Schools
I had an argument at about 06:00 on Thursday 18th August. I can’t quite remember what started it, but I was attending Keep It Tidy 2005, Manny said something and moments later he an I were embattled in defence of grammar schools, against a Tab onslaught comprising Will and “Alex”.
My arguments weren’t all that good at that hour, especially given the sleep deprivation from which I was suffering, but it did force me to subsequently reappraise my support of grammar schools. I concluded the following.
“Why,” we were asked “are grammar schools any better than comprehensives with sets?”
Comprehensives appeal to the socialist in most of us, offering all equal opportunities, equal education, and, in any sensible educational model you’re going to attempt to challenge grammar schools with, some kind of ability-based streaming system.
So, an aside to establish a premise of my argument: I contend that children of differing abilities require different styles of teaching. And not only different styles, but with “higher tier” and “foundation” GCSEs, pupils with different capabilities are often actually taught different things. So, it’s surely an indisputable truth that some kind of streaming is required.
Streams within a comprehensive, it is argued, are easier to transfer between if you change in ability after age eleven (where in a grammar school you’re locked in having passed or failed your Eleven plus), and, it is claimed, offer all the benefits of a grammar school with none of the stigmatisation or stagnation division by school does.
So far, I agree. I’m not so sure that any less stigmatisation is caused by moving pupils between classrooms rather than buildings, but it’s certainly true that a flexible setting system could provide all the benefits of a multiple-tier school system, and better.
However, I would argue that grammar schools are the only proper way to make this possible. Having done a teaching course which involved observation at St. Gregory the Great, a Catholic comprehensive in suburban Oxford, I can tell you that the full range of academic ability is completely astounding. Some kids in the top set could explain in reasonable detail why astronauts floated when orbiting in space shuttles; those in the bottom set had trouble understanding when I attempted to explain to them the phases of the Moon.
In order to have a sensible ability range in a given set, you’d probably need 1,000 pupils in every year with current pupil:teacher ratios, or something in that absurd and unmanageable ball-park.
Thus, grammar schools are an imperfect practical necessity, crudely shaving off the top 25% or so to allow decent-size sets to have a sensible ability range.
The only more hand-waving argument I’d provide relates to the “better environment” provided by grammar schools. JTA wrote the first incarnation of Surviving Bus Journeys (For Fun!) thanks to the chaos that reigned on his shared-with-comprehensive-pupils school bus, and my experience at old St. Greg’s was little different. Less clever children are often more disruptive, and being surrounded by like-minded learners is a good way to foster a working environment.
It is a pity that those who fail their Eleven plus for some reason other than lack of ability will be denied this environment, but why deny it to all due to the potential for bad luck of the few?
I went to a grammar school, and I’m rather pleased that I did. I’m also convinced that I support them for genuine, non-nostalgic reasons, my confidence helpfully reinforced by an early-morning argument.
Grammar schools are unfair; but successful applicants to Oxbridge from state schools have slumped with the slump in grammar school numbers. What we need is more elitism: a meritocracy is certainly better than survival of the richest.