The Truth about Grammar Schools.

The truth is even the right thing can be done so bad it becomes the wrong thing. This is both sides of the argument. Both the for’s and the against’s do their option badly. This comes from making logical fallacies in their reasoning. On the BBC’s More or Less (Radio 4) they did manage to have the statement that Grammar schools get better results for those that attend them. They did manage to hide this point with lots of other failure stats, without reaching the other conclusions (selective) that the stats also suggest. So Grammar schools academically serve those that attend better than a comprehensive system. So an opposite approach to dogma is that comprehensive schools are prejudicial against the better academic students (and also those with better off parents). So for the individual child who qualifies for grammar school they are better off if selection exists. The school would still have to be organised and provide a good environment for the students not just separate them from those with lower academic ability.

The measurements of success and failure are often poor indicators of any substance rather they state the status quo. Exam results are often chosen. Outside education GCSEs and A levels are used because they are what exists not because they say anything substantial. What they say predominantly is the a child with higher results came from a higher socio-economic background. So the big failure of selective education is it selects mostly at 10 years of age where the effects of socio-economic factors have already hidden any potential of those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. So Grammar schools do not provide for academically intelligent children from poorer backgrounds all that well. Another error is to over emphasise GCSE’s and A levels. These quals. are irrelevant apart from gaining entrance into a better College/University, and once they have the degree the previous exam results are irrelevant. The fixed schedule of GCSEs at 16 years is a system need not a child’s educational need. Sticking to the system is because another use of GCSE results is a weapon for others to use as they see fit to keep the schools to account (whose?). The exam results are also quite narrow considering ideas such as multiple intelligences and later life requirements. They measure what can be measured and what some people want measuring. They are an approximation which must be used with care.

The biggest failure of selective education is not the academic high achievers it’s the rest who do not attend. The real failure of the selective system is for those who are not academically gifted and/or those from poorer backgrounds. The weakness of the measure of academic qualifications is the unsuitability outside of the education system and misuse by those who do not understand what they approximate. Using the multiple intelligence's model is correlated with real world tasks and employment. Identifying strengths that are not academic needs to be recognised and understood. Education (monopoly?) serves itself with the pressures upon it. Children with great musical skill (and others) from poorer backgrounds are not served and many poorer background children are disenfranchised where their strengths are not recognised and served. Wider society also (historically (qui bono?)) values academic over other intelligences in spite of needing the different intelligences in different times and places. Measuring people only through academic qualifications and teaching to those qualifications is a false simplification.

The good news for the pro selective education argument is that comprehensive education fails on the same issues and performs lower for those academically able. A pragmatic argument is also who pays the most tax and it’s the higher performing academically who study STEM subjects. These pay the most tax and pay for the rest. By not providing well for these mostly private schools and driven by parents children perhaps it effects the tax receipts in future? The economic principle of feed success and starve failure. Suggests that these people need to be supported for the greater good.

Regardless of selective or not the rest are who are really poorly served by an education system within its society. The bigger question is how to aid children from poorer background especially where parents cannot give the children the support they need for whatever reason. This issue is apparent much earlier than 10 years of age so is irrelevant to the selection argument. Another issue is an education system for the future where it must be better at preparing children for adult life and better at helping children develop personally realising their potential and reducing weaker areas that can cause harm by learning methods that cope with needs or leaving it to people more qualified (that might be a lesson for politicians).