Are grammar schools the future?

Social mobility in Britain has had a strange history over the 20th and 21st centuries. Not until Clement Attlee founded the state Grammar school system after the war were the chances of children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds getting into this country’s best universities very high. Indeed, without this reform, the education system would’ve all but outright excluded the poorest from the most prestigious areas of secondary education.

It may seem to some that I am romanticising the past and, to a certain extent, I am. But it is factual, not anecdotal evidence that leads me to this conclusion- even though recent years has seen the amount of children from poorer backgrounds attending university greatly increase, the numbers of those children going to the top universities has remained unchanged for thirty years. This is a shocking statistic unbefitting one of the riches countries in the world. We have let state education fall into a position where academically it does not compete with the private and few remaining grammar schools – and crucially it is the schools with the highest numbers of students from the poorest backgrounds that this really rings true.

So in 2010 this country was ‘blessed’ with its first coalition government since the war and a new, seemingly innovative education secretary Michael Gove. Gove has very quickly imposed reforms on our education system that aim to ‘bring back rigor’. Gove definitely makes a case for his reforms increasing social mobility and has said he wishes for more children from poorer backgrounds to attend university; one can only assume he would like to see more going to the top universities, putting a stop to the decline and stagnation we have seen in social mobility in recent years.

Gove has stated that one of his main priorities is to ensure that every child gains five good GCSEs including English and maths. This is of course an honourable aim and achieving it can only be a good thing for our education system. But the link between better GCSE results and increased social mobility is in no way necessary.  Surely all it would do is give more students more, increasingly worthless qualifications and do little to change the path they will take in life? With such a tiered education system as we have in this country, pushing up from the bottom is an ineffectual means of increasing the amount of poor children going to top universities.

If we are to achieve the social mobility of the fifties and sixties we must take children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and give them the education and opportunities received by those at the other end of the spectrum. And, in my opinion, the only way this could be achieved is to bring back a proper grammar school system.

Currently, Gove is offering reforms that will not help to build a socially and economically fluid society in which the top universities are available to all. The free school system is being used by middle class parents to set up schools for their own children to attend, which necessitates a level of social and economic selection. This is not a helpful step when we already have an education system which greatly benefits those who come from more affluent backgrounds. However, by overhauling the comprehensive school system by pushing forward the academy scheme is more of a mixed bag. The introduction of the EBacc (English Baccalaureate) at GCSE level will ensure that children take a humanity and a language at GCSE – which will of course be beneficial to anyone pursing a university career. But again, it feels as if Gove is pushing up from the bottom without really solving the issue.

Many experts believe that more extra-curricular activities lead to greater levels of success within schools – and at a private or grammar school it is clear that there is definitely much more provision made for these activities. If Gove wanted to really improve results then putting more money into sport and music in schools would be a good place to start; but these are the areas in which his government have cut the most. Unless he is willing to have a selective system that at least gives disadvantaged children some of the opportunities that children from richer backgrounds receive, then his reforms will do nothing for social mobility.

There are obviously problems with selective education. Research shows that kids from richer backgrounds usually do better in an eleven plus exam and there are many cases where parents have used tutors to get their children into a grammar school. But considering that the system we currently have is based almost entirely on wealth anyway, at least by making very good education accessible to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, reaching the levels of post war social mobility would be possible.