Bad Grammar?

(Pic : BBC)

There's been a lot of discussion in the UK press over the proposed expansion of grammar schools in England and Cornwall. Judging by the initial reaction the idea isn't as popular as some people might like to think it is, but it was inevitable it would be debated in the Senedd.

UKIP used their weekly debate to (without a hint of irony) promote a (UK) Conservative policy; though in fairness re-establishing grammar schools was one of the policies in their manifesto back in May, while the Welsh Conservatives oppose grammar schools. I'm not going to make a big deal out of the latter as it's right that Welsh parties/branches have Welsh policies.

UKIP's motion called for the Assembly to:

• Acknowledge the role grammar schools played in promoting social mobility.
• Note that social mobility has reduced in line with the abolition of grammar schools.
• Affirm belief in diverse secondary education, giving parents the right to send children to grammar schools and support an enhanced status for vocational education.

What did AMs have to say?

Michelle Brown AM (UKIP, North Wales) started by accusing Labour of lacking ambition and doing people down, being happy to stand in the way of future generations of working-class children, for whom grammar schools offer "the only hope" for a solid career (clip). She called for the Tories to join UKIP in applying pressure on the Welsh Government, who were already "preparing excuses" for the next round of PISA results, due in December. Michelle said selective state schools in England produce a high proportion of A-grades, while Oxbridge acceptances from state schools and social mobility both decreased after grammar schools were abolished.

Conservative education spokesperson, Darren Millar AM (Con, Clwyd West), refused to support the UKIP motion (clip) because his party "recognise Wales is different to England", with a different education landscape; he wasn't persuaded selective schools were the right way forward, though he would be prepared to look at it again if there's more evidence.

The Welsh Tories want more parental choice – accepting "not every school is a great school" - and would prefer that successful schools were able to expand to meet demand. He acknowledged Welsh Government work on surplus places, but the pace of change isn't meeting said demand.

David Rowlands AM (UKIP, South Wales East) had both a secondary modern and grammar school education and therefore "a unique insight" (clip). He assured the chamber the secondary modern he attended taught everyone they were to be a productive member of society and "the world was their oyster", so failing the 11-plus exam wasn't the "ghastly spectre" it's portrayed as; pupils with distinct academic qualities were transferred to grammar schools. Practical-minded pupils were being abandoned in the comprehensive system, and practical subjects were "disappearing from the school curriculum", resulting in a lack of skilled electricians, plumbers and tool-makers.

Lynne Neagle AM (Lab, Torfaen) produced one of the more memorable quotes, saying UKIP were "notoriously allergic to facts and expert opinion" (clip). Grammars don't promote social mobility as immobility is greater in areas of England with selective schools. Plus, only 2.6% of pupils who are eligible for free school meals (FSM) enter one of these grammar schools, while more than 40% of former grammar school pupils failed to achieve more more than 3 O-Levels (the old equivalent of GCSEs). The best education system in the UK (Scotland) and in the world (Finland) both use comprehensive schools.

Lynne put a number of questions to UKIP, including: Who will decide which school in an area becomes a grammar and on what criteria? Would you sideline FE colleges? Where would Welsh-medium education fit in?

Shadow Education Secretary, Llyr Gruffydd (Plaid, North Wales), restated the statistics regarding the low number of FSM pupils attending English grammar schools (clip), even when they score highly in Key Stage 2 tests; all of the leading education systems are comprehensive. Income inequality has increased since 1979, but that was a result of structural changes in the job market and unequal access to higher education.

Llyr was surprised Tories at a UK level were "aping UKIP" after David Cameron rejected the idea of grammars. He was even more confused by the Welsh Conservative stance, after they expressed support for the idea two weeks ago, accusing them of having "11-plus attitudes to the subject". Ba dum tish.

Caroline Jones AM (UKIP, South Wales West) said education was very different when she started teacher training (clip). Grammar schools provided education similar to that of fee-paying schools, but comprehensives force all pupils to go to the local school even if that means larger classes and inferior education. It's seen a levelling-down of pupil attainment, with the role of teacher reduced. It's failed social engineering and accelerating a decline in standards when compared to international peers. Excellent education shouldn't be "a proviso of the rich", it should be available to all and challenge our brightest children. Caroline said she failed the 11-plus and it didn't hold her back.

There are loads of ex-teachers, lecturers etc. in the Assembly (at present and historically); it's probably the most popular pre-politics career for AMs. So it was no surprise that an odd argument reminiscent of a bickering old married couple broke out with David Rees AM (Lab, Aberavon) over the merits of teachers using photos to put names to pupils' faces (it was supposed to be something to do with large class sizes):

Only the big issues at the Senedd.

Rhianon Passmore AM (Lab, Islwyn) said this was at the heart of what UKIP were about: selection and segregation (clip). She described the comprehensive system as one of the defining progressive achievements of Wilson government, aiming to "raise education standards at all levels". UKIP's ideas were dusted down from files in Conservative party HQ, and it was "lamentable" that UKIP AMs not only want to banish their leader but banish the children of Wales to era of class division and limited opportunities.

Neil McEvoy AM (Plaid, South Wales Central) believed grammar schools write people off at age 11, but that's not to say what we have now is working (clip). One of biggest problems in education is the market in qualifications, and we need a gold standard everyone can aspire to instead. Neil criticised the "de-professionalisation" of teaching as a result of the "target culture", suggesting Estyn should be replaced with experienced teachers and establishing an all-party education commission working to a 20 year plan, instead of over-relying on too many short term policies.

In reply, Education Secretary, Kirsty Williams (Lib Dem, Brecon & Radnor), said she listened with interest "and at times despair" (clip). This was the wrong debate to have, and we shouldn't return to an outmoded, divisive method of teaching. The focus should instead be on ensuring all children have a first class education. The Secretary was less interested in structures, saying it was quality of education that makes the difference.

She met the OECD recently, whose evidence is clear that selection isn't linked to improving schools or increased social mobility. The OECD identified the Welsh comprehensive system as a strength in their 2014 report, and the Secretary has invited them back to Wales for a follow-up review this autumn.

Kirsty believes the 14-19 learning pathway provides a broad curriculum and vocational offer, and rejected Tory calls for free schools and academies as it's another form of selection.

Summing up, Neil Hamilton AM (UKIP, Mid & West Wales) described the debate as "spirited and entertaining" (clip). He defended the English policy as being about parental choice, and low levels of poor pupils attending English grammars was down to wealthy parents moving to areas with good schools – which isn't an argument against grammars in itself.

He then took some sort of veiled pop at Kirsty Williams (who attended a private school herself), but her response was inaudible - which is probably a good thing as a barbed criticism of a mother's parenting choices when they're sitting right in front of you isn't particularly bright.

An amended version of the motion was rejected by 36 votes to 10 (with one abstention - a certain Mr Gill).

Conclusions

'member grammar schools?
'member having your fate determined by one exam aged 11?
'member grammar schools again?

This can easily be dismissed as UKIP being UKIP - and they put across their argument in a typically clunky way - but it's more a case of asking the right questions and coming up with the wrong answers.

I understand the appeal of bringing back grammar schools. There's nothing wrong in giving more able students (from all backgrounds) a greater academic challenge as a precursor to university. Nor is there anything wrong in giving students with other talents a way to work to their own strengths, instead of kicking them out at 16 with very little because they're not very good at taking English and maths exams.

The tripartite system is still used around Europe, not just the version that still exists in Northern Ireland and some English counties. Germany has the Gymnasium (grammar), Realschule ("technical college") and Hauptschule (an equivalent of the old secondary modern) – but these are being abolished in some German states. Similar systems are used in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

In Wales, we're increasingly going in the opposite direction and creating "all-through schools" for 3-18 year olds, like the new one in Port Talbot. Add Welsh-medium education into the mix and it's hard to see how grammar schools could be reintroduced in Wales for practical/logistical rather than policy reasons.

The big problems with the tripartite system - as it was in the UK - are that it rarely helped academic "late bloomers" (almost everything was decided on one exam), while the more academically able usually (but not always) come from wealthier households as there's a direct link between poverty and poor educational attainment regardless of which school you go to (AMs demand action to close attainment gap). It's an odd way to improve social mobility.

As a half-way house, introducing more rigid streaming/sets in current secondary schools from the age of 14 (based on teacher assessment and careers advice rather than exams) could be an alternative, as would: introducing a "lecture and tutorial" style method of instruction in schools (with greater self-directed learning), changing the qualifications system to a more challenging French-style baccalaureate, or reworking vocational qualifications so higher education remains open to those who take a vocational route post-16.