Schools
Do grammar schools have a role to play as part of an inclusive education system? Adam Boddison gives a view from the tertiary sector The debate on grammar schools has been dividing opinion for decades, with arguments both for and against their existence as part of an inclusive education system. Although the affordances and constraints are well documented and wideranging, the main areas of disagreement are centred on social mobility, selection and elitism. One of the central arguments put forward in defence of grammar schools is that they have a role to play in terms of social mobility. If a student has academic talent but is from a socio-economic background that would prohibit access to the independent sector, then grammar schools are championed as a route to optimise access to university and, in turn, the ‘middle class’. Indeed, there are many thousands of students who have made this very journey. However, it would be right to question the proportion of students who actually fall into this category, since critics would argue that grammar schools are increasingly filled with those who can afford private education, thereby reducing the potential impact on social mobility and simultaneously having an adverse commercial impact on independent schools by reducing the potential number of fee-paying students. The drift of students from the independent sector to state grammar schools can be seen as socially inclusive since it facilitates an environment based more on academic talent than ability to pay; whereas a system without grammar schools could directly result in social division between those who can afford private education and those who have to ‘make do’ with state education. In defence of the independent sector, many schools currently offer scholarships and many more were able to maximise social inclusion through the Assisted Places Scheme, which supported more than 80,000 students until it was abolished in 1997. Several education ministers have argued that if state education had a high quality offer and adequately met the
needs of all students, then there would be no need for grammar schools or even private schools, but there is a serious question as to whether that ambition could ever become a reality. A mistake that has been repeated all too frequently is to think that where there is a successful application of education policy it can be replicated across the entire system. A current example is the ambition for every state school to become an academy or free school. It is evident that this has worked in some contexts, but that does not necessarily mean it will work in all contexts. Similarly, to argue that grammar schools are the only way to educate our brightest students within the state sector would be foolish. The reality of an inclusive education system that promotes social mobility is that we need different types of schools that can cater for students with different needs, without the preconceived notion that some types of school are better than others. To draw an analogy with buying a car, the choice is typically focused around the needs and preferences of the buyer rather than whether society thinks one car is better than another car. Clearly, those with the money can access cars not available to most people, but that does not undermine the quality of and confidence in the cars that most people drive. In the same way that it would be nonsensical to insist that everybody drove the same car, it would be nonsensical to make all schools the same, so grammar schools, special schools, private schools and all other types of school are part of an inclusive education system. A central argument against grammar schools is the issue of selection. In particular, should a test taken by students at the age of 11 determine the type of education they receive for the next seven years? There are two issues here: the timing of the test and whether the test selects the right students. On the issue of timing, it is worth noting that some grammar schools allow entry at age 13 and many offer entry at age 16, so there
Spring 2016
*CCR Vol53 no1 Spring 2016.indd 35
35
22/12/2015 15:42
