By Liberal First*
One thing puzzling me about the recent debate in the media about the Tory’s grammar school woes is that their policy position is now not deeply dissimilar to our own, or that of the government, on the matter of selection.
We also do not propose shutting down existing grammar schools but take the view that the 11+ is a particularly crude and ineffective method of aligning pupils to the best education for them and that it should not be extended.
Common entrance at 13 is considered a better alternative, but new grammar schools as isolated monasteries of academic excellence for the few make us nervous.
Are we then for selection or against it?
Our positive selection position, as I understand it, is that we support ‘setting’ within state comprehensives, meaning that pupils of similar ability work together in classes by subject, rather than across all subjects which is ‘streaming’ or ‘banding’. This is a form of selection that aligns appropriate teaching support and peer competition to the individual needs of the child, and adapts that regime every year rather than being set in stone at age eleven.
It’s a good scheme, and stands opposed to the extreme anti-selection position that will only consider mixed-ability teaching, generally failing everyone in some measure, but particularly those with special needs and gifts.
But is it enough?
The problem with setting is that it requires large schools, and to some extent a balanced range of abilities to avoid tiny and huge class-sizes. This isn’t always possible and large schools are not necessarily ideal either for other reasons.
One solution to that would be to extend the principle of setting between schools as well as within them. Grammar schools, alongside sporting academies, technical colleges and other centres of excellence would then be community resources for all pupils rather than those who got in at eleven.
Pupils might study 80% of their classes in their home base, but travel to specialist classes or facilities the rest of the time, perhaps making use of breakfast and after-school clubs to do it. Another support-mechanism would be more mobile teachers, very much in the mould of our suggestion for PE specialists, assigned to an area not a school.
Timetables and resourcing would be more complex, good quality intra-school transport would be required, but these are surmountable technical and financial challenges well within our means.
If it were possible and deemed worthwhile, it would also help us by allowing us to refocus the education debate on the needs of children as individuals and appropriate personalised education, rather than just talking about creating ‘a good local school’ as though this platitude amounted to a distinct policy.
Further, if it worked, and it could be shown within the state system that different types of schools can work together for all children, then it might open the possibility for breaking down the barriers between the state and private sector. Something Labour have singularly failed to do, increasing inequality and reducing social mobility in the process.
Selection if done in the right way is no bad thing, particularly if it is enabling life-chances rather than shutting them down. We have an opportunity to shake-up the education debate by saying so, is this something we should explore?
* Liberal First is the pseudonym of a well-known Lib Dem blogger.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems beat Labour in a Liverpool by-election for first time since 1997
Little Wonders #dundeewestend
Will Labour kill off the landmark climate and nature bill?
Lib Dems will continue to back 50 per cent cap on faith-based admissions to schools
Toby Keynes
Peter Davies
William Wallace
Slamdac
John Marriott
9 Comments
What’s this pseudonym thing all about? This is the Blogging equivalent of wearing the veil.
Laurence,
On the other hand, it allows us to read and digest the article without allowing our knowledge of the identity of the individual cloud our dispassionate judgement of it.
I’m not sure that any of the respective positions are necessarily good enough.
Jarvis Cocker sings scabrously about finding a school near the top of the league. For existing grammar schools, this search extends for many, many miles and across more than one county boundary; meanwhile, those born within a stone’s throw of the school have no chance whatsoever of attending the grammar school.
In some areas, this means an almost total restriction of school choices to – at best – the mediocre, for those who can’t or won’t pay their way.
There’s certainly scope in urban areas for sharing resources. The difficulty with multi-school setting is more complex on a logistical level, and would result in a more rigid curriculum and timetable. Do Liberals necessarily want that?
Of course, in rural areas, the concept is as much of a fallacy as that of the ‘specialist’ school.
Why not open up the market for education?
What says the state should have a monopoly on provision for the majority who cannot afford to escape the state sector?
We need to ween ourselves off the idea of a state run education systems. A monopoly is not a good thing and there is so much scope for a market in education.
Lets give children from all financial backgrounds the hope that they can work towards going to a school which caters for their needs rather than giving that valuable opportunity to the few with rich parents and sending so many without the wealth to schools which fail them.
If we had a market in education, then the rich will be able to afford to send their children to the best schools, whilst the poor would be priced out altogether.
Lets leave the idea to the lunatic fringe of the Tory party.
We must put the state in it’s proper context. In the 20th century, the worst regimes in the world were totalitarian states; Communism and Naziism.
Today it is the failed states. Although nominally a democracy, Iraq is today a failed state and for most people is a worse place to live than when it was a totalitarian state under Saddam Hussein.
Liberals should argue for a decentralised state, not doing away with it altogether. We are not anarchists.
I am always surprised that as liberals we do not campaign to allow people to found new schools when they are dis-satisfied with local ones. This happens in Sweden, the Netherlands, and the US. As I understand it, you have to follow the national curriculum, be inspected by the equivalent of ofsted, and you are not allowed to charge top-up fees. But so long as you meet these criteria, you get the same funding as any state-owned school.
Tim, prima facie that sounds like a good idea. Has any liberal argued against it?
The idea has been around for years, and considered by any number of working groups (at least since Chris Huhne’s public services commission), and none have decided to run with it.
Tim, what are the arguments against it?