The Return of Grammar Schools - Divide and Misrule

Teresa May seems determined to follow in David Cameron's footsteps by courting disaster. Following Cameron's catastrophic error in calling the EC Referendum, which has divided this country in a number of ways, Mrs May wants to exacerbate social division by returning to the old Grammar School system, which she, along with her party and the Campaign for Real Education, sees as being necessary to improve British educational standards. As the Daily Telegraph says:
"It marks a major departure from David Cameron’s education policy, with the former prime minister repeatedly refusing to give in to pressure from backbenchers on the issue.
A government source said allowing new grammar schools was about “social mobility and making sure that people have the opportunity to capitalise on all of their talents”. "
Mrs May is not just ignoring her backbenchers on this issue; she is also ignoring the views of educational experts. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the OFSTED chief, a man of whom I rarely comment favourably, says that more grammar schools would be "a retrograde step"; Alan Milburn, head of the Social Mobility Commission, says that it will be "a social mobility disaster". The present-day evidence clearly shows that selective schools do not improve social mobility. Kent has the highest proportion of selective state schools in England and yet only 27% of children in Kent who receive free school meals gain five good GCSEs. In London, which is almost entirely comprehensive, the proportion is 45%.
As someone who remembers the old system, I am left wondering why Mrs May, Justine Greening (Minister for Education) and other pundits make no mention of the children who will not be selected for grammar school. As I was one of this group, back in the so-called "good old days", I know what it means to be part of that "rump", which was made up of 75% of all children between the ages of 11 to 15/ 16 years of age.
For those who do not know, in the 1950s and 60s, children in their final year of primary school sat an exam called "The 11-Plus". The 25% who scored highest went to grammar schools, while the supposedly less academic children were sent to secondary modern schools. Only in 1972 was it discovered that the man who devised the 11-Plus, Sir Cyril Burt, had forged his evidence to justify that dreaded examination. John Parrington says here:
"In Britain IQ tests were first popularised by Cyril Burt, an educational psychologist and one of those responsible for devising the 11-plus. Burt claimed his 40 years of research proved a child's intelligence was mainly inherited from its parents and that social circumstances played only a minor role. His research formed the basis of education policy for half a century-from the 1920s until the 1970s. Yet only a year after his death in 1971, evidence began to emerge that Burt was a fraudster who had simply invented results to fit his theories about the hereditability of intelligence...Things started to unravel soon after Burt's death, when it was shown by respected US psychologist Leon Kamin that Burt's figures constituted a statistical impossibility. 'A liar and a fraud,' was Kamin's verdict. This charge was borne out when it was found that Burt's two female 'collaborators', who supposedly collected and processed his data, had never worked with him and probably never existed! Eventually even Burt's friend and official biographer, Leslie Hearnshaw, was forced to accept that the charges of fraud were justified".
And so, because of this man's fraudulent research, hundreds of thousands of British children were earmarked from the age of 11 for the menial jobs of society. I well remember a secondary modern schoolgirl back in my hometown of Southport being told by one of her teachers that girls from her school were all "future Moors Market women" (Moors Market was a kind of 1960s Southport version of Aldi, but more down market - no pun intended). When it came to resources, the grammar schools were always better provided. In my secondary modern school, the "O" level GCE classes took most of their classes in the school kitchen, while "A" Level students at the grammar school for girls were being given their own 6th form coffee lounge. My school, at least, provided exam classes; until the school leaving age was raised, many secondary moderns expected their pupils to leave school at 15, as befitted their place in the educational system and wider society. Besides this, I remember the occasional friction that existed between grammar and secondary modern pupils, which sometimes resulted in name-calling and abuse. Grammar school kids were called "snobs" and secondary modern pupils were looked down upon as being thick. I fervently hope that no future generations of our children will go through that. As to whether Mrs May and her government will listen, I doubt it.
I would like to end on a personal note. Because of ill-health, I missed a lot of school and left with no qualifications. After an improvement in health and success at evening classes, I went to University at the age of 27, expecting to be the oldest on the course. To my surprise, I wasn't. Out of a small course of about 24 students, there were three 27-year olds, one of 30 and another of 40. This showed me that I wasn't the only person to have been failed by the system. When we graduated in 1980, my friend Bill from Rochdale gained a first class honours degree, and I passed with a high 2/1. We were both former secondary modern schoolboys.