an hour away - which is ridiculous. Fix the current system, which generally works. Don't throw it all away.

Sources: BBC - article 1, article 2; The Times; The Telegraph; The Guardian; The Independent

UPDATE: Cameron says that a debate over selection in schools is "entirely pointless". Not so. This is a big change in party policy, and it is only right that there is an opportunity for the Party to debate it. Like Iain Dale I think it's a debate that we shouldn't need to have anyway.