In the current discussion of the merits or otherwise of
grammar schools there is one important point that is rarely mentioned. In fact I have not noticed anybody saying
it. This is the fact that many pupils
were (and probably still are being) actually damaged by being subjected to an
academic education that does not suit
them – and they end up as “grammar school failures” – with long-lasting
practical and psychological consequences.
I must concede that I have no independent research evidence
of this, but I base my comments on my own observation.
I was fortunate or unfortunate enough to attend a posh
direct grant grammar school as a “scholarship boy” in Portsmouth in the 1950s.
(Under the “direct grant” system of the 1944 Education Act, independent,
fee-charging schools could receive grants in return for offering 25-50% of
their places to pupils who had previously attended maintained (i.e. state)
primary schools.and were nominated by the Local Education Authority. Portsmouth Grammar School (PGS) was such a
direct grant school).
When I was there (from 1953-60) it was four form entry (boys
only, of course), and each year the 120 new pupils were streamed into four
classes (A to D) based on the results of the Entrance Exam or the 11+ (I’m not
sure which). Either way, it was
selection by ability as measured at age 11.
In subsequent years, there were occasional promotions and
relegations, but these were rare, and the classes remained fairly stable for
the length of the GCE O level course. (I
deliberately use the terminology of the Football League since the ethos of the
school was intensely competitive and the ultimate aim was to win a scholarship
to Oxbridge or Sandhurst, or play in the school rugby first XV).
The school was indeed quite successful at getting many of
its star pupils (mainly from the A stream) into the most prestigious
universities or military training colleges, and many of these went on to
glittering careers in academia, the civil service, the Royal Navy or
business.
But what of the non-star pupils? Grammar schools were generally intended for
the top 20% of the ability range, so pupils in the D stream had been judged at
the age of 11 to be of well above average academic ability. At
PGS, however, they were regarded as low-achievers, and little was expected of
them. What is quite shocking is that many
if not most of them left school at the age of 16 with no O levels or other
qualifications.
What effect this had on the boys’ subsequent careers I do
not know for sure. The question might be
the subject of an interesting piece of academic research. My expectation would be that in many cases
the experience lowered their self esteem and confidence, reduced their personal
ambition, blighted their subsequent careers and perhaps led to mental illness
in later life.
So when discussing the dubious claim that grammar schools
promote social mobility and enable high flyers to escape from the mediocrity of
bog standard comprehensive schools, we should also remember the diminished life
chances of grammar school failures.
© 2016 Robin Paice
No comments:
Post a Comment