Are grammar schools good for social mobility?
On Tuesday 25th February academics presented their research on whether grammar schools are good for social mobility. The event was hosted by the University of Bath’s Institute of Policy Research and UCL’s Department of Education in the Thatcher Room at Portcullis House, perhaps fitting as Margaret Thatcher holds the prize as the secretary of state who closed or merged the most grammar schools for a comprehensive alternative.
Jonathan Gullis, MP for Stoke-on-Trent, took the view that it’s all about ensuring good quality teaching across the board and uninhibited parental choice. Contrary to the academic evidence, Gullis argued that grammar schools are good for social mobility and that anecdotal evidence matters. His parents climbed the social mobility ladder by attending grammar school. As a former teacher, he argued that the focus needs to be on creating an aspirational education system.
Lucy Powell MP said that parents want the best for their children and will do whatever it takes to open doors. Powell reflected on her experience of going from a comprehensive to attend Oxford University as an undergraduate, adding that we should be thinking of social mobility as a ladder where the lowest can rise. This point was picked up later on by a member of the House of Lords who challenged that social mobility involves moving up and down a long ladder. He said we should be less fixated on getting people from the bottom into Oxbridge, and focus more on poverty and radical reform.
Lindsey Macmillan, Director of UCL’s new Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, presented on who gets accepted into grammar schools. Her research found that high attaining KS2 pupils who are least deprived are most likely to go to grammar school, with a 30% attendance gap between least deprived and most deprived. Extra tuition in English & Maths is happening in areas where schools are selective, with richer parents more likely to pay for tutoring, thus exacerbating inequality.
The University of Bath’s Dr Matt Dickson looked at the costs and benefits of a selective system, noting that most grammar schools are in non deprived areas. Average wages are the same for selective vs non-selective areas, but there is more inequality in wage distribution. He found that while “the winners win big”, with the middle earner earning less (in a selective system there is 20% of wage inequality attributed to selective school system), regressive for social mobility.
Whilst grammar schools tend to occupy a significant part of public debate, only 5% of pupils have been taught in grammar schools since the 1990s which poses the question of why we are so fixated on the topic. However, of the 90,000 pupils who do attend the 163 grammar schools in the UK, 500 are from disadvantaged backgrounds, highlighting issues of access and representation.
Dr Alice Sullivan, Professor of Sociology at UCL, highlighted the private school advantage. Her research found that for the cohort of 1970, students from grammar and private schools were more likely to gain a degree or an elite degree than those who attended comprehensives, with students from private schools significantly more likely to do so. However, there was no grammar advantage once confounders are controlled for. Her research found a sex disadvantage for women ending up in the top social class aged 42 for those born in 1970.
The panel added the following points:
Duncan Exley, author of The End of Aspiration? argued that focusing on grammars diverts attention from most people’s experience and we should be broadening the debate to include comprehensives.
Nick Hillman, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, emphasised that while the research says selectivity at 11+ is bad, our education system is hyper selective at 18 and our University system is hierarchical which is highly contradictory.
Contributions from the audience included the need to talk about the role of the economy and economic structure with the intensification of positional competition.
The audience raised ‘social mobility’ as a loaded term, with comments such as: “If we really cared we’d be investing in children at the bottom living in poverty. Money spent on research would be better spent on child poverty.”
It was also acknowledged that debating notions of social mobility and education in a Westminster bubble with a view that grammar schools are bad for social mobility itself may not be representative of the situation.
The debate goes on...