Grammatical error

NEARLY half of Theresa May’s cabinet went to comprehensive (ie, non-selective) state schools; Justine Greening, the new education secretary, is one of them. Outside 10 Downing Street on July 13th, Mrs May pointed out that those in state schools had less of a chance of making it to the top than their privately educated peers. That, she said, must change: “We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”

Her first step in that direction may prove controversial. On August 7th the Sunday Telegraph reported that the government would seek to lift a ban on new grammar schools, which are allowed to select pupils at age 11 on the basis of ability. It would be a big change. At their height, in the early 1960s, grammar schools educated around one-quarter of pupils. Then, in the mid-1960s, the Labour government sped up their conversion into comprehensives. Anthony Crosland, the education secretary, declared he would “destroy every fucking grammar school in England”. Some local authorities held out. But there remain just 163 grammars in England, educating 5% of pupils. (Scotland and Wales have none; Northern Ireland has lots.)

Many Tories are delighted by the proposal. Grammars are seen as a ladder by which clever, poor children can climb up the social hierarchy. The Conservatives need to be for the underdog, pushing a meritocratic vision of social mobility, argues Dominic Raab, a Conservative MP, who supports more grammars. Supporters hark back to a supposed golden age of meritocracy in which grammar school boys were to be found at the head of business, the civil service and politics. In 1964-97, all five prime ministers were grammar school alumni. So is Mrs May.

Pupils at grammars do get better results than they would at comprehensives. A study by researchers at Bristol University in 2006 found that the boost to a pupil attending a grammar school was worth four grades at GCSE, the exams taken at 16. But this comes at a cost. Those who fail to get into grammar school do one grade worse than they would if the grammars did not exist. The likely explanation is that grammar schools attract the best teachers, says Rebecca Allen of Education Datalab, a research group. There is no overall improvement in results as the benefit to the brightest is cancelled out by the drag on the rest.

Rewarding merit in this way might be defensible if it improved social mobility. But grammars impede it. By age 11, poor children lag nearly ten months behind their peers in educational progress, according to the Education Policy Institute, a think-tank, meaning they are less likely to pass grammar schools’ entrance tests. Grammar schools therefore fill up with middle-class pupils. Just 3% of children at grammar schools receive free school meals (a measure of poverty), compared with 13% in other local state schools.

The gaming of the system by well-off parents can be seen in the impact on the market for private education. The opening of a new grammar school is associated with a decline in demand for the best local private secondary schools and an increase in demand for private primaries, says Ms Allen. Many parents also pay for tutoring to help their children pass the grammar’s entrance exam, in the hope of moving the financial burden of secondary education onto the state. This gives richer children an edge. Even looking only at those pupils who get good grades aged 11, 40% of those on free school meals get into a grammar school, compared with 67% of the rest.

The impact on social mobility is lasting. In 2014 a Bristol University study comparing those taught in a comprehensive system with those taught in a grammar school system found that grammars increased income inequality by one-fifth.

Supporters argue that grammar schools’ posh intake is because of their location in leafy neighbourhoods and their relative scarcity, which increases competition for places. Mrs May should put new ones in areas of social deprivation, says Don Porter of Conservative Voice, a pressure group that backs grammars. That might help. Yet parents seem willing to let their children travel to attend good schools. One-quarter of grammar pupils commute from another local authority.

If the government goes ahead with its plans for more grammars it will face strong opposition in Parliament. But polls suggest that voters like the idea. The government may allow some other form of selection, perhaps encouraging “chains” of state schools to concentrate the brightest of their pupils in one school that specialises in teaching gifted children. Regardless of Mrs May’s fine intentions, reintroducing selection would do little to improve the diversity of future cabinets.