Skip to main content

The grammar school debate

When I am not thinking about language teaching stuff, I do keep an eye on the educational agenda in general. A recent report in The Sunday Telegraph suggests that Thetesa May is looking at allowing the creation of more grammar schools. Allow me to reflect on this one and see if you agree!

This is the issue that refuses to go away, isn't it? I know a bit about grammar schools, having taught in two over a period of nearly 30 years. But anecdotal evidence, which is what we mostly get to hear in the comment pages, is not really enough.

The case for grammar schools has recently centred on the issue of social mobility. Some would have us believe that the grammar school was the route up the social ladder for bright, working class children. They believe that ambitious, able, working class kids are held back by less motivated children in mediocre comprehensive schools. The same people would no doubt argue that comprehensive education has led to a decline in excellence, a boost for private schools and selection by postcode as parents seek more selective schooling or the "best" local comprehensive.

What is the empirical evidence for grammar schools being a promoter of social mobility?

Sir Michael Wilshaw argued powerfully against grammar schools, stating that the proportion of children in them on free school meals was very low when compared to schools in general. Wilshaw stated that grammar schools were "stuffed" with middle class children. He is no doubt right in general. According to the Sutton Trust fewer than 3% of grammar schools entrants are entitled to free school meals, compared to 18% on average.

I am not surprised by this. First and foremost, if one accepts that there is a correlation between social class and IQ (see a list of academic of papers on this here), then we would expect to see a skew towards the middle classes in grammar schools. Secondly, the predominance of children from higher socio-economic groups in grammar schools is probably exacerbated by coaching and by wealthier or more aspirational parents moving to grammar school catchment areas.

All this is regrettable, I would argue, since it increases social segregation, reinforce academic differences and potentially reduce the aspirations of non-selected students. Remember that around 7% of children are already effectively removed from the mainstream through private schooling.
Was there more social mobility in the grammar school era?

This metastudy from 2010 found no increase in social mobility for grammar schools. Anecdotal evidence will always produce cases of working class people who believe a grammar school education gave them an invaluable start in life, but there is no evidence to support the claim that selection at 11 increases social mobility for working class children.

What about the claim that grammar schools raise attainment?

The former education journalist Chris Cook studied figures from the national Pupil Database to investigate differences in attainment between areas with selection and those without. Assuming all the areas that still had grammar schools were put together into one example 'region', The research compared how the pupils performed at GCSE level, compared to how they should perform given the area they're schooled in. His analysis revealed that children from deprived backgrounds performed worse than their counterparts in areas without selection.

Does the OECD and the PISA analysis have anything to offer on this? Well, it is the case that the highest performing systems do not operate selective systems, and certainly not Finland which does not even have private schools.

When I think about this, and given that data in this area is hard to pin down, it seems plausible that children in grammar schools might do better than expected since they are in a hothouse environment with pupils of similar ability. One might also surmise that secondary modern schooled children (the other 75+%) might do a little worse without the presence of the most able children to spur them on and raise the expectations of both teachers and pupils.

The remaining 164 grammar schools are great in many ways for the children who attend them - the two I taught in were good examples - but they are not a good solution for the country as a whole and it would be wrong to further mess around with school structures when we know that what really counts is good teaching.


Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

Second language learning and acquisition

This is a long, referenced blog which combines all the posts in my earlier series entitled Conscious and Unconscious Language Learning. If you have already read those posts, you should look away now. Part 1 Throughout the history of the study of language learning and teaching reference has been made to two distinct types of language learning. The first could be characterised as "picking up" a language and normally involves the apparently unconscious acquisition of a language in an informal or natural setting. One thinks of the child who learns their native tongue, or the immigrant who learns the new language without recourse to formal study. The second type of language learning involves the practice of a language in a formal, systematic way, often in a classroom setting. This has frequently been termed conscious learning. Such a clear distinction may be controversial and you may already be thinking, quite reasonably, that both types of learning have a role. However, when

French cinema terminology

If you are teaching A-level film, you'll want your students to have some knowledge of key vocabulary. You'll want to learn it too, of course! Nathalie FLE produced this lovely video screencast about film vocabulary: Vocabulaire français : parler du cinéma ( + sous-titres en FR) - YouTube Here are some other handy links for film and film vocabulary in French: Exploiting film in A-level MFL lessons - from my own site from Exeter University. A basic list of terms. A more detailed, technical overview of film terminology by David F. Bell from Dyke University. A bilingual page from Lille University which goes into some detail on cinema terminology. Here is a useful list from ThoughtCo: French Terms Related to Movies and Film Festivals ( Another good list here with brief de

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can