Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection.

Mike Ion Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:35:35 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

With the Conservatives now convinced that grammar schools are bad for Britain and with the nation about to have a new Prime Minister in need of some passion-rousing policies that will unite his movement’s natural supporters and signal a shift towards a more radical and egalitarian agenda, are we nearing the time when selection by ability will finally be abolished for good? Almost all of the main political parties in Britain now agree that getting rid of selection in England’s schools (there is no selection in Wales or Scotland and it is on the way out in Northern Ireland) would produce an immediate improvement in the overall exam performance of the nation’s children, reduce poverty and inequality in many of our most deprived inner-city areas and overtly and transparently attack privilege that all too often masquerades as excellence. However it is important to emphasise that it is selection that needs to be got rid of, no one is suggesting that particular schools should be closed. There is no reason why the remaining 164 grammar schools themselves should not remain pretty much as they are now. They would have the same buildings, the same governors, the same headteachers and staff, the same resources, the same curriculum, uniform and largely the same funding. The only real change will be in the academic profile of the pupils attending the school.



A selective system of schooling does not lead to diversity of provision it simply leads to division. Selection is not the creation of choice rather it is the denial of choice for the many. A selective system (be it based on ability or aptitude) does not help promote a diverse system of schooling; it simply helps perpetuate division in society as a whole. Selective schools are not escape routes from poverty, they do not offer good value for money and they do not help raise standards overall? The Tories do not want a return to selection and the Lib Dems are opposed in principle. This is why a Brown led Government should seek to end selection in the state sector once and for all.

tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. | 18 comments (18 topical)

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#1)

by doctordunc on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:01:09 PM GMT

I'll take a break from weeping to say that I completely agree with you Mike. I hope we hear an anouncement of that kind from Brown very soon. And people should push him on it at these 'hustings' he's going to be speaking at.


Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#2)

by e10rifles on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:31:41 AM GMT

I agree as well. And let's see an end to City Academies as well - one of the worst policies to be dreamt up in recent years. I expect to see Andrew Adonis down the Jobcentre soon after you take over, Gordon.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#3)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 12:57:17 PM GMT

I for one will not be following David Cameron's policy of no longer supporting grammar schools.

Not only should grammar schools be kept (as well as academic selection), but they should be expanded nationwide and be included in the poorest areas of most towns and cities to ensure there is no longer a middle-class bias. Grammar schools can be the key to social mobility which we are desperately lacking.

Now that the Tories have abandoned one of their more popular policies, it wouldn't surprise me if Brown took it up - especially as he desperately needs to get the South and the middle classes back on our side.


Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#4)

by e10rifles on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:03:16 PM GMT

"Grammar schools can be the key to social mobility which we are desperately lacking." Except there is plenty of evidence that they do the precise opposite.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#5)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:07:57 PM GMT

I quite agree - that's why I explained that they need to be put in the poorest areas of cities and towns, not just the middle-class areas of England like they are now.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#6)

by e10rifles on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:18:26 PM GMT

That's just not true. I went to an urban grammar school and it just dragged in the middle-class kids from all the surrounding areas, condemning the other local schools to perennially poor results. They do nothing to improve results overall: areas with selection eg Kent do worse overall than comparable areas with only comprehensives.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#8)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:53:45 PM GMT

Who gives a stuff about overall results? People twist these stat's one way or another to suit their own prejudices. As I am free from any prejudices, I can say that I am not convinced one way or another, it all seems pretty marginal. Parents care how well their OWN children do. And parents have the vote.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#9)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:56:09 PM GMT

If you look at an area like Trafford which has grammar schools - the high schools there get better results than comprehensives in areas where there are no grammars - even though they are missing the most intelligent students.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#10)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:56:43 PM GMT

Yeah, but what if JR's plan included the condition that the selective school in the poor area had a catchment area that restricted its intake to kids from precisely that poor area?


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#11)

by JR on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:06:48 PM GMT

Yep, sounds good to me.


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#7)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:51:01 PM GMT

"Not only should grammar schools be kept (as well as academic selection), but they should be expanded nationwide and be included in the poorest areas of most towns and cities to ensure there is no longer a middle-class bias. Grammar schools can be the key to social mobility which we are desperately lacking" Excellent idea indeed. And if they get "hijacked" by middle class people from surrounding areas (highly unlikely), just keep setting up more and more. What's wrong with CHOICE?


[ Parent ]

Re: Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. (#12)

by e10rifles on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:05:45 PM GMT

Choice in education is complete rubbish. Make every school a comprehensive and fund it properly. The whole "I just want what's best for my kid" argument is one of the biggest pieces of crap I hear parents come out with. As Jeremy Hardy said, pushing other kids off the swings to get your kid on is exactly the same principle. If doing the best for your kid means actively disadvantaging other kids, then it must not be an option.


[ Parent ]

Swings and roundabouts (#13)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:39:31 PM GMT

If parents have to push other children off swings, isn't the correct response to build more playgrounds?


[ Parent ]

Re: Swings and roundabouts (#14)

by doctordunc on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:45:33 PM GMT

Yes. Are you suggesting every kid can go to grammar school? Because I seem to remember that was what Harold Wilson said about comprehensives, so I agree with you!


[ Parent ]

Re: Swings and roundabouts (#15)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:57:47 PM GMT

I see no reason why every kid (esp. the ones in poorer areas that JR was talking about) should not have the OPPORTUNITY to go to a selective grammar school (by definition not all can go!). Likewise, each kid should have the OPPORTUNITY to go to a comprehensive, a City Academy, a technical college, a secondary modern, claim school vouchers and go private, whatever they like. The same as when you are 18, whether to go to Uni or get a job, that's up to each individual isn't it? Since when has education been a core function of the State (I don't mean in years, I mean in logic)? Sure, it is broadly agreed that central government should finance the bulk of this, that's only fair and proper, but I don't think it goes any further than that. Leave the rest to local councils, private providers, parents and pupils to thrash out between themselves.


[ Parent ]

Re: Swings and roundabouts (#16)

by doctordunc on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:16:46 PM GMT

"(by definition not all can go!)" That's what I was getting at Mark.


[ Parent ]

Re: Swings and roundabouts (#17)

by e10rifles on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:30:24 PM GMT

On the contrary, local variation in provision creates the kind of postcode lottery which is not only morally indefensible but plays very badly with the public. The difference with education is that the child doesn't have the choice, the parent does, and there are too many bad and selfish parents out there to allow them to have full rein over the education system. The minute you create a grammar, you create several secondary moderns in the area. That cannot be avoided, and it is nothing other than social apartheid.


[ Parent ]

Re: Swings and roundabouts (#18)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:13:07 PM GMT

Yeah ... a bit like universities, which lead to a two-tier employment market ... burn 'em all down!


[ Parent ]

Keep grammar schools but get rid of selection. | 18 comments (18 topical)