A brief twitter conversation on grammar schools, with Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens is a very successful columnist – opinion writer and of that there is no doubt. Largely I disagree with him on major issues, but that does not mean I don’t recognise his skill, his passion and his ability to put forward his view.
On the issue of grammar schools he is adamant that their demise is like removing a bridge’s keystone, the whole thing (our education system) collapses.
He is happy that Theresa May is planning to bring back grammar schools.
I am not.
In a recent, brief ,twitter conversation we exchanged views. It began with a direct tweet from me.
.@ClarkeMicah Let’s go along with grammar schools, hypothetically. That’s 1.6 million children sorted – what schools do the other 7m attend?
— James Williams (@edujdw) April 17, 2017
His reply?
Schools that are certainly no worse than the dud comps which most people are allocated to now. https://t.co/04RDqVxz8N
— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) April 17, 2017
His reply was, in my view, rather off-hand and denied the undeniable, that comps as a whole are not ‘duds’.
@ClarkeMicah So you would write off 7 million children just like that? Despite the overwhelming evidence against grammar schools? Astonishing.
— James Williams (@edujdw) April 17, 2017
It seemed to me that he was unaware of any of the evidence (and there is rather a lot) that disputes the value of grammar schools as either good vehicles for improving social mobility or as better schools for the most able (the hypothesis being that the most able children would not achieve their ‘best’ in a comprehensive non-selective environment). I asked Mr Hitchens another ‘direct’ question:
@ClarkeMicah How many ‘dud comps’ have you ever visited, spent time in and gained an understanding of?
— James Williams (@edujdw) April 17, 2017
To be fair, from what I can ascertain from his wikipedia entry (and I know such entries can be rife with inaccuracies) he certainly didn’t attend a comprehensive in the 1960s, but there again, neither did he attend a grammar school. His academic pedigree is that of an independent (private) education and then a degree via Alcuin College at the University of York.
From ‘Dislike’ to ‘Hatred’ in one Tweet
Suddenly, I then become a ‘hater’ according to Mr Hitchens,
Grammar-haters pretend to care about losers in hypothetical grammar system.But don’t care about actual losers from selection by wealth now. https://t.co/04RDqVxz8N
— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) April 17, 2017
To be fair I did state that I had attended a grammar, didn’t think it provided a good education, that my father had done so as well – not progressed to a university, but became a shopkeeper. My ‘better education’ I maintain, came via the comprehensive school I attended for most (6 out of 7) years of my secondary schooling. Of course there then came the inevitable tweets from a range of others about ‘personal anecdotes’ not being evidence etc. which, if any of them had bothered to follow the conversation I admitted in the very next tweet.
@ClarkeMicah Anecdotes (like yours and mine) aren’t evidence. Yet you deny the evidence for ideology. On that basis you’d deny gravity and evolution!
— James Williams (@edujdw) April 17, 2017
I do not hide the fact that I did not like my grammar school, but I do know how to check bias by looking very carefully for evidence that is independent and which may confirm or deny my position. As a scientist by initial degree, I see evidence over opinion as the standard for debate in cases such as this.
@ClarkeMicah Why do you think an evidenced based should be characterised as someone being a ‘grammar-hater’ I don’t ‘hate’ them, they are just no better
— James Williams (@edujdw) April 17, 2017
There was a missing word in that tweet it should be ‘evidenced based opinion’. Mr Hitchens cites ‘1000 people’ he has met with anti-grammar views being just like me.
Because I have met about 1000 people like you, before. Grammars are (or were) immensely better. Only an ideologue could claim differently. https://t.co/qjEdFJLZnj
— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) April 17, 2017
OK, firstly, this is not ‘evidence’ but anecdote. Secondly, who’s the ideologue here?
Evidence Matters – It Really Does
And now we get to the really interesting part of this conversation.
Mr Hitchens asserts (with no evidence) that grammar schools are better and if you don’t see that you are an ideologue. He didn’t even attend a grammar, but ‘knows’ they are better. The best form of defence, of course, is attack and so the following tweet from him ‘demands’ evidence for my position, though seemingly no evidence is necessary for his position.
@edujdw You haven’t produced any evidence, that I have seen. But you *have* confessed to a personal prejudice.
— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) April 17, 2017
The fact that I confessed to a ‘personal prejudice’ is the killer of course, designed to undermine my whole argument. I offered to send him the evidence via email if he provided a DM with an e-mail. I can understand that such a ‘famous’ person may not wish to divulge their e-mail to a mere lowly academic like me so that was not forthcoming.
OK tweets it is then.
The Evidence Against and For Grammar Schools
My first tweet was this – note, as a ‘starting point’, by no means all the evidence and not even a peer reviewed publication.
@ClarkeMicah This is a good starting point. https://t.co/nX87at21Ti and yes I have a personal dislike, supported by evidence, your evidence*for* being?
— James Williams (@edujdw) April 17, 2017
Mr Hitchens swiftly (he must be a fantastic speed reader) as, within 3 mins, he dismisses this as-
It’s the usual useless diversion into operation of tiny remaining rump of besieged grammars, no guide to operation of national system. https://t.co/ipx4AYcKBw
— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) April 17, 2017
In response to my request for evidence ‘for’ grammar schools his response was simply this:
@edujdw Principally the observable collapse of rigorous exams and education in England following the abolition of most grammars 1965-75
— Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) April 17, 2017
This is not evidence, but his opinion (and that of many others I agree).
But hold up, what, if he and others are correct? What if the exam system had ‘collapsed’?
Even if the exam system is poor, what has that to do with the teaching in grammar schools? Grammar schools do not set the exams and the quality of the exam system is NOT the quality of the school system, it is ‘one’ measure of the quality of the system (and perhaps not the best measure).
If the exams were that poor surely schools could get 100% A* passes in no time at all leaving plenty of time for the important things like a ‘real’ education, independent of the exams.
Even if every school was a grammar school we could still have a bad examination system. To be fair he later backed this tweet with an article written in 2004, again not what I would call evidence but I do agree that the examination system was (and still is) not fit for purpose.
So what evidence did I provide against grammar schools?
I provided links to all the following:
Crook, D, Power, S, and Whitty, G. (1999) The Grammar School Question
A review of research on comprehensive and selective education London: Institute of Education
My conclusion – when you are called out to provide evidence, do so. But don’t expect the same level of detail or rigour back from a journalist or an opinion writer – their opinion, it seems, is their evidence.
My advice on evidence to journalists?
1. Your opinion, no matter how deeply held, is not evidence
2. Another newspaper article is not evidence
3. If you ask for evidence and get it be gracious, say thank you and read it, don’t ignore it or dismiss it within 3 mins.