Jonathan Slater was holding a debrief in education secretary Justine Greening’s office when her media adviser’s phone pinged.
At the time, September 2016, Slater was permanent secretary at the Department for Education, and he had just met with prime minister Theresa May who confirmed she wanted to lift the near 30-year-old ban on new grammar schools.
It was a problem for Greening – she was not on board. And now the whole world knew.
“He sort of froze,” Slater recalls of the media adviser. A photographer who regularly stands outside No 10 had snapped a picture of an email Slater was carrying into the meeting with May.
As well as breaking the news that grammars were officially back, it made clear Greening was already looking for compromises. The email was splashed all over social media.
While the hugely-controversial policy to open new grammar schools crashed after May’s failed 2017 election, it repeatedly raised its head across the next seven years (it’s become known as the “grammar school zombie”). But why?
We had to do this thing that we didn’t really believe in
The ‘misty eyed dream’
Dismantled in most parts of the country over a twenty year period, by both Labour and Conservative governments, some voices have always looked to get grammar schools reinstated. But when they guarantee better school places for only a select 20 per cent of children, they are inevitably resisted by many parent groups.
But Chris Paterson, a policy adviser for the DfE at the time, says individual experience can at times trump evidence in the world of politics. “It triggers a political base and instinct, and allows you to generate support through a story narrative.”
Evidence shows grammar schools boost attainment for those that get in, but that is offset by the lower attainment of the many more pupils who don’t.
Jo Bartley, a campaign officer at Comprehensive Future, says that while politicians get “misty eyed as they dream of giving the ‘best’ education to the deserving poor – we all know the reality is tiny percentages of disadvantaged pupils accessing grammars, and a class divide in communities of schools.”
But Laura McInerney, a former Schools Week editor and co-founder of Teacher Tapp, says grammars “work as a story – there’s a sense of unfairness and it makes a really easy headline…. And we’ve had a period of politicians obsessed with headlines.”
It’s also a lesson in how the “political dynamic can swing – either between No 10, the Treasury or the individual department,” says one former adviser.
As Slater recalls, DfE officials knew the evidence well. “So we were in an awkward position where we had to do this thing that we didn’t really believe in, and neither did the secretary of state.
“But because the prime minister wanted us to, that’s what we’re all doing.”
Greening says she had “huge misgivings” about the policy. But Slater says they got an agreement that a “test” for new grammars should be that “you would get a representative proportion of children on free school meals going to them, unlike the existing ones.
“My political brain told me this policy had zero change of actually happening, because it would require a change of law,” Greening adds. “But it kept Number 10 utterly focused on this niche issue, whilst allowing me to focus on all the other areas of education policy I thought had a chance of happening and could make a positive difference.”
Die another day
The outcome was a £50 million pot, announced by May in September 2016, to allow ‘good’ grammar schools to expand, but they had to work with nearby schools to improve access.
It didn’t help much. Greening got heckled at the usually mild-mannered ASCL conference in March 2017.
But then came the hung parliament in June. “Before the 2017 election, No 10 had all the power,” recalls a former adviser. “But then, overnight, it was neutered – and Justine got all that power back.”
One casualty of the 2017 election was May’s right-hand man, Nick Timothy, one of the key drivers behind the grammar schools policy, which was also swiftly dropped.
Greening adds: “Actually, we ended up with much more focus on whether grammars themselves could become more inclusive … that was probably a good outcome.”
It makes a really easy headline, and we’ve had a period of politicians obsessed with headlines
But the policy almost made a comeback in the final days of Boris Johnson’s reign, sources say. Graham Brady, chair of the all-powerful 1922 committee and a staunch grammar fan, suggested Johnson might survive if he just gave the policy one more go.
That didn’t happen. But grammars were firmly back on the menu (albeit briefly) after Liz Truss won the Tory leadership in 2022.
The £50 million pot did get rolled out. But there was a measly 0.7 percentage point rise in pupil premium children in grammar schools. Some actually had fewer poorer pupils.
Explain ‘what works’ better
A former government adviser says the policy is a “consequence of government not doing a good job of explaining to people the successes of our school reforms.
“MPs get briefing packs that say phonics is good. But they’ve got no idea what phonics is.
“There isn’t a strong narrative about what works. The actual conversation about what works is a very small, niche, wonky policy conversation.”
Nicky Morgan, education secretary before Greening, adds that the argument over whether “grammar schools are good or bad distracted everyone” – to the point that the Conservatives even muddied their own record.
“It was a mistake. As a result we don’t own enough of the successes of the education policies of the past 10 years.”
The policy was also out of step with the core belief behind Gove’s reforms that schools should provide a “grammar school education for all children”, says school policy expert Loic Menzies.
It was a mistake. As a result, we don’t own enough of the education successes of the past 10 years
Gove says the grammar plan was a “slightly wrong turning”. He also expands this to university technical colleges. “I was never a fan – but I was persuaded against my better instincts by David [Cameron] and George [Osborne].
“While some of them are clearly excellent institutions … it’s another attempt to go back to the default position in the English education system, which is sheep and goats: grammar school/ secondary moderns and academic/ vocational.
“As many children as possible should follow a stretching academic curriculum to 16.”
Greening adds the lesson for politicians is to not “use up your political capital on a policy that isn’t going to happen, is deeply controversial and was never going to have more than a very small impact”.
End of the grammar school zombie?
But Jonathan Simons, a partner at Public First, says Timothy “wouldn’t deny that some people would lose – but they are indexing it on something else that people in education slightly under-appreciate: it is not wrong to have a point of principle.
“If you had more grammars, you probably would get more lower-class kids going to grammar schools. They think that’s a legitimate trade-off to advantage the cause of some people.”
However the grammar plans always failed when they collided with reality, adds McInerney.
“I was always surprised the audience at Tory party conference wasn’t really pro-grammar – but that’s because many were local councillors, and they know a policy where 80 per cent of kids wouldn’t get the best school is not that popular.”
She also points out there was “still a generation who were in power who had mostly gone to grammar, or private, schools [before they were banned].”
But that dominance is over, for now. Sutton Trust analysis found 92 per cent of cabinet members (23) were educated at comprehensives – the highest ever. Just one member attended a grammar school and one a private.
“If we’re lucky we’ll have a few years under a Labour with no zombies in sight,” adds Bartley. “But they’ll be back, I know it, just you wait and see.”
However, Simons adds: “All political tribes have a shibboleth – it’s not an evidence-based thing. The right has always been pro grammar, the same way the left is historically against private schools.”
