Image via Wikipedia
I’ve had quite a flurry of correspondence since my post yesterday about Dawn Purvis’ report and working party looking at underachievement in working class Protestant areas of Belfast. Some people take exception to me supporting a selection based system (despite the fact that it produces the best GCSE and A Levels results in the UK and the highest level of social mobility in the UK). Others believe that Comprehensive systems are more equitable (despite the fact that they produce the worst form of inequality – good schools only available to children of parents who can afford to pay the fees).
In my view the problems in working class areas of Northern Ireland in terms of educational under-achievement is explained, largely, by three things:
- The failure of parents to instil educational ambition in their children (itself the result of lack of education) as evidenced by poor participation in post-primary selection tests
- A parochial definition of identity and culture that is counter-intellectual (and sees education as a threat to identity)
- A non-competitive attitude to education (a perception that an academic focused education is best left to the toffs)
In short, the problem of under-achievement by these working class communities is the fault of the communities themselves – not society’s fault or even the fault of politicians. Moreover, Protestant/Loyalist tribal “culture” militates against modern-mindedness and free thought – important attributes, I’d suggest, in an increasingly global and interconnected society.
My challenge to Dawn Purvis and her working party is to create some structure, some body, some thing that seeks to reverse the lack of ambition, the parochial definition of identity and the non-competitive attitude to education. If such a body is put in place (and it doesn’t require the government or the Executive to put it in place) I may be even willing to lend a helping hand (if it’s wanted).
As someone is who is strongly pro selection what are your thoughts on the recommendation in the report that Grammars should be retained but with entry restricted to the top 25% i.e only A grades in the 11+?
The grammar schools need to be able to meet their intake quotas. Currently some grammars are over-subscribed by “A-Grade” attainers. Therefore other rules have to be applied to select in the event of over-subscription e.g. sibling rules. Some grammars select further down the ability range. The key thing is that the schools have to meet their intake requirements to be viable as schools. If they were forced to only take the top 25% some may not make quota and may face financial problems eventually. An alternative may be that grammars could be forced to take a cohort of mixed ability children to meet quota. But by selecting further down the ability range they are already doing this – although nearly all Grammars take only “A or B” grades (the grading systems used by the two testing bodies are slightly different, and AQE does not use the A/B/C classifications). In my view the current system works – but I recognise that many more applicants need to come from children from working class parents. The grammars need to do more to encourage more feeder schools to encourage their children to take the tests and a programme of education is needed within parents. What doesn’t help is the Department of Education’s opposition to the grammar sector – admonishing primary schools that prepare children for the admission tests.
Here’s the rub; those who aspire to, and attain a Grammar place are perceived as ‘posh’, middle class and privileged. We should rightly see a Grammar school badge as a certificate of achievement, not a statement of which sector of our society a child has come from. We need to see those of less fortunate backgrounds possessing the vision to seize the day and grasp a Grammar education as a passport to another future. In fact, in the mid 20th century a Grammar uniform was often a child’s Sunday best. Selection is a basic fact of life, not a nu Labour stick to beat people with.