On Saturday it was reported that Theresa May is intending to lift the ban on grammar schools. This is concerning because the evidence is clear that grammar schools do not lower educational inequalities – not when they were introduced over 60 years ago, and not today.
Here are four reasons why grammar schools are a bad idea:
1) The evidence demonstrates that grammar schools undermine social mobility. Very few of the poor attend grammar schools, even in areas where there are multiple grammar schools like in Birmingham or Kent. Only 2.6% pupils are on free school meals (FSM) in existing grammar schools, compared to 15% across the UK. Even in the 1960s when 26% of children were from the “unskilled working-class” at grammar schools, a high drop rate meant that they represented just 0.3% of those achieving two A-levels or more. As their intake is primarily from the upper middle class they act as a vehicle for well-off kids to get a better education and top jobs in media, law, banking and politics .
2) The evidence shows that grammar schools do not increase overall educational performance. In Kent –which retains a fully selective secondary education system – the achievement of pupils as a whole is no higher than the national average while educational outcomes are less equitable than elsewhere. Furthermore, outcomes for pupils from backgrounds of social disadvantage in Kent – the group least likely to attend local grammar schools – are markedly worse than the national average for similar pupils. Internationally, evidence from the OECD shows that the best performing education systems are those with ‘comprehensive’ school systems, and those that tier children by school have less equitable outcomes without an overall performance advantage. In other words, grammar schools do not lead to higher academic standards overall, and create greater inequalities in achievement.
3) There is a real worry that just as in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, grammar schools will separate children at age 11 essentially telling many that they are not good enough. Parents need to ask themselves not only how they would feel if their child got in to one of these schools, but also if they did not. Creating winners and losers in the education system so early on in life is likely to strengthen class divides and inequality in outcomes. ALL children deserve the best chance to fulfil their potential.
4) Grammar schools are complicating the system further and a distraction from increasing the quality of comprehensive education. This government must stop harking back to a mythical era in which grammar schools helped lower educational inequality. If they want to help address inequality in educational outcomes they must invest more in our state school sector. Conversely they are currently cutting funding. More generally, Theresa May will fail to address inequality if she supports an educational system that allows only a lucky few to escape low incomes while leaving everyone else behind.
Grammar schools are not fit for purpose in dealing with inequality. We need forward thinking policy instead of one that looks to past projects to fix today’s problems. Most importantly we must not separate educational inequalities to wider economic inequalities – social mobility is higher where income and wealth gaps are narrower.
For more info see:
https://www.teachers.org.uk/edufacts/grammar-schools
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2020/01/28/grammar-school-myths/
elbizb
Your point about Kent’s selective system not outperforming the national average is really telling. If grammar schools don’t improve overall outcomes, what’s the justification for bringing them back? It feels like we should be focusing on improving all schools rather than selecting a lucky few.
This post highlightsBlog Comment Creation an important but often overlooked point—that grammar schools don’t just fail to promote social mobility, they may actually reinforce existing inequalities. The data on free school meal access really drives home how skewed these systems are. It’s not just about academic performance; it’s about who gets the opportunity in the first place.
It’s striking that areas with selective schools like Kent still aren’t seeing better overall results. Maybe the problem isn’t the type of school, but the wider system that doesn’t focus on equity at every level of education.
The stat about only 2.6% of grammar school students being on free school meals really stood out to me—it’s a stark reminder that selective education tends to reinforce privilege rather than break cycles of poverty. It makes me wonder how policymakers can continue to justify expanding a system that seems to leave so many behind.
This is such an important point—grammar schools might appear merit-based, but the numbers clearly show they mostly benefit already privileged students. I think it’s crucial we focus on improving comprehensive education for everyone rather than creating selective environments that entrench inequality.
This post raises some critical points—especially around the myth that grammar schools boost overall academic performance. The data from Kent really underscores that selective education doesn’t necessarily raise the bar for everyone, and can actually entrench inequality. It’s a reminder that education policy needs to focus on raising standards across the board, not just for a select few.
I’m from Kent and I’ve seen firsthand how the grammar school system can leave a lot of students behind. It creates a hierarchy that’s hard to challenge once it’s in place, especially for kids from working-class backgrounds.
This post raises a crucial point about the myth of grammar schools promoting meritocracy. The data around free school meal access is especially telling—if these schools were truly about ability, you’d expect a more representative intake. It’s hard to ignore how selective education often ends up reinforcing existing class divisions rather than breaking them down.
The point aboutBlog Comment Analysis grammar schools reinforcing class divisions really hits home—it’s eye-opening how low the free school meal stats are. I’d be curious to see more data comparing student outcomes in selective vs. comprehensive systems across different regions. It seems like grammar schools aren’t just failing to level the playing field—they’re actually widening the gap.
Your point about grammar schools undermining social mobility really stood out. It’s striking how even decades ago, the system primarily served upper-middle-class families, and it seems little has changed. This raises important questions about whether we’re addressing the root causes of educational inequality.
This post raises an importantGrammar Schools Comment Writing point about how grammar schools can actually entrench inequality rather than reduce it. The stat about just 2.6% of grammar school students being on free school meals really puts the access issue into perspective—selection by ability often ends up being selection by background. It’s a reminder that improving comprehensive education might be a fairer path to social mobility.
You’ve raised someBlog Comment Creation important points here, especially about how grammar schools often fail to support social mobility despite being marketed as meritocratic. The statistic about only 2.6% of grammar school pupils being on free school meals really highlights how unequal access still is. It makes me wonder if focusing on improving comprehensive schools would have a greater impact on overall educational equity.
Remarkable! Its really awesome paragraph, I have got much clear idea on the topic of from this piece of writing.