Charles Moore Charles Moore

The Spectator’s Notes | 11 August 2016

Also in The Spectator’s Notes: Lionel Barber’s honour; Clive Lee and the value of objects; Howse, Parris and Loveday

issue 13 August 2016

Those who want to revive grammar schools are accused of ‘bring backery’ — the unthinking idea that the past was better. But many of their accusers suffer from the rigid mindset of which they complain. They say that grammar schools ‘condemned most children to failure at the age of 11’, and that, even at their peak, grammars catered for less than 20 per cent of the school population. Why assume that the return of grammars must re-create either of these things? Grammar schools grew up, historically, in different ways and at different times. Then, in the mid‑20th-century mania for uniformity, they were standardised and, in the later 20th-century mania for comprehensives, almost completely abolished. All that should happen now is that grammar schools should recover the freedom to exist, with the support of public money. There could be none in some places, lots in others; with different, or multiple, entry years; single-sex, or coeducational; including fee-paying pupils, or not; and so on.

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