1 The Tory Party and Grammar schools

I think the main educational story of the past few weeks has been the spat in the Conservative party over grammar schools and the part these schools should play in the UK education system. This Sunday Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1813890.ece provides a summary of the quarrel.
I see two strands to this debate. The first strand, which has been dominant, has been discussion of its political significance: was this Cameron’s ‘clause 4’ moment, was he deliberately taking the opportunity to show that the new conservatives were not prisoners of the old Tory party. While for the bulk of the conservative press, it was a betrayal of core Conservative supporters. This particular discussion will rumble on, but I wish to consider the second, less prominent, thread, to the debate: does it make educational sense?
In particular, I want to focus on the question of social mobility. In his original speech, David Willetts argued that Grammar schools do not aid social mobility. It has long been a popular belief among the Tory party faithful (at least as far back as Rhodes Boyson and the Black papers of the 1970s) that Grammar schools were engines of social mobility for bright working class children. This belief is deeply embedded in the lower-middle class psyche of the Tory membership. Willetts’ problem was how not to challenge this engrained belief and yet not support a policy of building more Grammar schools. Typically for David Willetts, he came up with a clever argument: Grammar schools used to be engines of social mobility but they weren’t any longer because the world has changed. In support of this argument he cited the numbers of disadvantaged students who are to be found in grammar schools today – maybe 2%, as measured by entitlement to free school meals. To his credit David Brady, who had always struck me as the classic ‘dim but nice’ tory toff, resigned from the Conservative front bench over the matter. He argued that Grammar schools in his constituency (Trafford) were still engines for social mobility and, more than that, they did not just benefit those selected for the grammar school. He claimed that the non-grammar schools in his area produced better results than non-selective comprehensive schools in equivalent areas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/31/do3101.xml
I would observe that this doesn’t seem to be the case in Kent where the local comprehensives in those areas that have retained grammar schools are very poor. Willetts' argument is also boosted by evidence that the reality of Grammar schools today is that places are obtained by coaching and private school hot-housing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6665115.stm My fear would be that in inner city areas, middle class flight would ensure that the comprehensives would be worse than the old secondary moderns. They would be holding pens for the underclass, dreadful places which would doom their pupils to low quality experiences and outcomes. So, I personally am still in favour of a comprehensive system. Nevertheless, expect to see more comment and debate on the effectiveness of comprehensive schools where grammar schools still exist.
However, I think it’s also worth noting that both Labour and the Tories are now committed to a schools system that is completely unproven: the Academies program. Much is being made of the way that academies have autonomy from local authority control and that this is the key to their success. I hear the sound of a myth being coined here; that schools are tightly controlled by local authorities. In my experience, this simply isn’t the case; headteachers have always been largely autonomous; my experience when I worked in a local education authority was that the Director of Education rarely, if ever, took a day-to-day interest in the running of schools, let alone micromanaged. People propagating this fairy story should reference one of their own favourite educational legends, the ‘William Tyndale Affair’. This was the ‘scandal’ of William Tyndale junior school in Islington where the staff, including the Headteacher, supposedly allowed the children to run wild, in the name of progressive education. The local education authority (LEA) and the Director of Education was apparently powerless in the face of this open anarchy. How so, if they had an iron grip over the running of schools? In recent years, this limited influence of LEAs has been diminished to almost zero. During this time, there has indeed been an increase in the control of school’s activities, but that has been by central government, through the national curriculum and OFSTED inspections. If central control is the problem, then there is no need to establish a whole new type of school: simply loosen the centralised controlling grip, allow a diversity of local supply to develop, and admit that the main planks of educational reform of the last twenty years have been mistaken. What chance of that?
I know there’s nothing new in educational policy being based on myth and one-sided analysis. However, if the Academies’ fail to achieve the inflated expectations being made of them, then Grammar schools will once again arise like the living dead and figure in a future conservative policy. That is, if a post Brown Labour party hasn’t grabbed the Grammars first, as part of a ‘new, new Labour’, ‘real choices for real people’ agenda.

2 It’s the end of the world as we know it

We are witnessing the wrecking of British science according to an eminent UK Nobel prize winning scientist. This article goes beyond the usual moaning about the closure of science courses and argues that the promotion of scientific thinking is central to a healthy modern culture. The author fears that in the UK this is being displaced by faith and irrationality http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,2084784,00.html Strong stuff – what do you think?

3 Parental aspirations

Attitudes to higher education – the gender gap, again, yawn, but wait, I think there is something new here and it’s interesting. A survey has indicated that parental aspirations for their children going into higher education are now higher for girls than boys. http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2379179 It seems to me, that this is part of a pattern where girls are under more pressure to become responsible adults than, at least some of, their male contemporaries. The low skilled male seems increasingly drone like, no longer a necessary breadwinner; they are without an adult function and seem destined to remain in perpetual adolescence.

4 Major report into child poverty in the UK

Barnardos report into child poverty http://www.barnardos.org.uk/poverty_full_report_07.pdf and a copy in the library at London Bridge. Criticism first: in my opinion, they overplay the emotive case studies. For example, one of the informants claims not to have enough to eat at times. I calculate that this person has a net cash income, after rent and other costs, of £108.10 per week. At Tesco’s, tins of beans cost 17p, tins of spaghetti 15p and a value white loaf is 28p. Therefore for just over a pound you could buy 2 tins of beans, 3 tins of spaghetti and a loaf. That’s food for 5 gut filling meals. Yes, its not a good diet etc but you don’t need to go hungry; frankly, if you are, then it’s your own bad management.
However, case studies aside, this report is a serious description and analysis of child poverty in the UK today. For example, section 3 discusses the often forgotten and difficult point that over half of children in poverty (52%) live in families where there is an adult in work. Child poverty is not primarily a product of non-working single mums. If you want an authoritative analysis of child poverty in the UK, then this report is a fine starting point, just don’t bother with the case studies.
Having been a bit mean about people managing their money, I readily admit there is genuine disadvantage out there. For example, the young carers described in the following article from the Guardian are truly disadvantaged http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2063731,00.html. This particular issue, of child carers, comes around every few years, where it is often linked to school non-attendance among girls, who are more likely to take time off school to care for others.

5 The end of undergraduate bursaries?

There is talk of ending undergraduate bursaries for disadvantaged students. The money would be redirected into school based projects aimed at increasing the numbers of disadvantaged school and FE students considering and applying to higher education. It is suggested that the money could be more effectively employed by, for example, increasing the numbers of students going to university summer schools. But, do these holiday schemes work? I’ve not seen any real evidence. Also, by cutting bursaries will we find an increase in the numbers of disadvantaged undergraduates dropping out of courses? If so, this could prove to be a really negative change in the system, as in my opinion, these students are the most vulnerable to experiencing academic failure as a profound personal failure. See http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/finance/story/0,,2090213,00.html and the OFFA report that questioned the effectiveness of bursaries http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2089733,00.html