Grammar schools aren't the solution but they're better than doing nothing

Were it not for our national debate (I'm being kind here) about health, I would describe the current grammar schools argument as the most inane and purposeless debate in modern politics. I get that schools are important but the degree to which all this is presented as a binary choice - you either have grammars or you have comps - is perhaps the most depressing aspect of the debate.

I could take any number of texts as the basis for discussing the problem with this grammar school debate - we're all holding forth, adopting prejudging and poorly informed positions and lobbing insults at each other. But first a couple of general points.

Opposing grammar schools is anti-choice. I know everyone wants to make out that it isn't and that somehow there is no choice involved in parents choosing whether or not to get their children to sit an entrance exam for a school (or group of schools). We do have a problem with parental choice - "you have a right to express a preference" is the official line we've heard a hundred times as schools catchments exclude children. This is a failing in the system that's entirely down to the (anti-market) way in which we organise education. The free schools idea was intended to remedy this problem and in doing so raise standards but the entrenched LEA establishment resisted and still resists liberalising our school system.

The current comprehensive system is just as elitist - perhaps more so - than a grammar school system. Take the best comprehensive schools in the country and check out their catchments. The best schools are surrounded by the wealthy parents of children who, in the 1960s, would have gone to grammar school. Entire ghettos of privilege determined by house price. Not only does this screw up the supposed 'fairness' of the comprehensive school system but it does untold damage to communities, especially in inner cities, as the most successful and highest achieving relocate to live near the good schools.

Right now, for many places, doing nothing isn't an option worth considering. It's pretty easy to sit in rural Sussex and talk about the wonders of comprehensive education. If you live on a peripheral estate in Bradford, in East Leeds or in Hull the story's a bit different - that comprehensive system means your child is likely to go to a school that's not good enough. And plenty of parents - poor parents who are struggling to do the best for their children - have no choice at all unless they're lucky enough (and their child bright enough to pass) to live in a place where the grammar school offers a way out.

None of this makes grammar schools either the right -or more to the point, all of the - answer. We can't present grammar schools as a panacea for our lack of social mobility or poor standards of educational outcome because the evidence tells us they don't provide that answer. The problem is that neither of the two entrenched camps is offering a route to an education system that does offer a real chance to working-class children from Bradford's Ravenscliffe estate or Branksholme in Hull.

So when Chris Dillow suggests that the grammar school debate is out of the same box as the Brexit debate, he's right (although he reasoning isn't). It's the lack of choice and opportunity plus the manner in which the "elite" manage to grab all the good stuff - and then lecture folk about anti-social behaviour or how they're all too fat. Comprehensive schools were introduced for the right reason but, over time, it has become clear that they simply haven't delivered - except for the same sort of folk who, in times past, were the ones who got their children into the grammar schools.

This grammar school debate is a distraction from the main challenge in education. Here in Bradford we've had decades of state-directed solution-mongering with pretty much no change to educational performance. We were at the bottom of the pile when we reorganised in 1998, still down there in 2002 when we were forced to outsource, hadn't improved much ten years later when it all came back "in-house", and still show little or no signs of improvement. Having a couple of grammar schools might help a little but probably won't change much - it's the system that's rotten not how we distribute children within the system.

Yet the same educational establishment that's eager to stop any new grammar schools is just as keen to prevent us having a more open market in education - even a relatively cautious attempt, free schools, resulted in an unholy alliance of unions, so-called educationalists and left-wing politicians dedicated to killing off a genuine attempt to try and break the stranglehold of LEA establishments and deliver better schools for the children of working class Britain. Children in Bradford have poorer education and their parents less choice because the Council's leadership decided to object to, delay, oppose and generally stall any attempt to deliver new schools.

So, yes, grammar schools aren't a great way to solve the problem with standards and social mobility in UK schools. But those proposing them are at least trying to address these problems rather than simply offering - as the educationalists opposed to grammars are doing - more of the same old rubbish. This might not matter in Hertfordshire or East Sussex - or even in Ilkley or Bingley. But in a lot of places doing nothing simply condemns another generation of children to languishing in a failed system delivering lousy outcomes and next to nothing in terms of opportunity.

....

Interesting stuff I found down the back of the sofa (plus a comment on grammar schools)

Trade is good.

Clearing out my pockets - here's a few things (other than lint and misformed paperclips) I found:

Big cities are bad for health (this sort of reminds us what public health really is about):

Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of the vaccine alliance Gavi, points to the recent increase in the scale of densely populated urban areas, many without adequate sanitation, as turning containable illnesses like Zika and Ebola into pandemics. Dense urbanization may not have created Zika, which causes newborns to have unusually small heads, he notes, but it has accelerated its spread from a mere handful to a current tally of 1.5 million cases this year.

Tokyo doesn't have a housing crisis - because it has sensible (aka laissez faire) planning rules:

Here is a startling fact: in 2014 there were 142,417 housing starts in the city of Tokyo (population 13.3m, no empty land), more than the 83,657 housing permits issued in the state of California (population 38.7m), or the 137,010 houses started in the entire country of England (population 54.3m).

Ideology presented as fact - the curse of economics (here's a good example of the genre):

Is there a good economic reason why Brexit in particular should require abandoning austerity economics? I would argue that the Tory obsession with the budget deficit has had very little to do with economics for the past four or five years. Instead, it has been a political ruse with two intentions: to help win elections and to reduce the size of the state. That Britain’s macroeconomic policy was dictated by politics rather than economics was a precursor for the Brexit vote. However, austerity had already begun to reach its political sell-by date, and Brexit marks its end.

And globalisation (meaning free trade and immigration since you asked) is good for the working class:

There isn't an economy in the world — now or ever — that could have endured such massive blows without a major hit to its people. But the worst that has happened in America is stagnant wages. Remarkably, our quality of life has continued to improve.

They never tell you how fast Africa is growing (or that it's down to capitalism - also socialism was what made Africa poor):

Some of Africa’s growth was driven by high commodity prices, but much of it, a McKinsey study found in 2010, was driven by economic reforms. To appreciate the latter, it is important to recall that for much of their post-colonial history, African governments have imposed central control over their economies. Inflationary monetary policies, price, wage and exchange rate controls, marketing boards that kept the prices of agricultural products artificially low and impoverished African farmers, and state-owned enterprises and monopolies were commonplace.

The rise of the far-right is down to the EU (prize for spotting the huge factual error in the article):

All “civilised” politicians in the founding EEC nations agreed nationalism must be overcome. Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Socialists, Euro communists, all the mainstream Continental political groups agreed that old-style patriotism was at best embarrassing, at worst dangerous and wicked. This meant that ordinary Frenchmen, Germans, Dutchmen, Belgians who wanted to stay French, German, etc had no-one else to vote for but extreme nationalists. Anyone wishing to oppose ever-closer union had no other home than among the xenophobic fringe parties.

It's not just technology but finance that's changing car ownership:

With the rise of companies like Uber and Lyft, it’s clear that we will need to see advances in new ownership models to support tomorrow’s transportation landscape. In fact, Uber recently received a $1 billion credit facility led by Goldman Sachs to fund new car leases. Uber (and Wall Street) are also recognizing the need for more flexibility with this deal — especially at a time when Americans are making larger monthly payments than ever on their cars and taking out record-size auto loans.

The impact of Brexit on projections for housing requirements (sexy stuff I know):

In summary, the current basis for UK estimates of housing need are already predicated on a 45% drop to total net-in-migration by 2021, so for Brexit to have any downward pressure on planned housing targets in Local Plans, it would need to be assumed that Brexit resulted in European net-migration to the UK falling to virtually zero over the medium to long term. This seems unlikely.

A brilliant article - essentially a film review - on small town poverty and decline in the US mid-west (and a glimpse of why Trump):

In Medora we see not only poverty, but nearly complete social breakdown. I don’t recall a single player on the team raised in an intact family. Many of them lived in trailer parks. One kid had never even met his father. Others had mothers who themselves were alcoholics or barely functional individuals. They sometimes bounced around from home to home (grandmother, etc.) or dropped out of school to take care of a problematic mother.

Finally I can't resist a comment on grammar schools. They really aren't the answer to educational challenges but at least the Conservatives are looking at system reform rather than saying the solution is putting more money into institutions - big urban comprehensives - that are failing children.

....

Banning interns won't increase social mobility

Much frothing and spluttering among the political classes about Nick Clegg's social mobility strategy - or rather about the matter of so-called "interns".

Nick Clegg's scathing attack on inequality of opportunity was branded ‘total hypocrisy’ last night.

As he unveiled a drive to improve social mobility, it emerged his millionaire father had secured him the internship that launched his career and a titled family friend helped get him his first proper job.

The LibDem leader was also forced to make a humiliating apology for employing unpaid interns in his own office, while criticising the practice in public.

There was further embarrassment for Mr Clegg as it emerged that the LibDems may not even have paid expenses to some young people.

The party hurriedly brought in new guidelines yesterday to ‘put our own house in order’.

As they say round here – “oops”!

However, I am struck by the possibility that rules restricting internships will impact on genuine volunteering. It seems to me that there’s a case for stopping internships being used as a smooth route for the children of the wealthy to secure employment in professions like law where there are limited opportunities (and too much supply). But would this prevent, for example, a community law centre offering unpaid volunteering to young aspiring lawyers?

My concern is that HR managers in the voluntary sector (and let’s not forget that political parties are, in principle, part of the voluntary sector) will interpret any new rules in such a way as to prevent young people using volunteering as a way to secure experience – to make a meagre CV look a little more sparkly. And charitable organisations already face huge pressures that are eased by the use of internships. Here’s one household name’s offer:

This summer we'll be offering internships lasting three months in a wide range of areas, including community fundraising, events, marketing, communications and healthcare. Whatever team you join, you'll make a big difference to Macmillan and to the lives of people affected by cancer.

We'll be recruiting for summer interns between mid-April and mid-May - pop back from 11 April for more information. Unfortunately we are unable to accept CVs, covering letters or applications for summer internships, until 11 April.

Are we saying that charities should be stopped from making such offers in case those taking them up gain some sort of advantage as a result? At the same time as we speak of ‘Big Society’ and the encouragement of volunteering?

As is often the case with these debates, the choice of a relatively insignificant barrier to social mobility as a high profile target completely misses the point. If we see the lack of upward social mobility as a problem (and not everyone does), then we must address the source of that problem – the continuing failure of our education system and especially the ever-widening gap between the privately and publicly educated. Gabbing on about interns, babbling about ‘income equality’ or beating up merit-driven university entrance won’t address our problems.

From 1964 to 1997 – thirty-three years – our nation was led by the products of grammar schools, people from pretty ordinary backgrounds. After 40 years of comprehensive education, the nation’s leaders – in politics, business, arts and literature – are the products of private schools and a privileged background.  And unless we give children a better start, all the fixing of internships, “fair access strategies” and other elements of Mr Clegg’s social mobility plans will achieve nothing – except the inevitable unintended consequence.

....