Setting in schools would benefit all
AS A regular reader of the Guernsey Press, qualified English teacher and proud Guernesiaise living in the UK, I know much has already been written on the subject of the recent vote in the States to abolish education selection at 11 (the '11-plus'). Although now residing in London, I was born and grew up on the island. I was fortunate to be able to take advantage of Guernsey's state education system, attending first Amherst school and, from the age of 11, the Guernsey Grammar School. I now teach English as a foreign language. There is no doubt that the 11-plus is a crude instrument for separating those according to their academic ability.
I recognise that it may well be true that some who are perceived to 'fail' the 11-plus may have done so unluckily, either through a poor exam on the day or because they have not developed sufficiently and, had they taken the exam at 12, 13 or 14, may have stood a better chance of gaining entry to the grammar school system.
Notwithstanding this, I echo some (but regrettably, a minority) of my fellow commentators and deputies in voicing my opposition to the move to abolish academic selection outright. Guernsey had an important opportunity to hold a broad discussion on the future of the island's education system. Such a discussion could have included alternative methods of selection, through tailoring and improving upon the variety of the academic, sporting and musical opportunities provided to the island's children. However, I fear that this opportunity for a wide-ranging debate has been hijacked (both in the letters in these pages and on the island more generally) by whether the 11-plus is fair.
The effect of this is that the recent vote in the States became a binary choice on selection per se.
However, now that the vote has passed the States, it is important to consider how best to implement the move to all-ability state schools without driving those of greater ability to the privately-funded schools on the island.
Failing to do so will lead to a more segregated and elitist system, one governed by the wealth of those who take advantage of it.
My own view is that classes which attempt to cater for those of all abilities do not succeed. As a qualified teacher of English as a foreign language, I have extensive experience of teaching a group of students with an extremely disparate range of abilities. Teaching such a group is inefficient, costly and time-consuming; it is ultimately impossible to cater for them all with the same lesson plan.
Grouping people together regardless of their ability results only in the median level succeeding – those at both the high and low end of the abilities spectrum suffer. This is because pitching the lesson plan to those in the middle prevents those with greater ability from fulfilling that ability; at the same time, the level is still beyond the grasp of those with a lesser ability, who consequently become disillusioned.
Guernsey still has an opportunity to redefine its education system for the better of all.
Although I am disappointed that the grammar school system is being abolished, I believe the use of selection within schools can ameliorate the problems I describe above.
Schools already use selection by employing sets aimed at different ability levels. Sport teams are 'setted' depending on the players' abilities at the sport in question. However, when I was at the Grammar School, sets were only used for maths, science and French, and if your aptitude was not in one of these subjects, it was difficult to excel in a noticeable way. Such tailoring needs to be expanded to include all subjects, and there is no reason why this should not also encompass creative subjects, including art or music.
'Setting' allows people who develop at different rates to retain the opportunity to move up (or down) in sets; contrast this with the 11-plus that provided no flexibility once it had been taken. Deploying 'setting' more widely would also teach everyone that they can be good at some subjects and not so good at others, and that this is not something to be ashamed of. It is, after all, simply reflective of 'real life' outside the education system.
In this way, those good at maths and bad at art are no different from those good at art and bad at maths; they are simply recognised for excelling in different areas, and this should be encouraged. After all, we need our Renoirs and Victor Hugos as much as we need our Stephen Hawkings and Alan Turings.
EMMA LE BARGY,
London.
