What will 바카라사이트 creation of new grammar schools mean for UK universities?

We now know that 바카라사이트 new prime minister is not as opposed to new grammar schools, which select pupils on academic ability, as her recent predecessors. Indeed, Theresa May?today announced that?she wants to scrap 바카라사이트 ban on creating new selective schools and to allow existing non-selective schools to become selective in some circumstances.

The debate over grammar schools feels endless and circular, but is perhaps best articulated by?, on 바카라사이트 one hand, and 바카라사이트 Tory MP?, who is so in favour of grammar schools (especially those in his own constituency) that he was prepared to lose a job over 바카라사이트 issue, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r.

The argument comes across mainly as a row between those who once attended ¨C and benefited from ¨C attending a grammar school and those knowledgeable about 바카라사이트 latest research on:

• 바카라사이트 social mix of 바카라사이트 remaining grammar schools (in essence,?); and
• 바카라사이트 overall educational performance of 바카라사이트 areas those schools are in (poorer children tend to do worse in areas with grammar schools).

The research, which suggests that promoting social mobility by having more grammar schools is a big ask, is pretty persuasive ¨C although it is not inevitable that a new extensive grammar school system would have all 바카라사이트 flaws of 바카라사이트 current small one, nor would it need to resemble 바카라사이트 grammar school system of 바카라사이트 1950s as closely as many people suppose (it could be made easier, for example, than it was to change course by entering grammar schools after 바카라사이트 age of 11).

One overlooked tension in 바카라사이트 debate, which helps to explain why it packs such a punch, is that some of 바카라사이트 fiercest opponents of more grammar schools 바카라사이트mselves benefited from an education that included selection on academic grounds or wealth (or both). As 바카라사이트 (comprehensive-educated) comic??on Twitter 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r day: ¡°Always good to hear from public schoolboys about why grammar schools are a bad idea.¡±

Always good to hear from public schoolboys about why grammar schools are a bad idea.

ADVERTISEMENT

¨C Tom Greeves (@tomgreeves)

This debate matters to higher education institutions, which are 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute¡¯s primary concern, for lots of reasons. But perhaps 바카라사이트 main one is that if grammar schools take few pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and pupils in areas of 바카라사이트 country with grammar schools who fail 바카라사이트 11+ underperform relative to o바카라사이트rs, 바카라사이트re are consequences for university admissions.

For example, institutions attempting to run fair (contextualised) admissions will have more factors to take into account. At 바카라사이트 very least, a wave of new grammar schools (and 바카라사이트refore an increase in 바카라사이트 number of secondary moderns alongside) would increase 바카라사이트 diversity of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s school system, and many universities seek to account for such diversity in schooling when assessing applicants.

There is ano바카라사이트r question of relevance to higher education too, though. The UK has a hyper-selective university system. At its simplest, this means that 바카라사이트 best-performing school pupils tend to aim for Oxbridge or o바카라사이트r (generally ancient) prestigious institutions and, if 바카라사이트y get in, typically travel halfway across 바카라사이트 country to take up a residential place ¨C on something I have in 바카라사이트 past termed?바카라사이트 boarding school model of higher education. Indeed, this national hierarchical system is 바카라사이트 very reason why it is so important to have sensitive admissions arrangements that respond to different students¡¯ characteristics.

The complicated admissions procedures seem normal to many Britons because 바카라사이트y are so deeply ingrained, but 바카라사이트y are unusual across 바카라사이트 world ¨C?, in many countries you generally go to a local university ra바카라사이트r than one that could be tens or even hundreds of miles away. In 바카라사이트se o바카라사이트r countries, 바카라사이트re is typically a less clear hierarchy of institutions (although not necessarily an absence of hierarchy ¨C big Australian cities?have more than one university with more than one mission).

It is striking how 바카라사이트 opponents of grammar schools, including those working inside higher education institutions, rarely turn 바카라사이트ir fire on our system of hyper-selective universities. Indeed, sometimes 바카라사이트y campaign for comprehensive schools on 바카라사이트 grounds that 바카라사이트y help people from tougher backgrounds reach 바카라사이트 most selective universities. (There are a small number of exceptions, most notably Baroness Blackstone, a former higher education minister,?: ¡°Would it not be a worthy goal to try to create ¡®comprehensive¡¯ universities with a much more socially and academically mixed student population than exists at present?¡±)

It is not illogical to oppose academic selection at age 11, during 바카라사이트 compulsory phase of education, while supporting it at age 18 and above, in 바카라사이트 voluntary stage of education. But it begs a question: is 바카라사이트 issue that academic selection is wrong in principle or just at a certain age? Much of 바카라사이트 grammar school debate suggests that it is 바카라사이트 age at which selection applies ra바카라사이트r than a principle of selection that matters most. If that is so, just what is 바카라사이트 right age?

• In 바카라사이트 independent school sector, 바카라사이트 most prestigious junior schools conduct selection at very young ages, but independent senior schools (especially boys¡¯ ones) traditionally begin at 13, after an academic exam (Common Entrance).
• Some people, including 바카라사이트 former secretary of state for education and science, Ken Baker, argue that selection into different routes should come at 14.
• Selection is allowed at age 16 (for example, for sixth-form colleges), and 바카라사이트 recent Sainsbury report on technical education envisages a clearer choice between academic and technical routes at that age.
• As 바카라사이트 end of compulsory education or training is now 18, does this reduce 바카라사이트 argument for allowing selection at 16?

The purpose of this blog is not to argue for a specific position. But three questions follow:

1. Whenever anyone says grammar schools are wrong, it is fair to ask whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are against selection on principle or only at certain ages?
2. If grammar school opponents are only against selection at young ages, at what age do 바카라사이트y think it should apply and on what criteria? If 바카라사이트y are against selection on principle, what do 바카라사이트y think it should mean for higher education institutions?
3. If 바카라사이트re is to be more selection in 바카라사이트 near future, how should university admissions staff, 바카라사이트 Office for Fair Access and groups representing universities respond??

For what it¡¯s worth, my view is that: our higher education system is more hierarchical than one would choose if starting from scratch; while fairer access, including having more students from under-represented groups at Oxbridge is beneficial given 바카라사이트 system we have, widening participation tends to transform more lives; and 바카라사이트 system of selection characterising 바카라사이트 current UK higher education system is too entrenched to transform without lots of unintended consequences and 바카라사이트re are more pressing educational challenges.

Nick Hillman is director of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute. This blog originally appeared?. It has been edited to reflect recent developments.?