DEBATE: Should grammar schools be brought back?

THE question has split the country in two with supporters claiming it will help smart children from poorer backgrounds, while opponents claim it will only benefit the better off.

It follows Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to overturn a policy set out by her predecessor David Cameron, and the previous Labour government before him, which imposed a ban on the expansion of grammar schools.

Now Mrs May’s new controversial plans will relax the rules on expanding selective schools, allow new selective schools to open and currently non-selective schools to become selective.

A selective school is a school that admits students on the basis of some sort of selection criteria – usually academic.

The opposite of this is a comprehensive school, which accepts all students, regardless of aptitude.

Nevertheless, despite a backlash, the government say their proposals include a number of measures to provide greater opportunity for the most disadvantaged children, with around £50 million allocated to fund the expansion.

In a statement to the Commons last week, new Conservative Education Secretary Justine Greening told MPs that the move to expand grammar schools would create a “truly meritocratic” system by relaxing “the rules on expanding selective schools, allow new ones to open and non-selective schools to become selective where there is a demand”.

Ms Greening said: “We want to look again at selective schools and how they can open up excellent places to more children, particularly the most disadvantaged.”

The Education Secretary made the case for grammar schools, arguing in her statement that the move would widen access to good school places by helping families who cannot afford to buy houses in catchment areas where these are currently based.

Grammar schools were first introduced following the Education Act 1944 where children sat exams at 11 years of age – the 11-plus. At their height in 1964, 1,300 grammar schools educated a quarter of all pupils.

The Daily Echo invited a supporter and an opponent of bringing back grammar schools to explain their point of view.

FOR

Fareham MP Suella Fernandes (pictured)

I BELIEVE that a child’s progression in their education should be determined by merit, not by their background or where they happen to live.

This is at the core of One-Nation Conservatism, it is about a commitment to providing opportunity for everyone in society. Grammar schools help the brightest pupils from the poorest homes to get the best education.

The current arbitrary rules that block new grammar schools from being established or current schools from expanding are based on ideological dogma, putting political point scoring above what is best for pupils i.e. more choice, autonomy and opportunity for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

What matters most is a pupil’s individual talent and the ability to work hard at their studies, so we need a school system that reflects this and works for everyone and not just the privileged few and there is more choice of schools.

It is also vital that we continue to improve the standard of all schools, and that we continue the strong progress we have made since 2010.

I am sure many of my constituents feel strongly about this issue, and I urge residents of Fareham to get in touch with me and have their say on grammar schools.

The problem that this proposal is seeking to resolve is the selection by postcode that is currently prevailing in the system – what effect does that have on social mobility?

If you can afford to buy a house close to a good school, often a grammar school, then you get the advantage of that.

But if you can’t, or you’re in a part of the country where you might like to have a grammar school but there just isn’t one there then you don’t. Of course, there are some parents who can afford to just simply pay for their child to go privately and have them educated outside of the state sector but that is certainly not an option for most parents and I think that we need to respond to that.

Parents want choice – we shouldn’t simply turn around and tell them they’re wrong.

How will the Government’s grammar schools proposal achieve the aim of increasing social mobility?

By setting up primary feeder schools in areas where children are least likely to go to grammars and ensuring that a proportion of pupils must be from low income households it can break down those barriers in a move that would see grammars having more children from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to them.

AGAINST

Christopher Jarman, of Winchester (pictured)

AS A former head teacher, primary schools adviser and teacher trainer, I have nothing against grammar schools.

I attended one for a while. I wish all our children could go to good grammar schools.

Unfortunately, they can’t because under our strange and unique system we have always made sure that 80 per cent of students are barred from them.

‘Bring back the Grammar Schools’ should always be read as ‘Bring back Secondary Modern Schools’.

It is true that grammar schools were once the means of one or two bright working class children slipping through the net and getting an academic grounding and a place at university.

However, not many achieved this as the number of places allocated to those who passed the 11+ was always limited.

In most counties the proportion of places provided was around twenty per cent of the population in England.

What is overlooked however today, is that we now have grammar school education all over the country providing academic and rigorous courses to all those who suit them.

Such courses are offered by comprehensive schools. Have people forgotten the English language? ‘Comprehensive’ always meant fully inclusive.

The grammar schools and technical schools of today are embedded in the comprehensive system.

The brightest children, however disadvantaged they may be, flourish in this system.

Our universities, whether Russell group or ex-polytechnics, are replete with students from comprehensive schools.

The government wants to expand grammar schools without 11+ selection and there is a sensible way to go forward. This is the sixth form college following a spell in a comprehensive.

There are some 90 of these colleges in England and Wales already. Existing grammar schools should be allowed to evolve into academic colleges and continue their academic offerings from age 16.

Pupils would remain in their schools, but there would be no entry of younger children, so the transformation would be complete in five years and the grammar school tradition would be preserved as a vital part of our education system.

The modern grammar school should abandon the rosy nostalgic view of being a second rate copy of a public school – appealing to the anxieties of a class of parents who wanted Harrow or Cheltenham for their sons and daughters but couldn’t afford them.

Research has shown that a nonselective entry at the age of 11 benefits all students.

Wearing a rather comical uniform resonant of Billy Bunter, tends to separate those old style children from the rest of their friends in an unhealthy way.

The interesting point is that our oldest public schools were always less selective academically than the grammars and always more comprehensive too.

March forwards then. As long as children are not made failures and told they are failures at 11-years-old, we should, as a nation, be able to find as good a way as any other country to prepare them all for that future unknown life coming their way.