I failed my 11 plus and ended up doing the CSE certificate of secondary education syllabus which miles Kingston described as proving you’d been educated for one day at a comprehensive. I was transferred to a grammar school two years later and I really struggled, fortunately I was good at history and despite screwing up my A levels got into university where I got a 2.1, unfortunately I did Ancient History and Archaeology, not a path to riches, but genteel poverty, but I ended up in the civil service so I got a permanent job with a pension in a heritage organisation.
I went to a grammar school and taught in one. I treasure what my education gave me, but only one group really benefits from selection today: middle-class parents who can afford the catchment area house prices and save on school fees.
The deeper problem is structural. Working-class pupils face an incentive gap; university and subsequent professional life feel too remote and abstract to orient adolescence around. This was not a problem in the 1960s when white-collar opportunities were less concentrated in cities like London. That's not a failure of character; it's a failure of the system to make the destination feel real and reachable.
Reform's grammar school enthusiasm reflects a wider laziness in their policy thinking: the belief that Britain can be revived through the solutions of the 1950s. Political nostalgia is always more comfortable restoring the past than building something new.
The alternative isn't the old selection system; it's extending the school day with structured academic support, so that consolidation and stretch happen in school rather than at home, where parental resources determine outcomes.
Hi James, interesting piece. Would you be open to further academically selective schools being set up only in disadvantaged areas of the country? And can you link to the research about 9/10 best systems being comprehensive? The link you provided went just to OECD homepage and would love to know which countries it refers to. Certainly the likes of Singapore, China, Korea etc (often thought of as top performing systems) are anything but comprehensive.
I'm interested in this but can't find it. Could you please share?
Machin & McNally (2015), Centre for Economic Performance, LSE
You wrote "Areas that have retained selective education also have a bigger average wage gap between high and low earners. The highest earners from grammar school areas were found to be better off than top earners born in comparable comprehensive authorities. Grammar schools may benefit the 20 to 25 per cent of pupils who attend, but education for the rest tends to suffer."
So grammar schools are associated with increasing wages for top earners. That's a good thing. I'm interested if there's evidence for "education for the rest tends to suffer".
One thing studies like this often don’t account for is migration. Suppose Grammar Town produces more academically successful students at the top of the distribution than Comprehensive Town. These students are the ones most likely to leave; to elite universities and then to places like London, where the high-paying professional jobs are.
This creates a distortion. The local economy of Grammar Town loses a higher share of its most ambitious and highly skilled people. Fewer of them start businesses locally, create jobs locally, or generate economic spillovers that benefit the local labour market for the lowest paid.
Meanwhile Comprehensive Town retains more of its moderately successful residents (especially if it educates them less well). Fewer of them are drawn into national elite labour markets. The town retains more of its local middle class and more local economic activity. Ultimately this middle class failure to brain-drain out raises the job opportunities and salaries for locals at the bottom.
It may be that Grammar Town’s brain drain is actually crating more jobs and tax revenue nationally, but more economic disparities locally. It’s complicated.
That's one mechanism, and it could speak particularly to rural areas where grammar schools persisted.
The general problem with the research is that they treat the grammar school vs non-selective areas as random, when in fact history shows that the move to non-selective, particularly early on, was itself correlated with urban areas where it was relatively easier to organise comprehensive education at scale, which in turn is correlated with higher wages in 10th decile.
I'm all for merging comps and grammars but only provided the thick or disruptive kids are not put in the same class as those who actually want to learn. In my experience. the kids at the back of the room usually got bored and held everyone else back. This is why academic segregation is vital, and annual leagues necessary.
I failed my 11 plus and ended up doing the CSE certificate of secondary education syllabus which miles Kingston described as proving you’d been educated for one day at a comprehensive. I was transferred to a grammar school two years later and I really struggled, fortunately I was good at history and despite screwing up my A levels got into university where I got a 2.1, unfortunately I did Ancient History and Archaeology, not a path to riches, but genteel poverty, but I ended up in the civil service so I got a permanent job with a pension in a heritage organisation.
I went to a grammar school and taught in one. I treasure what my education gave me, but only one group really benefits from selection today: middle-class parents who can afford the catchment area house prices and save on school fees.
The deeper problem is structural. Working-class pupils face an incentive gap; university and subsequent professional life feel too remote and abstract to orient adolescence around. This was not a problem in the 1960s when white-collar opportunities were less concentrated in cities like London. That's not a failure of character; it's a failure of the system to make the destination feel real and reachable.
Reform's grammar school enthusiasm reflects a wider laziness in their policy thinking: the belief that Britain can be revived through the solutions of the 1950s. Political nostalgia is always more comfortable restoring the past than building something new.
The alternative isn't the old selection system; it's extending the school day with structured academic support, so that consolidation and stretch happen in school rather than at home, where parental resources determine outcomes.
Hi James, interesting piece. Would you be open to further academically selective schools being set up only in disadvantaged areas of the country? And can you link to the research about 9/10 best systems being comprehensive? The link you provided went just to OECD homepage and would love to know which countries it refers to. Certainly the likes of Singapore, China, Korea etc (often thought of as top performing systems) are anything but comprehensive.
I'm interested in this but can't find it. Could you please share?
Machin & McNally (2015), Centre for Economic Performance, LSE
You wrote "Areas that have retained selective education also have a bigger average wage gap between high and low earners. The highest earners from grammar school areas were found to be better off than top earners born in comparable comprehensive authorities. Grammar schools may benefit the 20 to 25 per cent of pupils who attend, but education for the rest tends to suffer."
So grammar schools are associated with increasing wages for top earners. That's a good thing. I'm interested if there's evidence for "education for the rest tends to suffer".
Research by economists studying selective schooling has found that earnings inequality tends to be higher in areas with grammar schools, with top earners doing better but those at the bottom performing worse than their counterparts in comprehensive areas. Link: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/29/grammar-schools-create-wider-pay-gap-study-finds Link to research: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2014/may/grammar-schools.html
One thing studies like this often don’t account for is migration. Suppose Grammar Town produces more academically successful students at the top of the distribution than Comprehensive Town. These students are the ones most likely to leave; to elite universities and then to places like London, where the high-paying professional jobs are.
This creates a distortion. The local economy of Grammar Town loses a higher share of its most ambitious and highly skilled people. Fewer of them start businesses locally, create jobs locally, or generate economic spillovers that benefit the local labour market for the lowest paid.
Meanwhile Comprehensive Town retains more of its moderately successful residents (especially if it educates them less well). Fewer of them are drawn into national elite labour markets. The town retains more of its local middle class and more local economic activity. Ultimately this middle class failure to brain-drain out raises the job opportunities and salaries for locals at the bottom.
It may be that Grammar Town’s brain drain is actually crating more jobs and tax revenue nationally, but more economic disparities locally. It’s complicated.
That's one mechanism, and it could speak particularly to rural areas where grammar schools persisted.
The general problem with the research is that they treat the grammar school vs non-selective areas as random, when in fact history shows that the move to non-selective, particularly early on, was itself correlated with urban areas where it was relatively easier to organise comprehensive education at scale, which in turn is correlated with higher wages in 10th decile.
I'm all for merging comps and grammars but only provided the thick or disruptive kids are not put in the same class as those who actually want to learn. In my experience. the kids at the back of the room usually got bored and held everyone else back. This is why academic segregation is vital, and annual leagues necessary.