The Inclusion Myth – How The Grammar School System Affects Students With SEND
As the grammar debate continues to rage, Alison Wilcox looks at the impact of a selective system on students special educational needs
The debate on grammar schools has been dividing opinion for decades but the reality is that many parents aspire for their children to attend them.
Critics of grammar schools will argue that they are socially divisive, claiming that those who can afford private tuition to prepare for the 11+ test are most likely to get a place, thereby advantaging the middle-classes. However, it could also be argued that grammar schools are a social mobility route for able students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, also keeping students who could afford a private education in state education, thereby creating better social mixing.
Many will rightly flag the valid concern that currently the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in grammar schools is low, with just 2.6 per cent of children attending grammar schools in 2015 eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) compared to 14.9 per cent across all school types. Similarly, the proportion of children with SEND (non-statemented) is low with 4.2 per cent in grammar schools compared to 13.5 per cent in secondary schools more generally.
One size won’t fit all
An equitable education system should be about providing all children with the opportunity to reach their full potential, which, in practice, means that different schools are needed to cater for the needs of all learners. It’s not about labelling pupils, but about recognising and meeting their needs. A balance of equity and excellence ought to resonate across the entire state school system with the needs of students placed first and foremost.
If we can agree on a shared view of inclusion, why is it so difficult to find shared agreement on the idea of grammar schools?
Added disadvantage
Those for whom grammar schools as a social construct are unpalatable may be able to identify many specific concerns; concerns covering arguments around determinist beliefs about ability, effects on potential social mobility, selection and self-esteem and so on.
For example, anecdotal evidence within a selective system paints a picture of intense pressure and unrealistic expectations (sometimes pressure exerted by parents and school staff, but also placed upon students by themselves). This can be extremely damaging, particularly for those who might also have a special educational need or disability, and, as part of a general increase in the mental health difficulties being presented in society, result in raised levels of anxiety, depression and self-harming.
There does seem to be an assumption made that the quality of education is somehow better in a grammar school, but where is the evidence for this? In a selective system, learners who are already achieving highly and go on to attain top grades at GCSE don’t surprise us; value-added progress, however, is arguably one better measure both of a rounded educational environment and of great teaching.
If we view differences between children and adults as resources for learning, as is suggested within the Index for Inclusion by Booth and Ainscow, 2011, then removal of a group of learners such as happens from local secondary schools to create the population in a grammar school, deprives everyone of resources.
A comprehensive solution?
The best comprehensive schools offer all that a grammar school can and more. Where the teaching workforce is skilled in effective differentiation, understands how best to exploit the valuable diversity of its learner community, and seeks to promote opportunities offered within society for young people with different strengths and needs, the result reflects the ideal of an inclusive society.
Perhaps what is really needed is a national drive to improve education for all, including those who are high-achieving at any point in their learning journey, enabling any child to surprise us as teachers, to defy our expectations, to take up opportunities when they are ready to do so and, most importantly, to see themselves as equal learners with equal value.
Alison Wilcox is head of education at nasen.
