![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Education
As I was getting yesterday's Economist, I had a flick through the Spectator (a magazine I don't buy, but occasionally glance through). It had an article moaning about David Cameron's "betrayal" of selective education. (And the author was moaning that because Suffolk doesn't have grammars, he "had" to pay £13K for private education. Oh, the shame.)
I will say at the outset that I am vehemently opposed to selective education and believe in the forcible abolition of all remaining grammar schools, so I may be slightly biased. Nonetheless, a few points:
1) The assumption is that a child will do better in a grammar than a comprehensive. This is unproven (and may even be untrue). In order to test this, you need to compare the results of children of equal ability and background, one group at a comprehensive and one at a grammar. The aggregate results are irrelevant, because the grammar is only teaching the clever children.
2) This also assumes that the 11+ is a reliable way of sorting children. It isn't. In Northern Ireland the transfer test is being abolished because the margins are so thin that they're meaningless. And children can be and are coached for the tests (so much for a "route for poor children".)
3) It is impossible to have more than a few grammar schools without also having secondary moderns. And here we have the gamble: if you want the chance of going to a grammar, you must also take the risk that your child will fail the exam. There must be losers as well as winners. This means that 75-80% of children will be sent to inferior schools, as secondary moderns are and always have been. Only well-off parents will take this chance, because they can afford the consequences--if their child fails, they can pay to go private. Poor families can't. So talk of a "route out for the poor" is nonsense, as it always has been--most grammars have traditionally been in middle class areas. Even if you have comprehensives as well (which also means fewer grammars--you can only take so much cream before you get skim) it is impossible to have a loser-less system. Someone has to go to the secondaries. If you let children have 2 bites at the apple, allowing them the chance to choose a comprehensive after failing the 11+, you create double losers: children who choose not to take the 11+ then run the risk of being shifted to a secondary modern anyway.
Is it right to condemn 80% for the sake of 20%? I would argue not, and certainly from a votes point of view not. Proponents of selective education focus on the 20%, and don't realise or want to realise that we can't all be winners. People have to lose, but no one wants to think it will be them.
Selective education perpetuates classism (and this is openly mentioned in debates, talking about middle class parents who would otherwise choose private education--because G-d forbid their little babies should have to go to school with the riff-raff).
The answer now, as it has been for decades, is genuine, high quality comprehensive education. This does not mean "one size fits all". It simply means providing different varieties of education under the same roof, and not condemning children to an inflexible system that creates winners and losers at the age of 11.
There are some things that grammars still do better than comprehensives, such as increased opportunities for triple science, Latin, et cetera. I don't see why comprehensives can't offer these opportunities if there is the desire and funding to do so. I grew up in an area that was entirely comprehensive. There was one local school per area (fixed catchment areas, no enrollment caps), and that's where you went--no pretence of choice. If you didn't like it, you went private (usually religious) or you moved. Yet Long Island has the best public high schools in the country. Comprehensive does not mean mediocre and it pisses me off no end when our so-called Labour government denigrates "bog standard" comprehensives.
I will say at the outset that I am vehemently opposed to selective education and believe in the forcible abolition of all remaining grammar schools, so I may be slightly biased. Nonetheless, a few points:
1) The assumption is that a child will do better in a grammar than a comprehensive. This is unproven (and may even be untrue). In order to test this, you need to compare the results of children of equal ability and background, one group at a comprehensive and one at a grammar. The aggregate results are irrelevant, because the grammar is only teaching the clever children.
2) This also assumes that the 11+ is a reliable way of sorting children. It isn't. In Northern Ireland the transfer test is being abolished because the margins are so thin that they're meaningless. And children can be and are coached for the tests (so much for a "route for poor children".)
3) It is impossible to have more than a few grammar schools without also having secondary moderns. And here we have the gamble: if you want the chance of going to a grammar, you must also take the risk that your child will fail the exam. There must be losers as well as winners. This means that 75-80% of children will be sent to inferior schools, as secondary moderns are and always have been. Only well-off parents will take this chance, because they can afford the consequences--if their child fails, they can pay to go private. Poor families can't. So talk of a "route out for the poor" is nonsense, as it always has been--most grammars have traditionally been in middle class areas. Even if you have comprehensives as well (which also means fewer grammars--you can only take so much cream before you get skim) it is impossible to have a loser-less system. Someone has to go to the secondaries. If you let children have 2 bites at the apple, allowing them the chance to choose a comprehensive after failing the 11+, you create double losers: children who choose not to take the 11+ then run the risk of being shifted to a secondary modern anyway.
Is it right to condemn 80% for the sake of 20%? I would argue not, and certainly from a votes point of view not. Proponents of selective education focus on the 20%, and don't realise or want to realise that we can't all be winners. People have to lose, but no one wants to think it will be them.
Selective education perpetuates classism (and this is openly mentioned in debates, talking about middle class parents who would otherwise choose private education--because G-d forbid their little babies should have to go to school with the riff-raff).
The answer now, as it has been for decades, is genuine, high quality comprehensive education. This does not mean "one size fits all". It simply means providing different varieties of education under the same roof, and not condemning children to an inflexible system that creates winners and losers at the age of 11.
There are some things that grammars still do better than comprehensives, such as increased opportunities for triple science, Latin, et cetera. I don't see why comprehensives can't offer these opportunities if there is the desire and funding to do so. I grew up in an area that was entirely comprehensive. There was one local school per area (fixed catchment areas, no enrollment caps), and that's where you went--no pretence of choice. If you didn't like it, you went private (usually religious) or you moved. Yet Long Island has the best public high schools in the country. Comprehensive does not mean mediocre and it pisses me off no end when our so-called Labour government denigrates "bog standard" comprehensives.
no subject
Given that children in secondary moderns achieve worse results than children of equal ability in comprehensive schools, I think the case against them is well made--and it's not possible to have grammars without secondaries. What's wrong with secondary moderns is not just bad teachers; it's the fact that these kids are, and have been, consigned to the heap as the result of a single test. These kids don't get an appropriate education; they just get a watered down version of the same thing grammar school kids are getting.
And yes, the 11+ still exists even if it's not always called that. In areas with multiple grammars, they use a standard exam.
In any case, selection at 11 doesn't work. It assumes we can separate kids into 2 groups, and that these groups are meaningful. They're not. Far better, IMO, to educate them together and allow children to develop and obtain the right education as they go along.
no subject
This, essentially, I completely disagree with. It is possible to test children at 11. Your very argument implies it is, since you claim that there is data which suggests comparison between children of equal ability sent to different schools. If this data exists, then the baseline must have been drawn prior to their starting secondary education.
Your proposal to educate children in streams, within the same institution is fine as far as it goes. However, it would require an intake of sufficient size that the differentiated streams are sufficiently narrow that each class actually contains students who are appropriately close in ability.
The ideal here is to provide each child with a place in a class which will best suit them, in as wide a range of subjects as possible. I believe we appear to agree on that. I just don't think you're going to to achieve that, or even come close, in a generic comprehensive system, for purely logistical reasons.
no subject