Grammar schools are the education policy that will not die. The evidence that they harm poorer children’s life chances is clear, but the residual belief among many that somehow they promote social mobility remains stubbornly resistant to the facts.
It’s not difficult to understand why. Many people in politics and the media benefited from a grammar education themselves and feel it formed the basis of their success. They genuinely want to offer that opportunity to others whose parents can’t afford a private school or the expensive catchment area of a popular comprehensive. The problem is that for every success story there are far more hidden examples of lost potential.
The fact is that grammar schools rarely educate young people from low income backgrounds – just 3% of their pupils receive free school meals – so they exacerbate social divisions rather than easing them. Combined, Grammar schools educate just 9,000 low-income pupils. That’s fewer than the number of low-income pupils in Bradford. And this is why education experts are united in opposing them.
But even if a way could be found for more poor pupils to benefit from grammars they would still be a bad idea. The fundamental assumption behind selective schools is that only a small percentage of the population can truly benefit from an academic education.
Not only is this not true – look at inner-city schools such as King Solomon academy in London where almost all pupils achieve five good GCSEs – but it’s economically dangerous. We no longer live in a world where it makes sense for just 20% of the population to have access to high-quality academic education. Without higher-level skills students will have no chance of competing for jobs in an increasingly global market.
It also goes against the beliefs that have guided education policy over the past six years, in which I played a part as an adviser to Michael Gove. During this period, the government pursued the goal of academic education for all through policies such as the EBacc – which encourages pupils to take more traditional subjects at GCSE – and a new curriculum. Many new academies and free schools have been designed around a “grammar-style education for all” ethos. All of which makes this turn in direction even more surprising.
We just have to look at the experience of other countries to see this cannot be the way forward. It’s not as if countries with selective systems are trading off social inequality for a better educated elite – they’re getting the worst of both worlds. The OECD has found that not only are selective systems more socially segregated, they are also less effective than inclusive ones. All of the top education systems in the world – from Korea to Finland to Canada – are comprehensive.
And if none of these arguments convince you then bear in mind that primary-age tests, while they have their uses in assessing progress, are very blunt instruments for deciding people’s life chances. Perhaps you think your children will have no problem passing the 11-plus, but be aware that at the height of the grammar school system it was estimated that some 70,000 children a year were inaccurately placed on the wrong side of the dividing line. Maybe they’ll be good enough and still fail. The reason most grammars closed in the 1960s and 70s was not because of a top-down government decision but because they became very unpopular with voters who worried that their children would miss out.
The tragedy in all of this is that there is so much the government could do to genuinely boost social mobility. Even if you support grammar schools, a few extra can be nothing more than a distraction. What we need are great schools for all, especially in the “left-behind” communities that need them most. And that requires investment in recruiting and retaining the best teachers and leaders and giving them the resources to give every child a high quality education.
The prime minister is right to want to boost social mobility, but that requires educational excellence everywhere.