Tory shadow education secretary David Willetts (King Edward's School, Birmingham; Christ Church, Oxford), an inveterate enemy of all forms of social advantage, says:
"We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids."
"This is a widespread belief but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it."
[...]
Mr Willetts made it clear in his speech to the CBI that the party is committed to comprehensive education, though it will follow Labour's lead and allow the remaining 165 grammars to stay open.How benevolent.
So I guess the results of research at Bristol University were wrong then:He told the leaders of industry that times have changed since he attended a grammar school in Birmingham. In those days, children had fairly similar personal and family experiences. Now, 40 years on, children had such different experiences that it was a fantasy to think that an exam could fairly distinguish between them.
"Middle-class parents invest far more effort in raising their kids than they did a generation ago. My parents didn't spend time driving me around to tennis coaching or music lessons. Nowadays, middle-class kids get all that and more and probably extra tuition to help them to do well in the exams at 11."
Grammar schools might once have worked to transform the opportunities of many children from poor backgrounds but no longer.
Children who go to grammar schools in England achieve better grades than those of similar ability who are not in selective areas, researchers claim.A Bristol University study suggested pupils from poorer backgrounds do particularly well.
Of course the researchers were wrong. They contradicted the views of all goodthinkful liberals.
Also, does David Willetts actually have any evidence that tennis lessons and private tutors (something which, from my experience, happens far less frequently than is made out) actually make much difference? I suppose they might give one child on the borderline of passing the 11+ a slight advantage over another in the same situation, but they cannot put a child who is manifestly not up to going to grammar school into such a school, and neither can they deprive a truly intelligent child from a poor background of a grammar school place.
What would disadvantage such a child is sending them to a poor quality comprehensive, stuffed to the brim with unmotivated teachers, criminal pupils, and immigrants who can barely speak English. This is what Willetts, and his master David Cameron (Eton; Brasenose, Oxford) would condemn that child to.
And the middle class children, with their tennis lessons and private tutors? Oh, they'll be alright. They'll just go private.
7 comments:
What would be a good idea is to have Grammar Schools but do away with the old 11+ and just have an IQ test.
If IQ tests are good enough for the US Army, they are good enough for British kids.
It was possible to have a high IQ and still fail the old 11+ as IQ was only a small part of the test. That part of the old 11+ that was not IQ was unfair to many bright but poorly educated kids.
Most middle class parents would not need to worry about their kids not passing as I believe 'The Bell Curve'
http://tinyurl.com/zexdn
showed that the middle class generally have a higher IQ, and most of IQ is inherited.
At the same time it would give an opportunity to genuinely bright working class kids.
This would be the obvious, sensible way forward.
However, there would be screams of racism from the usual suspects. Which is no doubt why none of the large political parties will go there.
I meant to add that private tutors would not make any difference (or very little) if selection were based only an IQ test.
I say very little because I believe you can make a very slight difference to your score by practicing taking IQ test.
Now that NuLabour appear to be reverting to plain old Labour, then there will be no confusion with the NuTory party. This lot are very definitely neutering it.
Sadly, we need to let them get on with it, and start to build a party that really represents the British people, the sort of people that my parents generation fought a war to protect.
"a party that really represents the British people, the sort of people that my parents generation fought a war to protect."
Hmmmmnn, do you think there is a gap in the market?
When I've been to the political supermarket there already seems to be quite a bit of choice on the shelves.
Here is what I assume is Boris Johnson being 'on message' in the Telegraph.
http://tinyurl.com/2rfnvq
Where I think he falls down is with this line of his argument:
"And as David Willetts rightly points out, the crisis in our schools - and the chaos in children's lives - is now so great that many of the bright poor would not even find their way to the bottom of the ladder; the 11-plus successes would be overwhelmingly middle-class - and even then, only a minority of the candidates."
If the 11+ was just an IQ test then this would not be the case.
I wish you could edit these posts!
"the crisis in our schools - and the chaos in children's lives - is now so great that many of the bright poor would not even find their way to the bottom of the ladder;"
No, not if the test was IQ only.
The majority of kids in Grammar School may end up being middle class if it was an IQ only test, but so what?
What is the aim here? The most appropriate education for British children, or social engineering?
I think that IQ testing should form a significant part of the admissions criteria for grammar schools. However, I do think you also need to be able to assess achievement, as well as potential, so feel that we should retain testing in respect of, say, maths and English language as part of the admissions criteria.
However, the chances of IQ testing being introduced are very low. As you say, so many people claim, without much foundation, that the tests are inaccurate and, somehow, "racist" or "culturally biased".
"What is the aim here? The most appropriate education for British children, or social engineering?"
A rhetorical question, I assume?
Post a Comment