Thursday, October 22, 2015

More on Grammar skool anexations....

Charles Moore of the Telegraph has been listening in on the conversation of Tonbridge school children. Maybe I should explain that comment before his lawyers contact me! He says as much in his most recent comment piece in the paper. Actually he was extremely positive about the level of discussion coming out of the (often loud) mouths of the school children of our town. Charles lives in East Sussex and, so he says, is a regular commuter through Tonbridge but he's actually using the daily scene of the mele of school boys and girls as a lead in to the real point he makes which is that he thinks that the growth of grammar schools should be encouraged. He goes on to say in his column that we should be celebrating inequalities rather than trying to equalize everything in our society and particularly in education. Some may not be at all that surprised by Mr. Moore's point of view given that he is Margaret Thatcher's official biographer, chosen by the lady herself no less, but I happen to think that he maybe has a point. At least grammar schools give less well off children a good fighting chance of becoming upwardly mobile. Unless all grammars and all private schools countrywide were to be abolished, which is highly unlikely in the next hundred years, we will go on having unequal opportunity; so why fight that fact by trying to impose idealistic principles in education policy? Which just makes all this business with Weald of Kent School having to call the recently approved new Sevenoaks grammar school an "annexe" rather absurd. Let there be more grammars in all counties and not just in Kent and a few others. So long as comprehensives maintain their own standards where the harm in it?...

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Whether you agree with the concept of selecting children at the age of ten or not, it is not actually the case that grammar schools do much to help poorer children to be upwardly mobile. Selected children are disproportionately middle class from comfortably off families (especially now, when coaching for the test is so widespread).
Bright children from poorer backgrounds are often at a disadvantage anyway, as they may not get as much support from home: such pupils would have a better chance in a comprehensive school, where it is easier to move to a higher stream. Very many children, especially boys and those with summer birthdays, may not reach their full potential until later than the age of ten, others who are coached through the exam, may struggle to keep up.
When grammar schools were first introduced, they offered educational opportunities that were unavailable elsewhere, unless parents could afford to pay. Now, all young people have the chance to gain qualifications (and many at comprehensive and high schools do just as well as the grammar school pupils), so what is the point of this divisive system?

Paul Bailey said...

Same old Marxist rhetoric, anonymous. “Poor”, “underprivileged”; you’ll be talking about the proletariat and class struggle next!

If local people want a new grammar school, let them have one, rather than banging on about divisive systems. It’s called democracy, or will of the people, you know!

Anonymous said...

The Conservative party agree with the Marxist rhetoric and believe that grammar schools do nothing to promote social mobility. They could easily pass a bill to enable more grammars to be built but as far as they can see the facts are against this.
Even KCC are looking at why only 3% of pupils at grammars receive free school meals but at their secondaries the percentage is 4 time this.

Anonymous said...

Some local people want grammar schools - presumably, mostly the ones whose children will be likely to go to one. As I have never heard of anyone campaigning for secondary modern schools, that leaves 70% or so of the population who might prefer a fairer system. Probably not all that democratic then?