How very depressing it is to discover that
Theresa May shares Michael Gove’s lip-curling disdain for experts. She may
claim to be someone who likes to evaluate all the available evidence before
reaching a decision, but there seems to be at least one, glaring exception.
She is a huge fan of grammar schools.
Despite there being no evidence at all that they improve social mobility or
educational outcomes, she wants more of them. Experts? Who needs ‘em?
Sir Michael Wilshaw, outgoing chief schools
inspector for England, who says creating more grammar schools would be a ‘profoundly
retrograde step’? Huh. What does he know?
Alan Milburn, who chairs the government’s
social mobility commission and says more grammar schools ‘will not provide a social mobility dividend, it
will be a social mobility disaster’? He’s an expert. Ignore him.
Even the pro-grammar
school commentator Tim Montgomerie is forced to concede that ‘there is some
evidence that the remaining grammar schools disproportionately benefit
better-off families and are not the great engine for social mobility that
proponents claim.’
It’s funny, isn’t it?
No one says: ‘Let’s bring back secondary modern schools.’ (Note for younger
readers: In the days when all children had to sit an exam at the age of 11,
those who passed the exam went to grammar schools, and those who failed went to
secondary modern schools. Most of the ‘failures’ left school at the age
of 15 with few if any qualifications.)
It is not difficult to
find evidence to disprove Mrs May’s contention that grammar schools improve
social mobility. Take Kent, which has the highest proportion of selective state
schools in England. According to Alan Milburn, only 27% of children in Kent who
receive free school meals (which is the standard measure of poverty) get five
good GCSEs. The national average is 33% and in London, where most areas are
purely comprehensive, it is 45%.
Conclusion? Children
from less well-off backgrounds do worse, not better, in areas with grammar
schools. It is exactly the opposite of what Mrs May says she wants. In the
words of former Labour Cabinet minister Alan Johnson, one of those rare working
class boys who made it to a grammar school – but who left at the
age of 15 without a single qualification: ‘My argument against selective
education is that it wastes more talent than it nurtures; destroys more
potential than it realises; ruins more young lives than it enhances.’
There are still more
than a hundred secondary modern schools in England, and 28% of them have been
officially judged ‘inadequate’. (The equivalent figure for grammar schools is
one per cent.) According to the National Association of Secondary Moderns: ‘With
grammar schools come secondary moderns, lots of them. For every grammar school
created there will be an extra three (or more) secondary moderns.’
The proponents of more
grammar schools seem not to understand this. If you create separate schools for
children who are more academically gifted, it stands to reason that there will
then be fewer academically gifted children in the non-selective schools. Less
will be expected of the pupils who didn’t make it, the best teachers will shun
them, and their exam results will be unimpressive.
When Michael Howard
was leader of the Conservative party, he famously told the then prime minister
Tony Blair: ‘This grammar school boy will not take any lessons from that
public school boy.’ It was an effective bit of parliamentary point-scoring, but
when I asked him some time later if the secondary modern schools in Llanelli,
where he was educated, were as good as the grammar schools, he was not much
amused.
(Full disclosure: like
Lord Howard, I went to school before comprehensives were invented – my school
was half grammar, half secondary modern. My own children both went to a comprehensive
school.)
If Mrs May is serious
about wanting to improve educational standards and social mobility, which she
should be, she should leave the secondary schools alone and focus on early
years education instead. All the evidence suggests that it is in primary
schools that the really important work is done, which is why I spend two
afternoons a week in a local primary school as a voluntary reading helper. (If
you’d like to do something similar, you can contact the childhood literacy
charity Beanstalk by clicking here.)
Pay teachers properly.
Fund schools properly. Improve the training of teachers and ensure that they
get the support that they need from ancillary staff who can help with children
who need extra assistance. According to one recent poll, nearly half the state
school teachers in England are planning to leave the profession within the next
five years. That’s what Mrs May should be worrying about – not turning the
clock back to an inglorious past when 75% of children were branded ‘failures’
at the age of 11.
1 comment:
Robin,
I doubt that it is valid to compare the performance of pupils on free school meals in the way that you have done.
This is because the pupils on free school meals in a leafy, suburban town are likely to be very different from those in a large city.
Post a Comment