As Theresa May’s government thrashes out its plans to extend grammar schools, which were inadvertently revealed in a government memo this week, we have been taking a look at how our readers have reacted.
Selective education has become a divisive and symbolic political issue, with passionate proponents and opponents. On Thursday morning defence secretary Michael Fallon backed grammar schools, saying they give parents more choice, but Alan Milburn, the UK’s social mobility czar, said they will be a “disaster” and create an “us and them divide”.
Justine Greening, secretary of state for education, has responded to an urgent question in parliament by saying that there will be “no return to the past” and that the government wants a system suited to the 21st century.
We look at how readers have been commenting on the debate. Click on the comments to see the full conversation and get involved.
‘Social mobility, though a desirable outcome, should be secondary’
‘Try telling my father grammar schools don’t aid social mobility’
My father was born in 1937, brought up by a single parent (his father went to fight in the war, and didn't come back) on a very low income, in an unheated slum (except for a small coal fire) in Liverpool with no bathroom and with flag-stones for flooring. He shivered and he was hungry.
But he was bright, went to a local grammar school, received an excellent education and ended up being the first from his family to go to university, where he joined the University Air Squadron, turned out to be a very good pilot, was offered a commission by the RAF and became a Vulcan bomber pilot, then a Test-Pilot, then a Test Flying Instructor, getting an MSc in Aerodynamics along the way. He worked hard all his life, increasing his income as he got promoted and more experience, and now in his retirement lives in a lovely village home in the Midlands, all paid for by his own endeavour. At the age of 79 he has enjoyed an excellent life.
You try telling him that Grammar schools don't aid social mobility.
‘Grammars inevitably create a sink effect around them’
Anything that sucks the good parents, families and kids out of some schools should be resisted. Schools are as strong as the communities that they serve and the social infrastructure that surrounds them. Grammars inevitably create a sink effect around them. Pretending that there are no losers is putting your head in the sand.
‘A more diverse set of skills among the young will only benefit the nation’
Why is England so afraid of giving more academically motivated and capable students opportunities to rise to their potential? We can pretend that everyone is equal, but it isn't so, never was, never will be. Individuals have different abilities, motivations, skills, etc. Not everyone needs to go to university or is capable of success there (unless we continue lowering standards . . . ). Open grammar schools and bring back vocational schools and polytechnics. A more diverse set of skills among the young will only benefit the nation; maybe save it from its downward descent.
‘The parental choice argument is absurd’
"Inclusive grammars"?! Does Michael Fallon know what's required to get into a grammar school in the first place?
Children sit the 11+ exam. Those children who pass get in. Those children who fail do not, and are sent to secondary moderns, with the other "failures". A grammar school system can never be "inclusive".
Parental choice argument is absurd; the school is the final arbiter of who gets to attend, based on their academic ability to sit the 11+. It separates the academically bright students from the rest. This is beneficial for the brightest, but it is a severe determinant to everybody else. The grammar system actively pulls less able students down, and brands children as failures at the age of 11.
All children, ALL OF THEM, deserve great educations. Every, single, child. Just because your child is academically bright at 11 does not mean they are worthy of a better education than a disabled child, or one with poor maths ability. The education system should be able to educate all our children to an equally high standard, and grammar schools manifestly do not achieve that.
‘Grammars should take in a fair mix from schools with low extra tutoring rates’
If you add this to the 'shock' revelation that there has been a 30% rise in state school pupils being privately tutored you can see why parents are concerned.
From my own knowledge a local primary school in an affluent catchment area doesn't have to do as well with teaching as appx 80% of it's children get privately tutored so that they get into Grammars in our area. Schools should be made to disclose this as many primaries survive on their grammar feed, when in reality it is merely the affluence of the parents. These stats should be used to ensure that either grammars take in a fair mix from schools with low extra tutoring rates (the kids who have to use their wit rather than coached solely for exams) and parent's when choosing a school can see the true quality of teaching. This would show some parents that perhaps the closest school is actually better than the one further out with a better rep.
‘This is a deflection away from the real debate about properly resourcing the education system’
Complete red herring. There's a pretty direct correlation between money spent per pupil and standards. The structure of the bureaucracy has an importance, but it doesn't change the fundamentals of having excellent teachers and modern facilities. The comprehensive system is more than capable of producing excellent results, so long as it is provided the necessary resources. All that is going to happen here is that wealthier parents are going to privately tutor their kids to beat the 11+. It's a deflection away from the real debate about properly resourcing our education system, from nursery to university.
‘Social mobility is not the most important thing in education’
Social mobility is important but it is not the most important thing in education. Stretching every child to be the best they can be is the most important thing and every child that is not stretched is a failure on the part of those that provided their education. This includes 'advantaged' children and 'bright' children. They all should be stretched and if grammar schools do this better then grammar schools they should have.
‘Grammar schools give only some parents – and children – more choice’
Grammar schools give SOME parents (and children) more choice. Usually the ones whose children are already at a considerable advantage. The rest inevitably have less choice. The system stigmatises children, promotes elitism, seriously penalises late developers and divides families and friendship groups. Very damaging. And there is no reason AT ALL why bright children should not do well at a good, well funded, well run Comprehensive. I did well at one and so did my friends and later, my children. Where by the way, as well as learning academically children also mix with a wider range of people and become more rounded tolerant individuals.
The education system should seek to bring the best out of every pupil regardless of their social class or background. Social mobility, though a desirable outcome, should be secondary. The key question is whether brighter pupils do better in selective schools than in non-selective schools. Those who support grammar schools think so and most who oppose them point to the advantage such pupils gain, so there appears to be considerable agreement on this. What we need to ensure is that the non-selective schools do not suffer as a consequence. If there are relatively few grammar schools with wide catchment areas the dilution effect will be small.