What's so bad about grammar schools?

[Manfred Belheim]

(Presumably just a UK-centric question)

So yes, in principle, I see how making sweeping decisions about a child’s future education based on how well they perform in tests at age 11 isn’t exactly ideal. I also see, in principle, how giving every child access to the same high-quality, all-round education is the best way to go. But that isn’t the system we have now, and surely comparisons should be made against that, rather than a theoretical ideal.

The fact is that some schools are much better than others, and that the better school pretty much exclusively exist in more affluent areas. I’m sure there are many and varied reasons for this, none of them good, but even if the quality of a particular school was entirely random, this would still end up being the case due to “gentrification” as the wealthier parents drive up house prices by competing to live in such areas. So as long as school places are allocated based on the proximity of your home address, this all but removes any chance of intelligent/gifted/driven/whatever working class children from ever having access to top quality schooling, while even the most inbred of toffs, who will never achieve anything more than a third in Sports Management, will have that top quality schooling utterly wasted on them.

So is there not at least some merit in a system that allows children from any socio-economic background to earn a place at the top table through their own merit?

 

[Senethro]

It could work if the grammar school was mandated to accept a certain quota of students from lower income families. Otherwise what will happen is that those families who can afford tutors (middle class and up) get their kids in, and with separate voting groups having separate parallel education systems there follows the usual slow transfer of funds from one part to another based on who is in government. Which would still probably happen even with the mandate. Hmmmm.

 

[Samson]

The main problem I see with grammar schools is that you label three quarters of the population as failures at age 11. As well as the obvious problem that these "failures" are sent to a poorer quality school with all the other "failures" so making it practically hard to achieve good results there is the psychological effect of this labelling.

I am dyslexic, and at age of 11 I was close to the bottom of my class academically. It was only when I got to secondary school (the local ex secondary modern) and was started science that I started doing well. I ended up going to Cambridge university and becoming a scientist. I am pretty sure I would not have made it under a grammar school system.

My thought at the time, though I am not so sure about it now, is that the more gifted pupils actually need the least money spent on their schooling, as they can achieve without so much input and are likely to get plenty of further education. The people who need the most attention from the ages 11 to 16 are those for whom this will be the last of their education that need it the most.

The other major problem with the grammar school system it that it makes steaming subject neutral. I was in the lower sets for english and french, and the higher sets for the sciences and maths. This would not be possible in the grammar school system.

 

[luiz]

I'm not at all familiar with the grammar school system, and all the problems the OP mentioned look pretty real and serious.

Nevertheless, I'll venture a guess that a lot of people will dislike any such system because it's a reminder of how unequal people are, even if you control for wealth (not saying that such system would control for wealth ; it seems obvious that richer kids would be at an advantage, just like they always are).

 

[Tahuti]

The main problem I see with grammar schools is that you label three quarters of the population as failures at age 11. As well as the obvious problem that these "failures" are sent to a poorer quality school with all the other "failures" so making it practically hard to achieve good results there is the psychological effect of this labelling.

I am dyslexic, and at age of 11 I was close to the bottom of my class academically. It was only when I got to secondary school (the local ex secondary modern) and was started science that I started doing well. I ended up going to Cambridge university and becoming a scientist. I am pretty sure I would not have made it under a grammar school system.

My thought at the time, though I am not so sure about it now, is that the more gifted pupils actually need the least money spent on their schooling, as they can achieve without so much input and are likely to get plenty of further education. The people who need the most attention from the ages 11 to 16 are those for whom this will be the last of their education that need it the most.

The other major problem with the grammar school system it that it makes steaming subject neutral. I was in the lower sets for english and french, and the higher sets for the sciences and maths. This would not be possible in the grammar school system.

Frankly, you would have fared quite badly under the Dutch education system, where you are practically determined for admission at university at age 12/13, when you are selected for the type of high school you get. You need to do Grammar School (called VWO) to be admitted to University, or you have to game the system, which is what I did by switching from a polytechnic to a university. However, you will by then already be psychologically beaten to pulp if you get that far.

 

[Truronian]

Let me preface this with a disclaimer: I don't especially object to selective education. There are comprehensive and selective systems in place in other countries that get better results than the UK, and I suspect in the grand scheme of things segregating by ability has little effect on school outcomes. That said, I'm pretty unhappy with the grammar school system and May's proposals for their expansion.

The most significant problem is that grammar schools disadvantage poor students. In selective areas poorer student do worse at GCSE level while richer students do better (see graph below); this is likely down to the very low admission rates for FSM (free school meals) students within most grammars. In Kent, for example, the proportion of FSM students is ~3% in grammars compared to ~18% in the county as a whole.



This is particularly galling as May's proposals for expanding grammar schools is being sold as a tool to improve social mobility. Despite this, within the proposals there is only a very weak attempt to tackle the issue that has occurred in Kent's system while the mechanisms for opening new grammar schools also favour the middle classes. As a teacher, the whole white paper really ruffles my feathers and I'll probably leave the profession if grammar schools once again become the norm.

 

[Senethro]

Wow. Now why would a Tory proposal have results in contradiction to its stated intent?

 

[warpus]

I looked up what a grammar school is, and apparently it's not a school where you learn grammar.

It seems that the methodology they use to determine who gets to attend and who doesn't is flawed. Might as well pick random kids. Or.. might as well have a better educational system that does a better job of splitting kinds into groups