The Politics of Grammar Schools

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100220161/grammar-schools-and-the-myth-of-social-mobility/

TalkinPeace

Hi. Are you worried about the effects on the school that is the secondary modern when successful candidates have got into a grammar.

On a separate note, the Middle classes only have a stranglehold on grammars because. There are a lot less of them about than at their peak. Therefore, it is harder to gain entry and more resources are allocated to tutoring kids.

The thing that stands out from the report is that the two areas with the highest percentage of pupils educated in selective schools. Trafford,Bucks with 45.2 and 42.2% respectively achieve amongst the best GCSE/A level results across their schools, in Trafford's case significantly higher at 70.5% GCSE pass rate to the very similar demographic fully Comprehensive area of Cheshire East at 62.4% GCSE Pass rate.

The other thing I want to say is just because a school is a secondary modern does not mean, it can't achieve excellent results above 65-70% GCSE pass rates (inc) Maths/English. The automatic assumption on here based on a type or name is damaging and untrue in many cases.

I am neither pro nor anti grammar, though I believe that pupils need to be educated with students of their own academic ability. I also believe that in many Comprehensive schools, the standard and expectations fall to the lowest common denominator of their students be this in terms of Discipline , dress standards, behaviour and academic standards. Talkin will tell how successful her DCs Comprehensive is at educating all ability of students, yet the school does not have a Sixth Form(like most of the schools in Hampshire). This is something I don't like, I like a structured school environment for sixth form.

lePetit
spot the italics : I do not think grammars are in any way best

and if there is a "grammar in every town" as Farridge and Cameroon and Bojo have been threatening, they will be taking a lot more than 3%

and remember, I do not live in the catchment of the naice comp - nor do 400 other kids there
nor do 400 at the other naice comp up the way

Talkin why are you now saying grammars offer the best education?In other threads you say they're crap because they don't get 100% A*.

Why does taking the top 2 or 3 % from a huge number of primaries equal a better education and advantages?

Only last week there was a study saying there were less grammar kids than private at Oxbridge in the 80s.

I just don't get why a tiny percentage going to a few grammar schools is worse than hoards of better off kids buying places at the best comps by property leaving hoards of poor kids with the worse comp schools.

Hi Gifted. I've just googled the report. School admissions are always very emotive and parents get upset if they feel another child has what they consider to be an unfair advantage. Personally I wouldn't have an issue with an oversubscribed school choosing to prioritise a child from a FSM background. Cared for children are already prioritised. It's probably trickier to adjust the pass mark. By how much and where do you draw the line?

"if any arse tried to introduce them round here I'd be manning the barricades against them" I will join you!

"If someone set up a Grammar school in your area you would be under no obligation to send your children there." My G&T top 1% DS wouldn't get in because he has dyslexia and is pants at maths. However all his fellow G&T group debaters and top set English peers would disappear to the Grammar. His friend who is G&T at maths might be left behind too because he is pants at English. Clearly not a good system!

"You need to compare grammar school results with comps with a similar profile of pupils elsewhere in the UK (if these areas exist)."

Impossible to do this.

There are stats showing the number of 'high achieving' children at all schools, but 'high achieving' is a wide category which includes those children who have all 5 'c's in their SATS as well as those children working at level 6 in maths and literacy.

All the families I know who have entered their children for exams for academically selective schools are very proactive educationally and most parents are graduates.

Even the fact of having to put a child forward for selection 'selects out' certain types of families.

Opalfire
Indeed not,
but if one of the schools in the area became a grammar school, the school next door would, by default become a Secondary Modern.
No Thank You.

The damage wreaked on the UK economy by the poison of Grammar Schools - that technical and vocational skills were for failures is still being undone.

Telling kids at age 11 that they are not good enough for the best education demeans the skills that we need to get the economy making things.
Hence why kids do not try.
Hence why immigrants come in to take those jobs.

Talkin Peace. If someone set up a Grammar school in your area you would be under no obligation to send your children there.

Hi Gifted. What happened with the Admission's Adjudicator at King Edwards? I haven't read anything about it?

Gifted
I live in a county with no Grammar Schools
if any arse tried to introduce them round here I'd be manning the barricades against them.

There are so few grammar schools in the big scheme of things, why should we care about their results?

opalfire
the Sunday Times figures are from incomplete data anyway : the most recent official data is 2013
but the by LEA in all its glory is on the DFE page and can be downloaded and sorted to your heart's content

Does anyone know if the LEA league tables include the results of the independent sector or just the state sector?

"I was looking at results by LEA because I wanted to compare the results by 'system'. ie how do the overall results, on average for ALL children in a system that is 100% non selective......."
But Opalfire even in an area without grammar schools there are independent schools that select pupils on the basis of academic ability/ income so there is no such thing as an area that has no selective schools at all!

opalfire
It is impossible to make assumptions comparing LEAs in London because each LEA is so small that the flow of pupils across boundaries dwarfs differences in the admissions system.

To compare Grammar / non Grammar areas, the only true samples are Kent and Lincolnshire - because they are full counties that operate a segregated system
and are geographically large enough that there is minimal cross border traffic in much of the LEA

All other Grammars are surrounded by other types of schools or - as with Bucks - are in a county so small that cross border traffic has more of a statistical effect than the 11+

Hi catslife. I was looking at results by LEA because I wanted to compare the results by 'system'. ie how do the overall results, on average for ALL children in a system that is 100% non selective compare to the overall results in a system where some go to grammars and some to secondary modern schools. Total results for 'comps only' compared to total results for 'grammar+secondary mod'. Without doing lots of personal research, the tables roughly reflect the AVERAGE results for the whole LEA whichever school the children have attended. On the surface it looks like areas where the children, on average, get the best results happen to have grammar schools. Might be a causal link, might not. Maybe the children in the top set at secondary modern do better than they would in the middle set at a comprehensive. I can't find any proper peer reviewed data about that.

I think anothermakesthree is spot on with her comment that 'effort and income' of parents has a huge impact. The Joseph Rowntree foundation paper I quoted at first has the same findings. What happens at home in terms of reading bedtime stories, eating as a family and encouraging homework and reasonable bedtimes has a massive impact on outcomes. As does parental intelligence. Schools can do their best but I don't think they can make up for everything.

There is a data set for cross border traffic on school places.
Kingston per se is nothing special
but the fact that it has a couple of highly selective schools
and kids in London get free bus transport
means that selective schools in the Capital effectively cover the whole city.

Elsewhere in the country we have the joy of deregulated bus services so that parents have to pay hundreds of pounds per year to get their children to other than the local school.

Also those cited boroughs (Barnet etc) have many, many pupils coming from outside the borough to their selective schools. There aren't many at QEB living around the corner...

"The top LEAs for GCSEs and A levels were dominated by areas where grammar schools still exist like Sutton, Bromley, Kingston, Barnet, Trafford and Redbridge."
I agree with Rootandbranch looking at the league tables by LEA may not be helpful. You need to compare grammar school results with comps with a similar profile of pupils elsewhere in the UK (if these areas exist). As well as the results by percentage what are the value added scores for grammar schools?
Also how do you take into account that these figures will be distorted by pupils from other LEAs, who live close to grammar schools, commuting to these schools?

In reality the 'effort and income' of your parents will have a positive effect on all areas of your life, not just getting into a grammar.

Oh, and about 1 in 5 children in London attends a private prep/secondary school.

Also 1 in 4 children are tutored.

"The top LEAs for GCSEs and A levels were dominated by areas where grammar schools still exist like Sutton, Bromley, Kingston, Barnet, Trafford and Redbridge."

These things will be distorted by the fact that the SE has

• the highest per-capita income of the UK
• the highest number of graduate parents
• high numbers of immigrants from countries where education and learning is hugely valued, and children are strongly supported at home.

Three children in my ds's class have passed the grammar school exam for the local super selective.

All three have had 1 year+ of paid tutoring, plus daily parental input - essay writing, maths practice etc.

Three of the local private prep schools have big banners outside listing the number of grammar school places their pupils got this year.

The bottom line is that grammar school primarily intake represents the efforts and income of the parents, and is not representative of the full range of potential in primary schools. There are many very clever children in state schools who will never get a grammar place because they will always be behind equally clever children who've had far more educational input - paid and parental.

There is absolutely no way for state schools to make good the gap in attainment which is created by parental input and tutoring.