This week, Theresa May announced plans for the reversal of an 18-year-old ban on the creation of grammar schools, but is this a meritocratic blessing, or the sign of more children left behind?
Friday saw the Prime-Minister nobody asked for, Theresa May, reveal plans to reintroduce the selective schooling system, supposedly to shrink the class gap, and reward ability and effort.
At face value, Grammar Schools seem like a great idea; they allow high achieving pupils to attend a high-achieving, well-funded, school, complete with all necessary resources and well paid, highly qualified teachers. They’re state funded, meaning -unlike public schools- parents aren’t required to pay a penny in school fees, which, on paper, should allow children from disadvantaged backgrounds to reach their full potential. There is, however, a major problem with this idea: entrance exams for Grammar Schools are taken at age 11. Think back to when you were 11; were you in control of your life by this point? Were you focussed on your successful, financially viable future? Or were you sat in the back garden digging a hole with a stick? For a few of you, perhaps you were academically orientated from such a young age, maybe you already had a steady job, and were nearly finished paying off your mortgage, and if you were, great! But if you weren’t, this didn’t mean you couldn’t have academic success later on. Grammar schools take the test results of a child too young to see the new Ghostbusters and use them to determine whether they’ll grow into one of the academic elite, or just one of the rest of us. Children shouldn’t be forced into a position where they have to forsake their childhood of emotional development at risk of sacrificing their future to a lesser education. 11 is too young for such a life-defining valuation.
Grammar Schools may not even bridge the economic divide. In her speech, Theresa May made a point of highlighting the “selection by house price” that currently divides educational standards across the country, and whilst this is a valid concern, Grammar Schools are not the solution. In order to reach the high exam results required to enter a Grammar School, middle class children again have the edge; high-earning parents can afford private tuition, whilst primary schools in middle class areas are still more high-achieving than those in lower class areas. The chair of the government’s Social Mobility commission himself, Alan Milburn, remarked that attendees of privately-funded prep schools are four-to-five times more likely to be admitted by grammar schools than those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and is clearly sceptical of selective education. Milburn pointed out the link between Grammar Schools and the low achievement of disadvantaged pupils, emphasising the massive divide in standards between Grammar and Comprehensive schools, as well as their negative impact on social mobility, and perhaps this raises a bigger problem; why does the Comprehensive system seem so inferior compared to other systems? Perhaps the marketization of the education system has had a role to play, as successful schools receive more funding, while struggling schools receive less, perpetuating the achievement gap between regions.
Maybe, instead of funding the creation of more institutions to further divide society into ‘elite’ and ‘common,’ the government should pump more money into the existing system to make a higher level of education available to all, focussing on improving schools in economically deprived areas to create a level playing field, giving everyone an equal chance.
What do you think of Grammar Schools? Does the Swindon area need more locally? Let us know in the comments. Please come back for the next “A Week in Politics.”
