For most people, education is not a research study. For most people it is about either their experiences, or those of their children.
As an example, I have a big soft spot for the Tories’ Assisted Places Scheme. Can’t get rid of it. Attending an independent school in the 1990s, I saw the life-changing opportunities that the scheme presented to children from homes that would not otherwise have been able to afford the fees and how it improved the culture of my school, too.
But, as an education journalist, I know that the data and the research shows that the system did little for social mobility and was basically unfair: I have accepted that the scheme’s abolition under Tony Blair was the right thing to do.
It is, however, a lot - too much, possibly - to ask the public to make a similar leap on the issue of grammar schools, which appear to be on the verge of a major comeback.
The majority of Joe Public - who, polls tell us, want to see the expansion of the grammar system - seem to have a baby boomer aunt (or uncle, or granddad, or long-lost cousin…), whose life was transformed by passing the 11+. They know what they think they saw.
As such, the terms of the new battle over selection have already been set.
It is very likely that public opinion is not going to be persuaded by subtle data-driven analyses of the impact on social mobility when they can listen to Aunt Mabel, instead. They are not easily persuaded by the fact that many grammar schools don’t admit enough poor kids - or are colonised by the middle classes.
In fact, these facts can make the idea that there could be more of these schools, and, therefore, Little Johnny has a better chance of going to one, more attractive.
It is all too easy for academics and educationalists to quote research studies at one another on Twitter that they think proves selection is a bad thing. But it will make no difference.
They fail to learn the lessons of the Brexit referendum, which was lost by the side who had marshalled all the intellectual and economic arguments against their opponents, who tugged the heart strings, appealed to a sense of missing out and harked back to a golden era of When Things Were Better.
Of course, the row over grammar schools will not be settled by referendum but by Parliamentary votes, but it will take a lot for Tory MPs to stand up to the prevailing post-Brexit winds and their new prime minister and vote against more grammars: They will need compelling moral arguments, not statistical correlations.
If this is going to be a debate of equals, those defending the much-maligned comprehensive system need to make their case with more emotion: it’s fairness, a less divided society and fair access for all to the best teachers. They also need to find the comprehensive-educated Aunt Mabels - and there are more than a few of those - who can help them make their argument.
Back in the 1960s, the debate over grammars sparked such passion that Anthony Crosland, then education secretary, was reported to have said: “If it’s the last thing I do, I’m going to destroy every fucking grammar school in England.”
Many argued the language and desire for educational vandalism were unacceptable, but it does illustrate how emotional the issue can become.
Those opposing a new wave of grammar schools would do well to remember this fact or they will be in serious danger of picking the wrong battleground in the forthcoming war. They must remember how the EU referendum was lost.
@Ed_Dorrell
This is an article from the 12 August edition of TES. This week’s TES magazine is available in all good newsagents. To download the digital edition, Android users can click here and iOS users can click here
Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES on Twitter and like TES on Facebook
