Pearls before swine?
February 8, 2013 8 Comments
One imagines that filling Southend’s grammar schools with Southend’s children would be akin to casting pearls before swine in the mind of the Conservative portfolio holder for Children and Lifelong Learning. His limp excuse that up to three-quarters of the places available at the town’s four grammar schools go to children from outside of the borough because not enough of Southend’s kids pass the eleven plus does not please.
The eleven plus, a decidedly unscientific test, has a movable pass mark. The test weeds out those who are without coaching, rather than selecting the most intelligent. Any late developer, someone who is off-colour on the day, or whose education has failed them is condemned. (I also find it puzzling that we give the best of our educational resources to the already blessed, but then my view that we give the greatest support to those in greatest need is evidently not shared by those responsible for education in the town.)
Thus we are left with two options: concede that Southend’s kids just aren’t up to it (and then realise what this says about the quality of primary education in the borough), or move the pass mark so that these schools truly serve the community they inhabit.
I prefer a third option, though – the introduction of universal comprehensive education in the borough. Still, what do I know? I am also a victim of Southend’s educational apartheid.
Pingback: I’m A Socialist… BUT I Support Southends Grammar Schools. « A Girl Called Jack
I hate the 11Plus – had 3 brothers as friends two passed and off to grammer school ended up in prison why he never got over not going to grammer school with his brothers
Sadly Julian the comprehensive experiment of the 1960′s and 1970′s has to often been a failure insofar standards overall have been driven down rather than up.
That is not to say there is not merit in your argument, especially with so many Southend grammar school places going to children outside the borough.
I feel too the Council does too little to challenge the status quo, insofar the system favours children from socially better off families who go to primary schools that geared to teaching the 11+ and/or have specialized coaching.
While I fear scrapping grammar schools will have an educationally detrimental effect, more can be done to ensure brighter children of modest means get there and there is obviously work to be done when all 4 grammar schools in Southend are deemed by Ofsted to be excellent, whereas in recent years 3 comprehensive schools have been under special measures!
Read my book “A parents guide to the 11+” which elaborates further.
I challenge your assertion that the ‘brightest’ go there (see http://www.comprehensivefuture.org.uk/PDF/SelectionShouldEnd.pdf). If it was an argument about providing the best for the most gifted then there might be some weight behind the argument. Unless you believe the middle classes are genetically superior then the evidence points to grammar schools providing an education almost solely for those able to afford coaching and who are able to encourage their progeny.
Comprehensive education a failure? I doubt that the Benns or Milibands would agree. But, I do concede it could have been better.
However, how is social cohesion enhanced when we separately educate those seen as ‘bright’ from those viewed otherwise? Are we really saying that the intelligent cannot mix with the less endowed?
I did not say the brightest go to grammar schools. In fact my gripe is that not only is it impossible to prove either way that all the children that go to grammar schools are brighter than all those who don’t (although I suspect most are) but because of factors like coaching, going to “better” or at least more 11+ switched on primary schools and having pushy, articulate etc. parents this will affect the chances of the more borderline children. While I believe in social cohesion, I also believe schools are mainly about educating children.
Sad to say, I doubt that the comprehensive experiment of the last 40-50 years has raised standards overall and likely in the case of the more academically able children we have seen a lowering of standards. While I would love to support comprehensive education as a means to create social cohesion, ensure the same opportunities are available to all, get rid of an “annoying” exam, the 11+ etc. my fear is that by abolishing excellent grammar schools the more able children will suffer. Not a solution, I know, but in Southend more could be done to ensure children from less affluent backgrounds, who are able, get to go to our grammar schools.
I should add that I did read your paper and will there was bias and an agenda, it made some good points, which I agree. I wish I had a perfect solution but given we are living in an imperfect world we do our best. It bothers we that in Southend we have 4 grammar schools deemed as excellent by Ofsted and 3 (half) of our comprehensive schools that have been under special measures in recent years. Ideology is good to have but this and the situation, which we both agree, that the grammar system favours children from better off families, who are not necessarily the brightest, is a cause for concern and one that might be practically addressed.
I agree with Julian that the only way to improve education in Southend is to move to a truly comprehensive system. I accept that the rigid academic regime of the grammer schools is suited to the the brightest pupils. However, an education system cannot solely be based around the best pupils and the wishes of the sharp elbowed middle classes.
The grammer schools through increased idendepence, grant mantained status and whatever the current equivalent is, no longer serve the interests of Southend but their own objective of perpetuating the grammer school system. I am not so parochial as to demand Southend Schools for Southend Children, but have have 4 schools with 75% of pupils from outside the Borough surely needs to be addressed
There is a lot that bother’s me about the grammar school system and Southend’s implementation of it. Julian’s paper referred to earlier makes the points well and so does my book (I feel). Some of the concerns are addressable but there are more fundamental questions that arguably need addressing and what Labour sought to do in the 1960′s in its attempt to abolish selective education.
My earlier concern that the needs of brighter pupils were often not best served when LEA’s got rid of grammar schools still remain (leading to my current skepticism) as does multitudinous concerns over how to achieve educational excellence. The reason I am not a true socialist, although sympathetic with many socialist aims, is that I do not believe giving more power to the State is a good thing. As far as education goes it should be the parents who have the final say.
As far as I was concerned with my own son, now at Southend High, was that he should go where he would get the best education and that happened to be in a grammar school, and although I did not over coach him to pass the exam, I did what we all must do if we want to pass an exam we care about and that is prepared for it. Incidentally, contrary to myth, the biggest cost in preparing was my time. My regret is that many parents do not realise what is at stake until too late and societal inequalities and the status quo are too easily accepted by the powers that be such that parents are not made more aware of what is involved or the choices until too late and children of poorer parents tend to go to worse performing primary schools regarding preparing for the 11+. And it is here I believe that I share a lot of common ground with Julian.