“Grammar Schools Work”
This was the motion to be put before the Oxford Union, with Bill
speaking for the NUT on the “against” side. However, Bill wanted to point out
that it could be argued very strongly that Grammar Schools DO work – if their
purpose is to teach children to know their place in a society very much divided
on lines of class, and access to wealth and power. In every other respect –
equality of opportunity, educational standards, social mobility and cohesion –
they do NOT work.
Bill was looking forward to the debate – particularly as “the other side” was headed up by Chris Woodhead – and also because he had been selected to speak last for "our side" - 'sweeping up' the arguments from the pro-selection speakers, and summing up the case against. But at the last minute the Union received requests from The Oxford University Students Union, the NUS, Searchlight magazine and others to withdraw from the debate. The reason? The Oxford Union Society is organising a debate on racism, and have invited the British National Party and holocaust denial “historian” David Irving to speak. We agreed that our view that “freedom of speech” should not extend to racists and fascists should be made clear – and thus agreed to withdraw – even though Bill had already been out to buy his bow tie. (pictured)
However, in order that a perfectly decent speech on Grammar Schools should not go unused, Bill has written up his introductory remarks (though the "sweeping" and "summing up" would have provided more scope!) and sent it to the Oxford University Students Union… and here it is!
|
F |
irstly let me say what a
privilege it is to be amongst such honourable company – or perhaps what an
honour it is to be amongst such privileged company. My mother left school at 14
in 1936, against the advice of her school, but unable to continue as her family
needed her potential income. This was then the “choice” that faced most working
class children. Just five years before RH Tawney had written in his work
“Equality” , “The hereditary curse upon the English education system is its
organisation along lines of social class… the barbarous association of
differences of educational opportunities with distinctions of wealth and social
position”
But now here we are in the debating chamber of the Oxford Union – all equals, and living in a meritocracy, where the process of education stands above class advantage and disadvantage. Aren’t we?
Well, no. Throughout my life, the research concerning the direct link, direct correlation, and causal relationship between social class and educational achievement and qualification has continued.
Just a few
“The Uses of Literacy” by Hoggart in1957
Jackson & Marsden’s “Education & The Working Class” in 1962
The Newsom report “Half Our Future” a year later in 1963
Douglas’s works “The Home & School” and “All Our Future” in 1964 and 1968
“Social Relations in a Secondary School” by Hargreaves in 1967
Bernstein’s 1970s works “Class, Codes and Control”
Sharp & Green’s “Education & Social Control” in 1975
“Reproduction in Education, Society & Culture” by Bourdieu in 1977
“Origins and Destinations” by Halsey in 1980
Let’s come up to date
Leon Feinstein of the Institute
of Education in his 2006 Discussion paper 404 for the Centre of Economic
Performance reports on direct links
between social class and educational achievement. His work is further reported
in Gillian Evans work “Educational Failure and white Working Class
Children”. She writes, “The research shows how it is possible to combine
socio-economic classification of the household with the child’s overall
developmental score at age 22 months to accurately predict educational
qualifications at the age of 26 years. By the age of 22 months, children’s
developmental score is already stratified by social class, and this
stratification has increased significantly by the age of 10 years…”
And this reported in The Guardian in February 2006
“A study by academics at University College and King’s College London has given statistical backbone to the view that the overwhelming factor in how well children do is not what type of school they attend – but social class. This unprecedented project has revealed that a child’s social background is the crucial factor in academic performance, and that a school’s success is based not on its teachers, the way that it is run, or what type of school it is, but, overwhelmingly, on the class background of its pupils” M Taylor “It’s Official – Class Matters”
Can I risk offending you by spelling it out? Selective systems of education do not discriminate between children on the basis of their individual “ability” or their “aptitude”, but on the basis of their performance in tests and examinations, and all the evidence demonstrates that, very largely, the outcomes of these tests are determined not by the child’s actual ability, but by their social class background.
Selective schools then – Grammar Schools – serve only to legitimise existing and future class divisions, and relative class advantage and disadvantage in society. By Government figures, 1% of the population owns 34% of the wealth, where the richest 10% own 71% of the wealth, and where the poorest 50% own just 1% of the wealth between them – and the divide between “haves” and “have-nots” is getting wider.
For educationalists to segregate children and thus further reinforce these divisions by sending them their separate ways at 11, with different educational expectations, objectives, anticipated outcomes – and the life opportunities that derive from them - should be regarded as an infringement of their human rights.
Will comprehensive education overcome those class divisions? Of course not. But it can mitigate them, and at least maintain the open door of opportunity, rather than slamming it at 11. It refuses to characterise the majority of children as failures, and seeks to take up the challenge of educational achievement for all, rather than sweeping it under the foam-backed carpet of the Secondary Modern School – while others tread the silken hand woven threads of the Grammar School. Comprehensive education, to be truly successful, needs to be a part of a whole new economic and social approach which seeks to eradicate class privilege, and unequal opportunity of access to wealth and power. But overall, comprehensive schools do reduce the gap between high and low achievers by raising the game of the latter, and thus achieve higher results overall than selective systems.
But isn’t this all just sentimental rubbish? Shouldn’t we accept the harsh unequal realities of our market driven world, and stop unsettling children by trying to raise their aspirations unrealistically? Isn’t it better for all that in a class divided society children are educated to know their place, and to be happy with it – some designing and planning our economic, social, cultural, environmental futures… and others building the roads, servicing the infrastructure, stacking the shelves… and learning to simply consume quietly? Don’t barriers to educational progress – such as selection – reflect real societal barriers that will always be with us?
Let’s just think how we could have applied that to this evening’s activities. After all – even amongst high educational achievers – such as the members of the Oxford Union Society – there will be, forgive me, a spread of ability. The tyranny of the normal curve of distribution remains as true here as it is anywhere else.
So why don’t we think of a simple test for all those wishing to take part in the debate, and select the most able 20% to be active participants. This must improve the quality of debate. Perhaps another 40% or so could be allowed to participate as observers, while a final 40% could contribute to the evening in other ways – perhaps serving drinks, taking coats, arranging taxis etc – all very vital work to ensure the success of the evening – and tasks at which this group could succeed and thus maintain their self esteem. Have a look around the room, and decide who you think should be in which group. And while you are looking, be aware that others are looking at you.
Now let’s try to replicate the class driven aspect of the selection test. And, in line with Oxford’s yet-to-be-realised attempt to be more inclusive, let’s select first all those of you from State Schools. Now anyone with a parent with a title can sit it out, or anyone with a parent earning more than let’s say £100K pa. Are we down to our 20% yet?
The reality is of course that this would be an absurd and destructive process. It would narrow the range of experience reflected in the debate. It would skew the debate so that its processes and outcome in no way reflected society. It would create a destructive mood of rejection and resentment amongst those not selected, and cause many of them to become antagonistic to the whole process – an antagonism that they would be likely to pass on to their offspring.
It would reduce quality overall, and legitimise class prejudice and actual disadvantage. This is the story of selective education, of Grammar Schools. It is not a recipe for raising standards across the board, for struggling to realise talent and potential, for developing community cohesion… quite the opposite.
We have evidence too from the
OECD PISA comparative education study and elsewhere that, to quote, “The
more differentiated and selective education systems tend to show not only much
larger variation in school performance, but also larger performance differences
between students from more and less advantaged family backgrounds..”
Referring to the negative effects on overall performance of this inequality,
and on social cohesion, the PISA study refers to “explicit differentiation
between types of programme and schools” resulting in “a long tail of
underachievement”.
PISA went on to offer Finland as an example of a nation with less variation between types of schools and less academic selection, resulting in higher levels of social equity and stronger overall educational achievement.
There is only one argument that Grammar Schools work. They do, in a class divided society help to maintain those class divisions, and encourage young people to “know their place”. This is not an educational aim, and it is not a political aim that is often spoken out loud.
I’m confident that you will this evening raise your voice against such perpetuation of class inequality, such legitimisation of disadvantage by birth, that you will seek an educational and social policy that is designed to bring down barriers rather than reinforce them – and vote against the motion that “Grammar Schools Work”