Laura Mcinerney

Technical hitch

They’re hailed as the future of vocational learning... but some have run into trouble

issue 11 September 2016

Godwin’s law says that the longer an internet discussion continues, the more likely it is that a Nazism analogy will be used. Grammar school debates have their own law. At some point someone will say: ‘Grammars are fine, but do you also want more secondary moderns?’

It’s a fair point. At the height of their popularity, grammars gave an elite education to around 25 per cent of the population who passed the 11+ exam. Secondary moderns took in the remaining 75 per cent and typically struggled for it. Highly qualified teachers flock to schools with the smartest children. Poorer children, meanwhile, congregate in secondary moderns, and come with a higher likelihood of other issues: poor behaviour, malnutrition, and troubled families. (A stereotype, but borne out by data.) With equal funding, grammars flew: their results brilliant, their pupils off to university. Secondary moderns, meanwhile, became a byword for ‘sink school’.

There are fewer grammars now, and the remaining secondary moderns work hard for their pupils, but their lower results and inspection grades reveal their difficulties.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in