Cameron’s grammar school plan isn’t a dog-whistle to the middle classes. It’s a slap in the face
|
Version 0 of 1. I won’t say it’s exactly a dog-whistle. But the phrase “grammar schools” has a peculiar effect on the political classes. It makes the socialists growl and Tories bark with enthusiasm. It confuses the Labour party. So when David Cameron reached into his pocket yesterday and pulled out the grammar schools dog choc, he may have assumed it was a simple political message tailored to more conservative members of the electorate. But these days, it isn’t simple at all. And, in particular, it’s a slap in the face for the majority of the middle classes. Of course, grammar schools were never really designed for them. Rather, they were the main route by which clever working-class children could rise up the system, and none the worse for that. Now the remaining grammar schools, especially around London’s M25 orbital motorway, are the preserve of those rich enough to buy property nearby, or to tutor their children from the age of five to take the 11-plus. For another thing, the stress involved in finding the right school for your children, especially in areas where there are super-selective grammars, can be nightmarish. A kind of insanity creeps in. A small subsection of parents finds it necessary to put their children through entrance exams around the M25 every weekend during the season, prepared to move to whichever school lets them in. They are able to afford it, this sub-category on the borders of the 1%. Various studies show the premium on property prices around the best state schools – most recently it was 22%. Related: David Cameron backs new grammar schools after pressure from Tory right This is not a criticism of school choice. But when there are too few schools, or the quality varies too much, choice can induce panic in otherwise sane parents. The unnecessary competition narrows education and turbocharges the stress for 10 and 11 year-olds. This is not a traditional issue where the aspirant middle classes back grammar schools against a feckless rump. Maybe it was once. But these days, those who most value education bitterly resent the stress, uncertainty and simplifications. Never mind the impact on the teachers, who pass it on to their pupils – especially when they are suffering from the uncivilised, uncivilising impact of performance-related pay based on Sats results. But it’s the parents and children who really suffer. Grammar schools turn choice into a period of competitive insanity – especially for those who realise the middle class is no longer expanding and that they must somehow force their child into a shrinking global elite. Grammar schools add to the education arms race. If your neighbour hires a tutor from the age of five, then must you? Even if you didn’t want that kind of childhood for your offspring? Those who really value education are also enraged by the official insistence that they must choose a school based overwhelmingly on a narrow interpretation of “results”. Cameron's statement emphasises the failure of the political classes to see what the middle classes really need One of the benefits of choice is that schools have begun to appeal over the heads of Ofsted and the regulators, and have started addressing questions the parents really want answered – will my child be happy here? Will they be bullied? Is your curriculum flexible enough? But more grammar schools reverses the idea that underpins choice: that pupils are diverse so we need a diverse range of schools. Cameron’s statement emphasises the failure of the political classes to see what the middle classes really need. Am I overreacting? He is only talking about extending grammar schools, after all. And of course schools that want to expand should do so. But don’t let’s assume that expanding schools is a solution. Most evidence suggests that schools, and other institutions, which get bigger are that much less flexible, that much less human. They are more difficult to manage. They may lose their playing fields – they may, in short, lose all those attributes that make them successful. A policy that simply doubles the size of popular schools is unlikely to raise standards, any more than it makes hospitals more effective or police forces more efficient (it doesn’t). It isn’t a dog choc at all. It is a way of rattling the hamster cage of the middle classes to make them spin in their wheels all the faster. |