Friends of Grammar Schools

“Since the eradication of grammar schools, many children from low-achieving backgrounds have been denied what was once a pathway to the top professions.”

472 words        Publication date: 22 July 2009

Source: The Times        Page: 23

(c) 2009 Times Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved

Sir, What hope is there of political decisions being evidence-based when one reads Alan Milburn’s article about education and particularly his comments about the need for professional careers to be open to people of talent, regardless of background (”Give parents the keys to a better school”, Opinion, July 21). Elsewhere he is reported as having accused the professions of discriminating against prospective entrants from poor backgrounds, saying that they have become more exclusive over time. He entirely fails to acknowledge the huge financial barrier that has only recently been placed in the path of the less-well-off student.

My parents were not wealthy. In addition they had a lot of children. I was only able to become a solicitor because I qualified for a local authority grant. Many solicitors of my generation similarly owe their membership of the profession to the grant system. In contrast, to qualify as a solicitor nowadays a youngster without parental assistance faces debts of nearly £30,000. Little wonder they are put off.

When grants were abolished and tuition fees were introduced there were plenty of voices warning that the effect would be to limit the ambitions of children from poorer backgrounds. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, the politicians, by blaming the professions, show that once again they have learnt nothing.

Peter Ryder, Middlewich, Cheshire

Sir, Rather than tinkering with university loans and grants, and putting the universities under pressure to take parental background or secondary schooling into account, the Government needs to address the root causes – low parental expectation and a decline in the standards of secondary education.

It can do little about the former but, since the eradication of grammar schools, many children from low-achieving backgrounds have been denied what was once a pathway to the top professions. My own grammar school in the 1960s had a catchment area covering several mining villages; it was only through such education that many bright children were able to broaden their horizons and escape an otherwise predictable future in the mines.

With the introduction of comprehensive schools and, in particular, the narrow and uninspiring national curriculum, which serves neither the brightest nor the less able well, the Government has denied many able children a future in the highest professions. If the top professions have a disproportionate number of entrants from independent schools, maybe the Government should learn some lessons from this. Parents who can afford independent education choose it for these reasons among others: it is selective; teaching is rigorous and does not have to follow the national curriculum; and the schools have high expectations of their pupils.