Latest:

01:12 Man shot dead in housing estate
00:32 Being lonely 'worse than smoking'
00:12 MoD budget claims 'over-optimistic'
00:12 Gas call centres go face-to-face
00:12 PM support for NHS change 'drifted'
00:12 Three million CRB checks in a year
00:12 Girls in gangs warned of rape risk
00:02 Man shot dead in housing estate

'Grammar schools are houses built on sand'

Selection is frequently defended by the simplistic mantra 'the end justifies the means'. But our children deserve far better from us, argues Alastair Walker

Monday, 22 February 2010

Selection Challenged is a book sired by anger out of frustration. It stems from frustration with those who have failed in their responsibility to give people here good government.

The mess that education is in currently is equally the fault of the unilateralist actions of the current minister and of those, also in government, who refuse to co-operate in finding a solution.

The anger is because of the suffering being caused to young children who understand little of what is being imposed upon them or why.

I thought that I should try to set out the case against selection in a way that went beyond the parochial arguments of the moment that seem to characterise much of the public debate on the subject. I feel qualified to do so as someone who spent most of his career in educational testing and assessment and was involved in both administration and research.

It was an area I moved into on returning to Northern Ireland after experience teaching in grammar schools in the West Midlands. Towards the latter end of my career working with CCEA, in addition to GCSE and GCE examinations, I had responsibility for the development of the transfer tests and for the marking of them.

I had been a confirmed opponent of selection for many years before undertaking that role so it was accepted with some reluctance, but then public servants do not have the luxury of only implementing those policies with which they agree. If that were the case our government processes would quickly break down.

What I promised myself was that I would try to ensure that the system that I was given to operate would be carried through as fairly and efficiently as possible.

There was no way of judging how successfully that was achieved, but it did not surprise me when research published by Professor Gardner and Dr Cowan of QUB in 2003 demonstrated that the Department of Education's requirements for the transfer tests themselves resulted in major reliability problems.

The book is, therefore, an attempt to place the current situation in the context of what has happened here and elsewhere over the last 60 years since the experiment of mass testing of 11-year-olds for selection purposes began in the UK in the 1940s.

It was an experiment which was short-lived almost everywhere except in Northern Ireland and which never operated as its designers had intended.

Indeed, in Northern Ireland repeated attempts to find a method of carrying out selection reliably have failed - none of the methods tried have ever proved fit for the purpose.

We now send 40% of our children to grammar schools. That means that those who just manage to get a grammar school place are fairly average attainers. So are those who do not quite make it over the hurdle.

I am convinced that there is no testing system in existence that is capable of taking two quite average children and predicting reliably that, over the next five years, one will benefit from a grammar school place while the other will not. It is absurd that we are even making the attempt.

It is also worth remembering that the hurdle itself is set at different heights for different schools. Postcodes are as important as grades in our present system in determining who gets into grammar schools.

A number of myths have developed around our selective system - myths about exam performance and selection and about numbers of working-class children getting to university among others.

In the book I try to dispel these myths and also reflect on how our schools relate to our communities. In doing so, I make some comparisons with Scotland, where the non-selective education system is generally highly regarded and where none of the political parties has any desire to make changes. One of the bitterest accusations made against opponents of selection is that we are consumed by an insane desire to 'destroy our excellent grammar schools'.

I am reminded of the biblical parable of the man who built his house upon the sand. The problem was not with the house - possibly brilliant architecturally and offering superb accommodation. The problem was that the foundations were in moving sands and not in firm ground.

Likewise, grammar schools - however good - suffer from their dependence on the unreliable and shifting foundation of selection.

At the present time our grammar schools serve 40% of our community well. Transformed into excellent all-ability schools they would serve 100% of our community every bit as well.

That may represent change - but it does not in any sense mean destruction. We already have a number of first-class all-ability schools. We know they work.

We do not need selection with all of the trauma and stress that accompany it.

Finally, there is the thread of a moral argument running through the book. Those who support selection justify it by claims about results. Even if those claims could be shown to have some merit, that is not sufficient because ends alone do not justify means.

What we do to 10 and 11-year-old children in the name of selection is unacceptable in terms of the stress that is caused and the loss of self-esteem that some children suffer. That moral argument alone is, in my view, quite sufficient to make us want to put an end to the practice.

However, in doing so there is also a moral obligation to manage change with the utmost care for the sake of those children currently in our schools.

So far, there is little sign of that happening.

Print
Text Size
- Normal
- Large
- Extra Large

I am taking my GCSE's at the oment in a grammar school, it is required that we take around 15 GCSE's, it sounds like a lot, ad really is a lot. It is appaling that we are under so much pressure. I have 5 pieces of coursework due in between Friday, and next friday. They then do not give us enough time to even revise for tests we have inbetween. I used to go to a normal secondary school, where I did not feel so pressured, and was able to obtain much higher grades, than the ones that I am obtaining now. So grammar schools are not all that great.

Posted by sara | 15.03.10, 21:23 GMT

When does a grammar school become a comprehensive school? When I look at the grades of students admitted to grammar schools last year I see some grammar schools admitting only top grades but others admitting all grades. Does this not support Dr Walker's argument about postcodes?If I live near one of the school's admitting all grades my child is admitted with a B, C or even D grade whereas living in other areas he will need an A grade for admission. Surely this calls into question the academic basis on which entrance is supposed to be based? Grammar schools if they are to remain should only admit students with top grades. Doing otherwise weakens the argument for academic selection.

Posted by Mark | 23.02.10, 06:04 GMT

Well done Dr Walker. At last a rebuttal to the elitist claptrap spouted by the voluntary grammar school led AQE and their cheerleader Kenneth Bloomfield.
The example of the Scottish system is irrefutable. So confident are they in their system of education that they prefer Glasgow or Edinburgh Universities to the "Oxbridge" route that Bloomfield and his voluntary grammar pals are so in awe of. Well done again Dr Walker but expect to be maligned by the elitist grammar school lobby.

Posted by A Caldwell | 23.02.10, 00:16 GMT

Two Points:
Firstly, to echo Jeff, the issue should not be to bash the garmmar schools, but to raise the standards of the 'other' schools. If these other schools/High schoools could offer the same degree of quality and attention as the grammars offer, then there should be absolutely no need for selection - Every child would be going to a good school.

Secondly, it was the 11+ that allowed my daughter to leave her 'sink hole' estate with crap school adjacent, to avoid the sub-standard education that that school offerred. The 11+ gave her opportunity, that she worked hard to achieve.

My cousin lives near to this school - if her child had not had the option of going elsewhere through the recent entrance exams, then the entire family would have been on the emigrant route. Education for their kids was, for them, was more important than anything else.

Posted by Dave | 22.02.10, 20:31 GMT

A Walker shows his bias in the statement "I had been a confirmed opponent of selection for many years" So many of the comments have been said before but no-one listens! How can someone argue for equality then state that " Postcodes are as important as grades "!!
It should not be about good schools, etc. but the most suitable type of education to meet the needs of individual pupils.

Posted by MAE | 22.02.10, 19:55 GMT

Members of my family 'just wanted to get a degree !'. There was a previous generation of people who enjoyed the exhilaration of debate -the excitement of learning, and the joy and confidence of knowledge. There were then, inspired teachers; those who did not partake in our domain of discourse, although thought of as different, were not looked down upon. Thumping noises exuding from Bars now preclude the fun of good conversation and debate, and contribute to hedonistic alcoholic overindulgence. A damp homogeneous educational mix in the schools will not mend this sad uninspiring uncultured society.

Posted by Malachy McAnespie | 22.02.10, 16:42 GMT

It may be unfortunate that all children may not benefit from a grammar school education,however that does not mean that those who do not 'qualify' should not receive a good education! What is wrong with testing;there are exams at the end of each term,and surely those results can be used to help determine whether or not a person should be considered for a grammar school place.

Posted by RMS | 22.02.10, 15:53 GMT

Stuff and nonsense! Children love challenge. I sat and failed the 11 plus over 50 years ago (so I am coming from a no-axe-to-grind position) but I can assure you that this so-called "pressure" on children of 10-11 did not exist so what has happened in the intervening years? I will tell you -interfering and pushy parents who take it as a personal slight if their children do not "perform" to their satisfaction. Horses for courses.....I see nothing wrong in encouraging more interested, willing and capable children to aspire to greater heights and the selection procedure is as good a way as any of determining ability. The bottom line is caring and enthusiastic teachers in whatever educational institution is available, not hyper parents - there's a heck of a difference between encouragement and neurosis!

Posted by Kate | 22.02.10, 15:10 GMT

Ending selection before addressing inequalities between schools is putting the cart before the horse.

Sort the schools out first, and then look at ending selection. Ruane's method would create a post code lottery, and would do nothing to address the inequalities between schools.

Selection at present is not just about results as the author claims, but is about choice, which Ruane is trying to deny to parents.

Posted by Jeff | 22.02.10, 14:58 GMT

Get real Mr Walker. Life is all about selection. You can either have selection by a reasonably fair means, or you can have selection by post code and parental income.

I have no idea, apart from stubborn dogma, why anyone in NI would want to go down the same road as England. Comprehensive education has failed here, which you can see by the number of middle class families impoverishing themselves to avoid the state system.

Better a wee bit of stress at 10 or 11 than the greater stress of being held back from achieiving your potential in a comprehensive.

Posted by Londoner | 22.02.10, 14:05 GMT

A thoroughly excellent argument, which I agree with 100%. I heard Mike Nesbitt on last week defending selection - so much for the new and progressive Tories.

Posted by GS | 22.02.10, 12:23 GMT