The government’s grammar school proposals have been fiercely criticised for the impact they will have on poorer pupils. Research shows that selective schools are dominated by children from privileged families and that, overall, grammars increase educational inequality.
Because of this - and because of the intensity of the debate - it can seem as though abolishing selection is the determining factor in creating a socially just education system. But research also shows that there is another factor that, although often conflated with selection, is actually even more important: curriculum content.
“The Role of the School Curriculum in Social Mobility” is the fascinating piece of research that comes to this conclusion. Written by Dr Cristina Iannelli, of Edinburgh University, the paper uses a national longitudinal data set that tracks people, born in one week in 1958, over the course of their lives. This cohort studied at secondary schools between 1969 and 1976, just as the school system was becoming comprehensive. As such, although the children in the study experienced the same economic conditions after they left school, they were educated in different school systems and at different school types. The data set records not just the schools they attended, but the subjects they studied, meaning that it is possible to explore the effect of curricula, as well as school structures.
Teaching ‘powerful knowledge’
At first sight, it seemed as though selection was the decisive factor in creating social inequalities. Even after controlling for ability and social background, pupils who attended grammar schools were more likely to get top jobs, and pupils from secondary moderns less likely. This finding replicated those from other studies. However, Iannelli’s study goes one step further. Instead of just looking at the impact of school type, it investigates the effect of the subjects studied by different pupils. It turns out that it was actually the subjects being studied in each school that were decisive, not the type of school itself.
The subjects that were particularly valuable were English, maths, sciences and languages. These subjects gave pupils a significant advantage in the labour market, regardless of the school they attended or their prior attainment. Pupils at grammar schools were more likely to study such subjects, which was why they ended up doing better. But pupils who studied these subjects at other schools did just as well.
The subjects that were particularly valuable were English, maths, sciences and languages
As the author concludes, “among the school factors, the content taught counts more in the reproduction of social inequalities than the structure of the school system. This casts doubts on the centrality of the debate on ‘comprehensive schools versus grammar schools’ and it supports the need to focus the discussion on curricular content and inclusive methods of teaching this content.”
One of the worst aspects of grammar schools is that they make it seem as though only a select few pupils can benefit from an academic curriculum, which isn’t the case. However, this study also shows that, unfortunately, comprehensive schools did not deliver as academic a curriculum as grammars. Pupils at grammars studied on average 1.36 language subjects and 1.61 science subjects, compared with just 0.46 and 1.07 respectively in comprehensives. While most pupils in all schools studied maths and English, those at grammars were more likely to study more than one maths and English course.
Indeed, the statistics from this paper show that the curriculums at comprehensives were closer to those in secondary moderns than to those in grammars.
Labels don’t matter
This research backs up the work of educationalists like ED Hirsch and Michael Young, in that it shows the importance of the kind of “powerful knowledge” taught in academic subjects. Academic knowledge, far from being the remote and abstruse stuff of caricature, actually turns out to be incredibly useful in the labour market. Indeed, this research shows that the subjects studied by pupils in their teens were still having an impact on their career at age 42.
The positive message from this research is that what happens in the classroom is what matters, not the label on the front of the school. If pupils at grammar schools had gone on to be successful because the status of the school gave them an advantage, or because they were already from privileged families, then there would be no way of spreading that kind of advantage. Instead, the way in which grammars transmit advantage is one that all schools can copy and all pupils can benefit from. Every school can teach powerful subject knowledge. Indeed, that’s what we find when we look at the top-performing education systems.
What happens in the classroom is what matters, not the label on the school
Take Finland. It moved from a selective to a comprehensive system at about the same time as we did. But unlike us, it also ensured that its new comprehensives all taught a similar, very academic curriculum. A lot of effort was also put into training and developing teachers, so they were able to deliver such a curriculum to all pupils. Belatedly, more comprehensives in England are taking this approach, with entry to the academic English Baccalaureate subjects increasing. But there is still a lot more to do and the risk is that a return to selection will jeopardise this progress.
This paper has important implications for the future of education policy, whatever happens with selection. If grammar schools are reintroduced, then to mitigate their negative impact we need to maintain an academic curriculum in non-selective schools. If grammar schools are not reintroduced, then we can’t just pat ourselves on the back and conclude “job done”. The only way to realise the full potential of the comprehensive ideal is to ensure that such schools also teach a core academic curriculum. Whatever happens with pupil selection, we can’t neglect curriculum content.
Daisy Christodoulou is the head of education research at Ark Schools. She tweets @daisychristo
