A place where I'll post up some thoughts and ideas - especially on literature in education, children's literature in general, poetry, reading, writing, teaching and thoughts on current affairs.
Monday 8 August 2016
Social mobility - is it 'replace-the-toffs'? Or, 'move-into-the-gaps'?
A few queries about 'social mobility'.
This is bandied around like its a necessary social good. I'm always suspicious when the Right talk about something that seems egalitarian as if it's good as they spend a lot of time berating the Left for being egalitarian. So, the social mobility they're talking about must be within the status quo, presumably. Assuming a fairly constant population, then 'social mobility' must mean 'less advantaged people' (as they would put it) moving upwards socially to replace usually more advantaged people. Again, presumably, they mean they do this by virtue of their ability thereby replacing those in that position not by virtue of their ability.
Grammar schools - like the one Theresa May went to and which, she believes enabled her to compete with the toffs - need to come back so that people like her (she believes) can properly compete with the toffs again, and, presumably, replace toffs at the top.
However, the social mobility that people talk about in relation to the grammar schools of my era (1944-1970) are usually talking about 'bright' working class boys and girls who moved upwards into administration and professional jobs where before people of that background hardly figured. This social mobility hardly involved replacement (along the lines I described in previous paragraphs). What happened were two things: the administrative and professional layers and experienced some losses due to two World Wars, and - even more importantly, this was an expanding economy. In other words, there were gaps that needed filling.
So in the here and now, which is the social mobility they're offering: 'replace the toffs'? or 'move into the gaps'? Or both?
And where is the evidence that either of these processes needs segregation at 11 to achieve that?
Sunday 7 August 2016
Theresa May brings back Secondary Modern schools - though she will say she's bringing back grammars.
Theresa May looks set to allow selection for secondary schools. This sounds like a return to a grammar school-secondary modern system.
1. The main justification for this is 'social mobility'. The evidence for this is that there was social mobility in the years of the system roughly 1944-1970. However, at the same time there was continued economic expansion along with a steady inflow of labour for the lowest paid jobs from Ireland the Commonwealth. Whatever mobility went on has to factor in that. Personal anecdotes from working class people who went to grammar school doesn't explain the whole picture.
2. Worldwide there is evidence to suggest that whenever you run a selective system, money and qualifications follows the selective schools. More money and better qualified teachers go to the selective schools. This is discrimination.
3. We know how to improve education for all. Sir Tim Brighouse has shown that the key thing is co-operation at classroom teacher level between clusters of schools. He has been sidelined.
4. Some of this is about 'regularising' what is already taking place, with covert selection in academies through entrance requirements, weeding out of SEN and EAL children. The pressure for it will have come largely from such academies wanting to cement their status as the local top dogs in the local education 'market'.
5. The effect will be to increase pressure on primary schools to 'coach' for whatever selective systems are in place. Education will become even more test-oriented as if education IS the test. There isn't enough time in a school day to cover the strategies required to do the tests successfully or to cover all the content. This will only be achieved either by parents who know how to do it and time to help their children or those who can afford to buy in tutors. The tests are then a test of parents' education levels and/or their income. This is discriminatory.
6. The spread of grammar schools across the country will be patchy and varied. This means that not only is their selection locally but there will also be a form of regional selection going on. Again, this is discriminatory.
1. The main justification for this is 'social mobility'. The evidence for this is that there was social mobility in the years of the system roughly 1944-1970. However, at the same time there was continued economic expansion along with a steady inflow of labour for the lowest paid jobs from Ireland the Commonwealth. Whatever mobility went on has to factor in that. Personal anecdotes from working class people who went to grammar school doesn't explain the whole picture.
2. Worldwide there is evidence to suggest that whenever you run a selective system, money and qualifications follows the selective schools. More money and better qualified teachers go to the selective schools. This is discrimination.
3. We know how to improve education for all. Sir Tim Brighouse has shown that the key thing is co-operation at classroom teacher level between clusters of schools. He has been sidelined.
4. Some of this is about 'regularising' what is already taking place, with covert selection in academies through entrance requirements, weeding out of SEN and EAL children. The pressure for it will have come largely from such academies wanting to cement their status as the local top dogs in the local education 'market'.
5. The effect will be to increase pressure on primary schools to 'coach' for whatever selective systems are in place. Education will become even more test-oriented as if education IS the test. There isn't enough time in a school day to cover the strategies required to do the tests successfully or to cover all the content. This will only be achieved either by parents who know how to do it and time to help their children or those who can afford to buy in tutors. The tests are then a test of parents' education levels and/or their income. This is discriminatory.
6. The spread of grammar schools across the country will be patchy and varied. This means that not only is their selection locally but there will also be a form of regional selection going on. Again, this is discriminatory.