Debating selection
Matthew d'Ancona 10:33pm
It never fails. Assemble a group of highly intelligent people (the more, the merrier), invite them to debate the merits of selective schools, stand well back and enjoy the fireworks.
So it was this beautiful summer’s evening at the Royal Geographical Society, as The Spectator hosted its inaugural debate, chaired by Andrew Neil – the motion before the audience being the quite straightforward proposition that “grammar schools are best”. Before the panel of speakers began their gladiatorial combat, the votes stood at: 175 for the motion, 37 against, and 48 don’t knows.
David Davis, the former Shadow Home Secretary, and long-time champion of grammar schools, kicked off proceedings with an impassioned defence of the selective system. “Every chance I had,” he said, “was created by my grammar school”. Such institutions, were, he added, “the greatest instrument for social mobility ever invented.” Now, “working class children are mainly left to fester” and the public schools rule the roost once more: including (Mr Davis chose not to add) the highest reaches of the Conservative Party.
Charles Clarke, a former Education Secretary, took umbrage at the wording of the motion, but having agreed to oppose it, declared that there was no scientific basis for the claims made by the advocates of selective education, and that it was in any case pointless to generalise about any kind of school. That did not stop him from claiming that the era of the 11-plus had been “pernicious for the quality of education”; his objection that such segregation demotivated the young earned him a round of applause. It was essential, Mr Clarke insisted, to “equip all, not some”.
Stephen Pollard, driven in 1995 from the Fabian Society for supporting grammar schools, now editor of the Jewish Chronicle, said he was astonished by the “Little England” prejudice of those who opposed academic selection – a system so common and uncontroversial on the continent and elsewhere in the world. Instead of extending the ethos of the grammar schools, we had managed in this country to vandalise a “gloriously successful” engine of social mobility.
Simon Jenkins, chairman of the National Trust and former editor of The Times, said he would “hit anyone who calls me an egalitarian”. But he had seen first-hand how an uprising of Tory voters had killed off the grammar schools and watched as the Conservative Party attributed its defeats in 1964 and 1966 to the socially divisive force of the 11-plus: no wonder Margaret Thatcher opposed what Sir Simon called “a true educational apartheid”. The idea of going back was, he said, “simply inconceivable”. There was an argument for selection, but not at such an early age: “Eleven is obscene; 16 is not obscene.”
Graham Brady, who resigned his front bench position in May 2007 in protest at David Cameron’s opposition to grammar schools, said there were now “forty years of evidence” to show that the comprehensive experiment had failed. Indeed, in areas where grammar schools survived, secondary moderns often outshone comprehensive schools. Yes, state school admissions to Cambridge were rising. But the successful candidates were coming from grammar schools: “the egalitarian delusionists,” Mr Brady said, had been proved wrong.
Not so, parried Fiona Millar, a doughty foe of selection and defender of comprehensives. Though she had been to a grammar school, all her children had been to comprehensives and done better than she had. It was simply incorrect, she said, to claim that selection somehow raised standards all round, and morally wrong to champion a system that “relies on rejection.” Better, she added, to get rid of the remaining grammar schools altogether and focus on the state system as a whole: to “grasp the nettle and be bold”.
From the floor came precisely the sort of impassioned, informed interventions one would expect of Spectator readers. A former teacher at a girls’ public school said that the experience had converted her to the merits of the comprehensive system. An 11-plus failure from Bethnal Green pointed out that rejection had not stopped him being a business success – although he conceded, when asked by Andrew in the chair, that his experience was probably the exception that proved the rule.
If setting and streaming were acceptable, asked another participant, then why was selection by schools so morally dubious? And why, another reader wanted to know, was it legally possible to hold a local ballot to close down grammar schools, but not to set them up? Robert McCartney of the National Grammar Schools Association – to whom warm thanks are owed for sponsoring the event - made a powerful defence of the selective system in Ulster which, he said, had served his own family so well.
Final result: 179 for the motion “Grammar schools are best” (up four); 84 against (up 47); and four “don’t knows”. A victory for the 11-plus gang, but a swing towards their opponents: and – in sum – a first-class evening of debate in the best traditions of the magazine.
Previous
Victor, NW Kent
June 23rd, 2009 11:03pm Report this commentCharles Clarke, of course, was educated at a fee-paying school as was his predecessor Anthony Crosland - the same school.
May we presume then that since there is no proof that advocates for grammar schools are right then there can be no proof that private education confers benefits? Of course, we would be daft to make any such presumption.
Equally daft is the cry to equip all, not some. It epitomises Labour's aim for all to be equally badly educated and that there is no merit in merit.
I confess to bias. I was a boy from a very poor background who made it to grammar school.
Kit
June 23rd, 2009 11:31pm Report this commentI was with some of the initial "don't knows". These particular "don't knows" are in favour of closing private schools and banning home education so that all children have to attend Comprehensives. So I wouldn't worry about the "swing".
Fergus Pickering
June 23rd, 2009 11:47pm Report this commentYeah, let's talk about the grammar schols, which byy and large we haven't got. Let's not talk about the bloody comprehensives which most people are stuck with. Let's talk about the iniquities of fifty years ago, remembered by such obvious failures as Charles Clarke and Fiona Millar. Let's not talk about the iniquities of today. Of course it's all right for me. I live in Kent. My children were all right. And it's all right for rich people. They can buy their way out. But ordinary people are stuck with what we've got. And what we've got is NO GOOD. If Charles Clarke doesn't know that, then Charles Clarke isn't attending. Obscene to select at aleven? Children are selected at birth. What chance would David Davies have today? Not much, that's what.
Major Plonquer
June 24th, 2009 3:04am Report this commentI suggest that Comprehensive Education should be funded by a new New Labour Lottery system. Tickets would cost £1 per entry and everyone who entered would win 60p. No losers, eh?
Ray
June 24th, 2009 7:43am Report this commentNew Labour has its own selective education policy: selection by postcode, selection by lottery, selection by whether your parents earn enough to send you to private school or can pay for private tuition after school; in fact, selection by anything except academic merit.
Richard
June 24th, 2009 8:31am Report this commentOne thing about this debate and so many similar debates puzzles and worries me. The grammar school system is always taken as it was (and in a few places still is). Nothing is said about how it can be improved, for example by greater flexibility in admissions and transfers. By contrast, the comprehensive system is always discussed as it might be, if it were altered, funded, improved, whatever - if we were "bold". Sorry, let's compare like with like. Let's compare the grammar school system as it was with the comprehensive system as is and has been for the last 40 years. Or else consider how each might be realistically improved and then compare them. If we make the former comparison, it is quite clear that the comprehensive system is a disaster that has blighted hundreds of thousands of lives - for which ideologes like Millar are directly and personally responsible. They bear a very heavy guilt. The latter comparison would be more interesting than the tired debate staged by The Spectator.
I teach at one of the country's leading universities and the pupils I see from comprehensives in general are very ill fitted for tertiary education (which is doubtless the fault of tertiary education). They are not bad, evil hoodies etc etc. They are generally very nice young people who have been incredibly badly harmed by the self-regarding sanctimony of the education establishment. If the grammar school system excludes or "rejects", how much more so the comprehensive system. What a lie from Millar (but I guess she's well trained). But she is of her (upper middle - sorry, not working) class: I work amongst many such people who prattle on about comprehensive education and then send their children either to private schools or to very middle class comprehensives they have colonised (no hoodies there...) and treat as somehow representative.
I am so depressed by the ideological rigidity and sheer stupidity of educational policy and debate in the UK that I'm seriously considering leaving the country. I have a couple of good job offers abroad, and I'm increasingly coming to the view that I should take one.
Hawkeye
June 24th, 2009 9:31am Report this comment@Richard
There was a program on Radio 4 a couple of years ago about a teacher/educationalist who ran a "modern" school between the wars and the kids had no set curriculum or lessons and could come and go as they pleased.
It was an utter disaster - no surprises there.
What shocked me was the revelation that many of those involved in this disaster - both teachers and pupils - are now in the hierarchy of the educational establishment. It explains so much of why everything is going wrong.
The other educational disaster that the debate does not seem to have touched on is the destruction of the curriculum. When I see what my kids do for "science" and "maths" it is heartbreaking and mine are in a good school.
The final nail in the educational coffin (for me at least) is the fact that nobody fails exams anymore. Exams are now pointless and the socialist education utopia has now been achieved.
PayDirt
June 24th, 2009 9:34am Report this commentIf there are best schools then there must also be worst schools, that’s how it is and ideology that says it is harmful to select children has led to the disaster that is education today. Independent schools offer choice and educational success that the state evidently cannot provide. Make all schools independent and give parents vouchers for heaven’s sake, it is so simple really. Schools would then grow into sponsoring best in Science/Humanities/Vocational/emotionally-challenged .. whatever the words are. Why stick in the past with a divisive word like “Grammar”.
Stronghold Barricades
June 24th, 2009 9:35am Report this commentA system which allows no one to fail, fails all of society because there is no goal to strive for
It is why our school leavers have little ambition, and the reason for so many people thinking that "mickey mouse" degrees will put them on the gravy train
Dirty Euro
June 24th, 2009 9:55am Report this commentGrammar schools are supported to keep working classes people away from middle classes.
For every working class guy who gets a leg up due to that system, there is a middle class person who is given a leg down.
Rhoda Klapp
June 24th, 2009 10:18am Report this commentSuch a sterile outdated discussion. The wonderful clever people who had the debate are just wrapped up in this academic question which has dominated British education policy for decades.
But the real question is, good schools or bad schools? Other countries get better value in education by both selection and all-in-one schools. Some find they don't need a big private sector. These things don't matter so much as the quality of the education given not only to the clever pupils but also to the rest. In every case though, there is selection at some point. By school, by streaming or within the classroom. Better schools are what we need.
Straight Talk
June 24th, 2009 10:48am Report this commentHarriet Harman, the "equalities" minister went through a selective education and so did her children. She could have sent them to a local comprehensive but chose not to do so.
Dianne Abbot sent her child through selective education despite condemning it for years.Again the local comprehensive was rejected by her.
The actions of these "progressives" says more than words ever could........
Clive Elliot
June 24th, 2009 11:07am Report this commentIn this debate nothing is ever said about the effect of selection at 11 on the performance of primary schools.
Primary schools need a target to strive for, an objective one, and the number of kids who get in to Grammar school would be a good parameter for parents who are choosing.
When comprehensives went 40 years ago in Surrey (shame and well done, Kent) the main reason why there was parental support for that was because there were never enough Grammar places and many deserving kids missed out. Only about 20% of secondary was Grammar (from memory) and it should have been 50% in Surrey.
Tiberius
June 24th, 2009 11:30am Report this commentWell said, Rhoda.
Grammar schools are indeed best, but we have to start from where we are. They are now an ex-best, thanks to Labour's shameful educational vandalism.
I am puzzled why Cameron is supposed to try and reinstate them when Margaret Thatcher didn't. Perhaps we should also expect him to rebuild Pompeii while he's at it.
Trust in Gove, I say. Certainly Fraser seems to.
Yam Yam
June 24th, 2009 11:31am Report this commentThe whole warped ethos of comprehensive education is perhaps best summed up in the motto of one particular school in the Black Country: "Excellence for Everyone".
It is emblazoned across the front of the school without even a hint of irony.
Ulsterman
June 24th, 2009 12:58pm Report this commentAs the product of the Ulster grammar school system, I am bemused by this debate. My education was as good as anything that the best English public school could give, and yet it cost my parents nothing. That meant no post code lottery, no inflated house prices in good school catchment areas, and no middle class parents impoverishing themselves with fees.
I can see why class warriors like Big Ears and Harperson hate the grammar schools. Their type discovered long ago that the real battleground for socialism was the classroom not the decaying nationalised industries. They want their egalitarian society to start in the schools, even if that pulls the ladder of opportunity up from the poorest. Of course they keep their own children away from some of the worst schools anywhere in the developed world. Fiona Millar sends her own children to Camden High School for Girls (I think?), the socialist Eton, a very atypical comp not open to the lower orders of Camden.
It says a lot for the ignorance, defeatism and cowardice within the Tory Party (DD et al excluded) that the left has been given a free ride over its trashing of the educational system. A brave Tory Party would hammer hypocrites like Clarke and Millar for keeping talented kids back. Who knows, in so doing, it might even reinvent itself as the party of aspiration. But it won’t. Gove’s Swedish-style schools are too timid (no academic selection allowed) and will not address the institutional leftism within the state school sector.
Stephen
June 24th, 2009 1:44pm Report this commentIf the grammar school system was more effective than the comprehensive system one would expect those counties that have grammar schools to have fewer than expected failing schools. But Kent, Lincolnshire and Buckinghamshire have high rates of failing schools. The reason is simple. Schools that select pupils on the basis of ability (Grammar schools) have highly motivated parents, able, if variably motivated pupils and, perhaps most crucially a culture of learning and achieving. Schools which take the left-overs (Secondary Moderns) are likely to have lower levels of motivation from parents and pupils alike and a culture in which academic success is lower than average. None of which is at all surprising. It is built into the system.
As a parent I want my child in the best place for learning and achievement that is possible - though that might not necessarily be a school where my child is the least intelligent. Like their parents they are more Russell Group material than Oxbridge. But if I am setting education policy I must be concerned with those who will not get into the Grammar School. I am sure that many people who support Grammar Schools would find their enthusiasm waning if they discovered that their child was destined for the secondary modern.
As Rhoda suggests, the debate should be about how to get the best out of children in the context of their innate ability, peer group, parental support (or lack of it) and the culture of the community of which they are a part. Those who see comprehensives as the only solution would do well to remember that selection is now on the basis of the ability to buy a house in the catchment of the right primary school. But those who see Grammar Schools as the only solution would do well to remember that for every Grammar School there is at least one Secondary Modern. They 'failed' before and the evidence is that they are failing now.
'Bring back Grammar Schools' also means 'Bring back Secondary Moderns'. We need a new slogan which has little to do with the past, or with dogma, but has much to do with enabling each child to overcome the barriers he faces on learning and to achieve her potential. How easy to say. How hard to achieve. But life is not simple and neither are the solutions to its harder questions.
bghs
June 25th, 2009 1:08am Report this comment"Why stick in the past with a divisive word like “Grammar”."
Huh?
The word stems from the Latin: grammaticus - which refers, essentially, to the art of reading and writing: literacy.
I know where to look to double-check my statement because I went to a Grammar School.
My more recent studies suggest that literacy is divisive only when it is misused by people like Marxists, Deconstructionists, 'playground' bullies - and other ignorami.
The same boors seem also to have abolished even the skills required in earlier oral traditions of learning. I think this is a pity - because either way the People lose the ability to develop thought; and whether language was analytic or synthetic - we have always used it for discovering, processing, and expressing our ideas.
Our euSSR masters, though, have abolished our traditions. Even while they've divided and conquered us, they were pretending that 'grammar schools' were socially divisive. What they have produced, instead, is a sludge pool (society) with a scummy upper layer.
sandfly
June 25th, 2009 8:11am Report this commentEvery drongo who can kick a ball or hold a bat is selected at an early age for specialised training but pity the poor working-class sucker who has a good brain. He's got to be shovelled in with the rest of the time-wasters lest he gets above his station.
Yes, I was lucky enough to attend a Grammar School in the north-west over 50 years ago. It's the best vehicle for social mobility ever devised and I will eternally despise those effete hypocrites who destroyed the system to satisfy their patrician pretensions.
Phillip
June 25th, 2009 8:55am Report this commentSo, say Labour grammar schools are bad and ALL children will achieve as good results if you close all the graammar schools. So tell me Big ears, how come where grammar schools have been closed you have failed all the children? Why, because the comprehensives that replaced them have NEVER reached even half the 90% +5 A*-C's that those closed grammar schools achieved. Explain that fact! The real reason is simple, above ability children from poorer families who do enter Grammar schools in rural lincs, over 1500 each year, including many from lower socio-economic homes (i.e poor agricultural landworkers families)whether passing 11+ or entering on appeal ALL do well within a CULTURE of excellence in academic achievement. Our secondary modern in Boston does better WITH grammar schools than many in total comprehensive counties/cities and other comprehensives also are reaching 30% + 5A*-C's in Lincs, better than many City academies where hundreds of millions are spent!!! Long live selction - at least some children DO have a proper start in life.
Stephen Elliott
July 4th, 2009 8:39pm Report this commentGrammar schools raise the expectations of and for their pupils. They clearly deliver on this. The comprehensive/academy system has an equality of outcome ideology (all shall have prizes). Disadvantaged children are failed by the ideologues in politics and education who seek to remove opportunity and choice and rob them of social mobility.
Grammar heads who aid the government by joining with failing comprehensives should be fired by their Board of Governors.
Back to top