Grammar Schools: the wrong answer to the right question




Dear Theresa May,


In the current political, social and economic climate, the promise to build a country that works for everyone is a welcome one, and you are having to contend with a history of Tory decisions that has meant that in too many circumstances, our country only works for the wealthy and elite. 

However, in light of your new education reforms that involve lifting the ban on grammar schools, you will forgive me for merely lumping you in with your predecessors as you implement regressive reforms under the disguise of 'improving social mobility'.

I know you intend to put measures in place to encourage more children from families with low socioeconomic status (SES) to apply to grammar schools, but I'm afraid the barriers for these children go deeper than you might think, and your approach is exclusive and damaging.

A quota that works on the basis of lowering the pass grade for lower income families would be ineffective. Amongst children who achieve level 5 in Maths and English at key stage 2, 66% of children from wealthier families who aren't eligible for free school meals attend grammar school compared to only 40% of pupils from lower income families who are eligible for free school meals. In this situation, it does not seem to be academic ability that prevents children from lower income families attending grammar schools.

A quota that works on the basis of just encouraging a higher proportion of lower income families to apply and attend grammar schools is also questionable. With a history of grammar schools attracting and favouring the middle class and the wealthy, many lower income families write off grammar schools as an option. They feel they do not fit in there. The process of getting a child into grammar school is a privilege for the middle class - often a lower income family's priority is simply getting food on the table.

The premise of selecting children at 11 years old is harsh and places unnecessary stress on children at such a young age. Even your suggestions of selecting children at 14 and 16 years old too has its issues. Irregular school transition and turbulence has been shown to have a negative affect on childrens' education. Not to mention the impact of applying and failing to get into a grammar school can have on the individual in which children will become acutely aware that they were not good enough to deserve the best education.

The fundamental assumption of a selective school system is that only a small proportion of children in the country deserve access to the best education. By giving secondary schools the option to become selective grammar schools, you are increasing the attainment gap between children who go to state comprehensives and those at grammar and private schools.

Instead of investing £50 million per year in this backwards scheme, why not invest £50 million in the existing schools we have? The state comprehensives in London where so many children who are eligible for free school meals live. The schools with a high density of low income families in the catchment area. Marry this with increased investment in social support and welfare for these families, and you begin to improve educational excellence everywhere, rather than in a select few schools for a select few children.

Your plans to give the most intelligent children the best education means that you are also giving the less intelligent children inferior education. All children, regardless of ability, deserve the best education in order to fulfil their potential and achieve their dreams. Selective schooling creates a hoard of children that will be left behind.

Education is the key to social mobility. And you're right to ask the question of how best we address this. But grammar schools are not the answer. You cannot build a country that works for everyone through a system that favours a few.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Baaer Meinhof and Baby Killers...

'Students' VS 'Residents' - Bath is full to the brim

I'm running for SU President