Just when we thought the scourge of grammar schools had disappeared forever, here we go again. In the 60s and 70s, the UK government moved towards a comprehensive system of education. Most grammar schools were closed during Margaret Thatcher’s tenure as education secretary in the mid-1970s. However, they’re back on the agenda.
What are grammar schools?
Grammar schools are, in many ways, like lots of other secondary schools. That’s to say, they’re buildings with teachers and pupils and canteens and sports halls. They’re ecosystems of who-kissed-who with bike sheds to smoke behind and graffiti that tells us, in no uncertain terms, who is the biggest **** in school. But there is one key difference.
Grammar schools are state secondary schools that select their pupils by means of the “11-plus” examination. According to the BBC, there are 163 grammar schools in England, out of some 3,000 state secondaries, and a further 69 grammar schools in Northern Ireland. Under the grammar school system, pupils who pass the exam can go to the local grammar, while those who do not go to the local “secondary modern school”. More common across the UK is the “comprehensive” system, in which pupils of all abilities and aptitudes are taught together (1).
What does the evidence suggest?
There is no evidence to suggest that the re-introduction of grammar schools will raise standards or support social mobility, as the government suggests. In fact, quite the opposite is true. According to Education Policy Institute (EPI) (2), “We find no evidence to suggest that overall educational standards in England would be improved by creating additional grammar schools… additional grammar schools would be likely to lead to increases in the aggregate attainment gaps between rich and poor children”.
Consider if this evidence had been presented by the British Medical Association following assessment of the imaginary “Govey Pill”. “We find no evidence to suggest that overall health standards in England would be improved by young people taking additional Govey pills… additional Govey pills would be likely to lead to increases in the aggregate health gaps between rich and poor children”. Hmmm. I’m not sure this pill would be rushed onto the pharmacy shelves.
EPI continue: “40 per cent of the gap in attainment between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils emerges before children start attending school, and by the time the ‘11 Plus’ entry exam (or equivalent) is taken, 60 per cent of the large disadvantaged attainment gap – equivalent to almost 10 months of learning by this stage – has emerged. Therefore, it is simply less likely that poorer children will attain highly in tests taken at age 11, compared with pupils from more affluent family backgrounds”. Family background is a far greater predictor of performance on the 11-plus, than “intelligence”. Thus, the 11-plus is a background check, not an intelligence assessment.
And we don’t need to take the EPI’s word for it. Research for the Sutton Trust (3) found that “less than 3% of entrants to these ‘super-selective’ schools are entitled to free school meals. Yet the average proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals in local communities surrounding the schools is 18%. At the same time almost 13% of entrants come from outside the state sector, largely believed to be fee-paying preparatory schools”. Shock horror… grammar schools benefit the middle classes, NOT the disadvantaged. But this is not news, we have known this forever.
So who does get in?
Take a look at the government’s own figures. Grammar schools currently educate tiny numbers of young people with special educational needs alongside a miniscule percentage of young people eligible for free school meals (the poorest families).
House of Commons Library (4)
Looking at the data, you might assume that young people on free schools meals are less “clever” than those from more privileged backgrounds, aged 11. Except, we know that this isn’t the case. As an Educational Psychologist who has spent years thinking about, administering and evaluating “intelligence tests” I can tell you this: the 11-plus concept is archaic, immoral and grossly invalid. The assessments do NOT measure intelligence fairly and are hugely influenced by practice, experience and knowledge. There is no way to make them “tutor proof”. You will not find a single psychologist or academic who disagrees with this. Bringing back grammar schools is only a small hop-step-and-jump away from a return to Phrenology or Eugenism.
The evidence is STRONGLY opposed so… why?
Around grammar schools, there is a huge gulf between what is said and what lies underneath. What is underneath is a drive to separate the most needy, the most challenging and vulnerable, from the rest. It’s a selective school system based on a background check. Separating young people, aged 11, based on tests that assess prior learning, NOT intelligence, is criminal.
Can you imagine any other life outcomes being decided in this way? “You didn’t pass the interview criteria this time, that means you’ll never, ever get this job”… “You failed your driving test, that means you’ll never, ever be able to drive”… Placed in these contexts, it seems ludicrous because we assume, rightly, that people can go away and work at things, find better ways to approach the same task, build on their skills and develop their capacity to succeed. Why is it therefore assumed that young people’s intelligence is both fixed and measurable at age 11? How can Theresa May possible claim she wants to create a “great meritocracy”, an education system “unhindered by background” (5), whilst re-launching the 11-plus background check, which promotes does the polar opposite? Instead what’s created is “a great anti-meritocracy”, an education system “unhindered by fairness”.
I searched the ether for the evidence elixir that justifies defying 97% of Headteachers who voted against the policy (6). Then… I found it in a House of Commons document under the subtitle, “Support for new Grammar Schools” (7). Here we go, I thought, here comes the magic, here’s the research evidence. But the first paragraph reads… “there is ‘very broad support’ within the Conservative Party for selective education… Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, stated his support for academic selection. The Prime Minister, and Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, have previously been reported as supporting plans for ‘satellite’ grammar schools”. How delightfully democratic. Their evidence is… each other. Brilliant.
And it gets worse…
The latest
This month, the situation has taken an even more divisive turn. Justine Greening has indicated that she will make sure that new grammar schools cater for “ordinary working people”. Apparently, this will include prioritising children from families earning below the median income level but who do not qualify for free school meals (8).
So the message is clear: you’re only ordinary if you’re not really poor. If you’re really poor and can’t afford your own lunch, I’m afraid you’re not ordinary enough and don’t qualify for assistance to enter the grammar school system. So what kind of family are you if you’re earning below the “ordinary working family level?” A sub-normal family? A below ordinary family? Shameful.
A telling story
A friend of mine recently attempted to get her child into grammar school. She spent a huge amount of money on private tutors, all the while saying this was the “best thing for her child” as she would be educated alongside “clever, well behaved children”. The child struggled with and failed to pass the 11-plus exams. I then asked her, “do you still support grammar schools?” …
… She stared at the floor, stood in silence for just about as long as her British reserve would allow her to, and then offered me a cup of tea and no further response.
Now is not the time for Britain to Keep Calm and Drink Tea… We need to get angry about this.
hiddendepthsblog 