Grammar Schools or Comprehensives? Some Thoughts

  

Nicky Morgan, Conservative Education Minister and possible leadership contender for when Cameron releases himself from the job of Prime Minister, has granted permission for a grammar school to go ahead in Sevenoaks Kent. The place is significant. Note that there is not a plan to introduce a new grammar school in Sunderland, Middlesborough or Barnsley.

My instinct is to say no to grammar schools and a resounding yes to comprehensive schools. It feels wrong to decide the educational future of children aged 11. On the other hand, we hear stories about the child who went to secondary school and did so well that he/she was transferred to a grammar or who stayed at the secondary and got a whole host of excellent GCSEs. That these individuals are worth a story perhaps suggests that there are so few, in reality, who make the cut.

Granted then, there may be the odd one who succeeds after failing the 11+ but they are few. Some, identified as bright, and offered a transfer simply do not want to go. They have their friends, very important to secondary age children, and most likely will be in the top set at their current school, and are perfecty happy. Why transfer to the unknown?

Those who argue in favour of the 11+ say that it doesn’t really matter so much about those who fail because if a child is bright, no matter where he/she is, that intelligence will shine through. Having been a teacher for 25+years, I am sorry to say, that that view is a complete misconception. Many children, even those with a supportive home life, good nutrition, plenty of money for revision aids, a quiet space in which to do homework and  revise for exams, with an excellent brain, do not succeed despite all that is laid on for them. Maybe when they are no longer of school age, they will realize that they have wasted their chances and will become a mature student. That might be the case for some, but not so for others. A sad fact of life is that some people do not reach their academic potential. I have learnt that the guy driving a truck or the woman doing a job in a care home, may well have a higher raw intelligence than the university professor or the writer of a column in The Times. Let’s not worry too much about them though, as they may well be happier that way.

Grammar schools are undeniably elitist institutions. If you go to a grammar school you are in the top 15%. Wouldn’t it be better then to keep all the bright students together in this way, each one encouraged and challenged by the others? Surely, that way, no one would want to add students with low intelligence, as they would be out of their depth.  The bright ones would be slowed down, then become frustrated and lose motivation. This happens too in the fashionably and politically correct mixed ability teaching. A mixed ability class is also one of the most difficult tasks a teacher can face.  The preparation is relentless and, in fact, a teacher finds him or herself wishing that they were several people and not just one.

Then again, if you stream students, are you not just imitating the grammar/secondary system, except for the fact that the students are all in one building as opposed to separate ones? Students are not fooled though. They know they are in set 5 out of 6, no matter if you call it The Robins, Daffodils or Group 6.

My difficulty with condemning grammar schools is that I actually went to an all girls grammar school and benefited from that experience. At the time, aged 11, I felt such pride that I had passed the 11+, that I hardly spared a thought for those who didn’t pass, I will blame my callousness on my age. Now, decades older, I see clearly that it was a terrible thing to do to children, to separate them at this age and to humiliate a child who failed. It WAS humiliation too.

Whatever the future holds, and I really hope it doesn’t hold grammar schools, the best kind of education a young person can have is a teacher who cares, who is concerned about their future and who can deliver inspirational teaching so that students will WANT to do well. In the end, the ones who succeed are those who want to and will put the work in to get there.

That said, I still do not think it is a good idea to segregate children so young. In some cases that humiliation, or as some say, being thrown on the scrap heap at 11 years old, may well be too hard to recover from.

Why are boys falling behind?

In The Sunday Times on June 28, there is a report which states that by the time boys arrive at school, aged 5, they are already falling behind. This is particularly the case with poorer boys. Researchers say that 'boys' education is already blighted before they arrive in school'. So why is that and what can be done?

Some suggest that nursery schools, where the staff is mainly women, are responsible in part. The report claims that women teachers feel more comfortable with girls. This 'fact' is outrageous. Why would you prefer one gender to another? Is that acceptable for professional people? Of course not. If you want to work with only girls or only boys, then find a job in a single sex school.

It is said that girls are easier to deal with than boys, more accommodating, keener to be liked, maybe not as physical as boys. They sit nicely, too. It is the keener to be liked, that is the crucial point. Survey after survey tells us that it matters enormously to girls to be liked by their friends and their teachers. I have witnessed this wish of girls to be popular, especially at the end of the school year. In they trail towards the teacher's desk bearing gifts and cards. Generally the girls will hang around a while until their present is  opened and suitably appreciated. On the other hand, boys are likely to plonk the present on the desk, move away, thinking no more of it.

Boys bear no animosity, in general to a telling off by their teachers. They take it on the chin and there is no lingering resentment. It is a fair cop. Girls, in my experience bear resentment towards a telling off. They give dirty looks, they mutter about your choice of clothing, they whisper to their friends and laugh with them, all the while looking at you. Sneery, pouty and spiteful. Too strong? I have taught for 30 years and I know. This criticism does not mean that there aren't some really lovely girls. There are - and I remember them fondly. But when I think back, it is the boys who have touched my heart in the main. Those boys were witty, kind and loyal to their mates. Some were struggling with the burden of masculinity that society places on their shoulders. Mostly, boys want to be sensitive, they want to speak not grunt and yet if they show emotion, some people deem them feeble and unmanly.

Schools need to help boys more. See through the bravado and instead of tutting, make every effort to engage them in their learning. So many schools write boys off, say they are unteachable, too noisy and too boisterous. That does not give anyone an excuse to ignore the boys, let them play cards at the back of the class, which I have seen for myself on several occasions. It is a waste of taxpayers' money and a waste of those young people's lives. Boys cannot be changed to fit the school, so clearly schools must make themselves more suitable for boys. Bring in more male teachers, provide opportunities for more physical exercise to burn off excess energy. Above all be respectful and see what boys have to give.

Looked after Children

Looked after children - or LACs as they are often referred to, are those children who are in foster care or who are living in children's homes. If ever there was an unfortunate acronym, it must be this one. LAC is a term I have heard teachers and lecturers use frequently and far too often with the hearing of the children themselves, the LACs. The children or young people might not know what the acronym stands for, and in most cases I am sure they don't. Education, just as the other professions, is full of acronyms. They work as a kind of shorthand between professionals and usually it doesn't matter whether the students hear them or not. But LACs is different. If they hear it, it might well be deeply affecting. There was no ill-intent in the formation of this acronym, but LACs clearly suggests something is missing, something is not complete and for looked after children, that is undoubtedly the case.

These children are in foster care or in children's home because of some kind of family break up. They are often traumatised, always confused and mostly sad and yearning for their former lives, despite the neglect, the violence, the neglect and the misery.

Children, more than any other demographic, feel it acutely when they are different from others. Different is what they do not want to be. How often do you hear children saying they want something and that everyone else has got one? They want to be the same - the same as other children. They know they are not and, cruel as children can be, some of them are more than happy to point it out.

I have been involved in education and in fostering for many years and speak from experience about the horrors and the lifelong damage that some parents unleash onto their children.

If this were not enough, Michael Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of Schools, on January 13th, pointed out the widening gap between pupils not in care and those who are. In addition, Wilshaw pointed out the lack of accountability between schools, Local Authorities and the Government regarding the progress of LACs.

This is a disgraceful state of affairs. All the more disgraceful as schools receive a Pupil Premium, direct funding, to be used solely on these pupils. It would be truly shocking if schools were less than determined to spend this money on anything or anyone other than children in care.

It is essential that these children, whose circumstances and families, for whatever reason, have let them down, are not let down again by the very people, the professionals, who should be doing their level best to even the odds and to make life as equal as possible for those who so desperately need it.

Social Class - where on earth do we fit?

Well, the question is, where to begin? I think I'll have to jump straight in. To my mind, money is not the class decider, though perhaps to be truly upper class you need a certain amount of money. Education is what decides class perhaps, but what if you have a PhD and are a postman or a bus driver? Maybe then  it's your birth that decides. What sort of a family were you born into? Rich, titled? Surely that is a clear indicator of class. But what if you renounced your background and possible titles and went to live in a commune, where you were self-sufficient?  And what if you were born in a council house and ended up as a professor in a university? Rare, but possible.

So what exactly defines social class? It could be a person's accent; or at least that might play a part. At university in Manchester in the 1970s, even though Manchester itself was further north than Sheffield, my home city, people, frightfully posh people, asked me to say words like look, duck, cook, put, over and over again, for their amusement at my pronunciation of the 'u' sound. Similarly with bath, path, in order to be entertained by short 'a'. I ask myself now, many years on, why I allowed this to happen. Well, there were two reasons. I wanted to be generally obliging but also the people asking me were posh and you didn't refuse posh people anything, quite simply on the grounds that they were posh and therefore superior. Now, of course, I think how stupid I was. I also do not now believe that posh people are superior.

That said, time and time again, surveys show how we are affected by a person's accent. The closer a person speaks to Received Pronunciation, the more we believe in their authority, their education, their privilege and their entitlement. Accent seems to me to be either a marker of privilege or powerlessness. What strikes me too, is that we are still allowed to mock people's accents and show  clear prejudice for or against a particular accent.  But we can no longer, and rightly so, show prejudice as to race, ethnicity, sexuality, disability or age. So why, still, does prejudice exist against accents.

There is so much to say about social class; is it determined by the goods in your trolley at the supermarket. Organic fruit and vegetables or pork pies and a loaf of white bread? The newspaper you read; The Times, The Guardian, the Daily Mail, The Sun? It's the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the children's names you choose, the films you see, the holidays you take and on and on and on.

I think I'll have to call this Blog One, otherwise I'll be writing a thesis.      

Education, Education, Education.

Of course,when people see education x 3 as written here, they think of Tony Blair. As Labour planned its campaign to oust the Tories, education was placed at the very heart of their manifesto. Education, claimed  Blair would be his top three priorities for government. I, for one, was delighted. When in May 1997, Blair's party became the party of government and Blair himself, Prime Minister, people (except Tories) were euphoric. It felt momentous, a new dawn was upon us. Bambi, as Blair was nicknamed when he first came to prominence, was now our PM. 'Things can only get better', indeed. We were on our way.

And then...It was Iraq that did it for Blair. It began in March 2003, the mission ostensibly being to remove Saddam Hussein from his dictatorship of Iraq. Millions marched in protest in an attempt to change Blair's mind, but, as the story goes, Blair would follow Bush. Nothing and noone would change his mind. To war we went. SHOCK and AWE was the result.We saw millions and millions of pounds used up in weapons that could well have been spent on education.

After health, education is the most important responsibility of government. Without education we are barbarians; uncivilised and ignorant. Education brings about understanding, empathy and tolerance. It is of the greatest importance. If education were truly universal perhaps we would be nearer to world peace.

To illustrate the importance of education, on a very microscopic stage, I would like to use the example of this academic year's evening class. They were a mixed group in terms of ethnic origin. There was a woman from Kenya, one for Malawi and one from Namibia. The men were variously from Nigeria, Angola, Egypt and Zimbabwe. Included in the group was a man of Pakistani origin. The rest were from South Yorkshire, mainly Sheffield. For some of the South Yorkshire people, they were originally a little wary of their 'foreign' counterparts. Not hostile exactly, but just a little on edge. That sense of minor anxiety swiftly evaporated as each person told his/her story. Friendships were formed between people who would never have imagined they would have such a friendship.

One member of the class said he needed the English GCSE qualification but that he was not at all keen on Shakespeare. Shakespeare was our third assignment. The time had come. Romeo and Juliet was our set text.

At the end of the assignment, he actually said he'd enjoyed it and admitted that it was fear that made him unwilling to give it a go.

Now it is the last class. I walked in and there on the teacher's desk was a beautiful miniature rose tree. The ex-Shakespeare cynic came forward and told me the rose was from him.'Thank you very much I said, so kind. Thank you.'
'Nay,' he said, 'Don't you go thanking me. It's me what should be thanking you. So, thank you very  much for opening my mind.' Job done.