To wonder if there are supporters of grammar schools who didn't go to grammar schools themselves

[WildebeestH]

Just that really. The only friends I have who support grammar schools went to grammar schools themselves. I'm intrigued to know if there are many people who support them having not been to a grammar (or other selective) school and if so why?

In fact that brings us nicely back to the thread topic of grammar schools which are opposed by pretty much everyone involved in education. No evidence that they will make things better, plenty that they will make things worse and they are being forced through by Theresa May on the say-so of Nick Timothy who haven't the first idea what they're talking about.

An agency could work, but again, I am sceptical about who they will find to staff it, and about whether those people could even agree on what to do (unless it was 'packed' with one side or the other). But maybe it would be worth trying.

There is a problem with pilot studies, though. After all, the National Literacy Strategy was piloted, and the pilot showed it to be 'successful', even though it was using multi-cuing look and guess rather than phonics in reception and year 1. The placebo effect of new interventions is well known.

The problem is, as many have argued, that everything in education 'works' - to a degree. What we need to do is find out what works best. This is what is wrong with the supposed research into Reading Recovery, on which this country has wasted many millions. What we actually need is random controlled trials, to compare competing approaches. Otherwise, we're likely to just fund heading off in the wrong direction yet again.

I doubt it. I went to a grammar and support selective education, but not via selection at 11. I would prefer a system with selection at 14 or so into either an academic or vocational pathway (similar to the Swiss system) with an additional cross over point at 16 years old. The vocational pathway would involve specialisation in a trade, but after completion you could also go to university in specific subjects (for example if you learnt building as a trade you could go into civil engineer or construction management degree courses or similar). The academic pathway would give you wider options at university but (and this is crucial) would not qualify you for a trade. I believe that having separate institutions dealing with these two types of education is important as it allows them to focus on a clear, single mission.

I've come to realise that such a radical reform of our education system will never happen due to all the vested interests in this country, particularly around protecting entrants to trades to those who have completed the vocational pathway. As such I can't support selective education in its current form as it simple favours 25% of children at the expense of the other 75%.

The placebo effect of new interventions is well known

I think you mean the Hawthorne Effect

I would hate for teaching to become deprofessionalised where we have to teach according to a script generated by RCTs (which are easy to get wrong, and notoriously dodgy in the social sciences).

What works best for me won't work best for another teacher, because we are different people. What works best for me with one class doesn't work best with another class because they're different people too.

Yes we need to look at the evidence, and not be so quick to jump on bandwagons like VAK, Brain Gym, Growth Mindset. But what I don't want to happen is where we get people pointing to Hattie and saying 'Class size doesn't matter' or 'Teaching assistants make no difference', or where we get bollocks like 'This works in Asia so it should work transplanted over here without most of the support and in an entirely different context'.

I do wonder what people mean by "vocational". It seems to be something that people who support grammar schools say to justify selecting out the "top" 25/15/10%.......

What exactly is a 10 year old going to do in a "vocational" school?

The weird thing is that the Tories don't support early vocational pathways, they support an academic education for all to 16. That's why this policy, shoved in the DfE's faces unexpectedly by TM is bonkers, it's totally out of step with what the Tories have been doing to the curriculum for the last 7 years.

I think there is too much leaping on the next "wonder idea" I agree.
It's sad to see so many teachers leave, disallusioned. But I can't help feeling they are given an impossible task

Yes. Our school in no longer able to run Catering, Horticulture, Construction or Hair and Beauty- all of which helped a lot of our kids into employment and are having to teach the lower sets a Victorian novel.............

Is the comprehensive education more about all being given the same offering, the same curricula, or is comprehensive education about being educated differently but in the same building?

Noble - thanks for the link to the Hawthorne effect - I thought it would be better to use a less technical term, (which essentially describes the same thing), but now people who are interested can read about it!

There is no reason that RCTs would lead to "teaching from a script", any more than pilot studies would - you are using hyperbole here, IMO. Certainly, the pilot study for the National Literacy Strategy led to a fairly prescriptive teaching regime, if not exactly a script.

This is another reason, as I said, why I am doubtful about a super-body to oversee educational innovation. Personally, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just make all teachers completely autonomous, except for cases (like phonics teaching) where there is very strong evidence, and see what happens. Certainly, in Finland, teachers appear to have used their classroom autonomy , over the last 30 years or so, to resist pressure from university 'experts' to change their mostly traditional teaching practice.

Is the comprehensive education more about all being given the same offering, the same curricula, or is comprehensive education about being educated differently but in the same building?"

Is that not a slightly odd question for someone who has been arguing against comprehensive education to be asking at this stage?

Is the comprehensive education more about all being given the same offering, the same curricula, or is comprehensive education about being educated differently but in the same building?

Good question. People have differing views on this. Everyone agrees that children should have the same 'academic' education - up to a certain point. It's what age that point should be placed at that is the issue of disagreement. Some argue that we shouldn't label children as 'non-academic' too early, because everyone should be entitled to study Shakespeare, for example, and also because schools have been known to push less academic courses on working class children, regardless of their ability. Others take a different view.

I don't mean that RCTs would lead to teaching from a script, more that an over-dependence on RCTs and 'finding the best methods' would lead to teaching from a script. We get that all the time in teaching. The three part lesson. Learning objectives. Every time something comes out that's supposedly the best way to teach, it becomes something that you are expected to do every lesson and are marked down for if you don't do it.
I know your favourite school even does teach from scripts. Many teachers would find that completely stifling.

Teachers need an evidence-based toolkit, but also professional freedom. This constant jumping on bandwagons mean that many are permanently cynical, and consequently miss out on important developments in education, like the work being done on retrieval practice which actually makes sense.

There certainly seems to be a misapprehension among grammar school fans that comprehensive education means one-size-fits-all education. I don't think they can have been in a school recently.

I'm not arguing against comprehensive education, merely recognising that there are disadvantages.
people do have different views on what is comprehensive education - is fair giving the same curricula in the same building - a one size fits all model, or do we look at the same building but with differing options for less academic children. Is that not the same as having a grammar and sec modern in the same building? We divide, but pretend we haven't?

I know your favourite school

I am interested in what Michaela are doing, I think some of it is promising, and I dislike people trying to pick holes in what any specific, named school is doing on the basis of little to no information. That does not make it my 'favourite' school. Please can we keep this discussion reasonable, without attributing straw man views or sneering.

This constant jumping on bandwagons mean that many are permanently cynical, and consequently miss out on important developments in education, like the work being done on retrieval practice which actually makes sense.

That is, absolutely, absolutely true. But where do these bandwagons come from? They come, ultimately, from the university departments of education that I criticised earlier. The valid research tends to come from psychology departments.

I did ask down thread whether people actually knew what "comprehensive" in an educational context meant. It simply means a school which does not have any selective admissions criteria.

Is that not the same as having a grammar and sec modern in the same building? We divide, but pretend we haven't?

Again, that relates to the age at which the divide occurs, and also to the method - children and parents can largely choose which 'stream' to go into in comprehensives that offer vocational courses. I don't know much about the system in Germany, but I believe that, while they have 'grammar'-type schools, they don't have any tests to get into them. The decision is made by parents and teachers.

Also, in a comprehensive, even if streamed, there will be some courses like PE and art etc, where children of all abilities will mix, as well as in the school grounds and clubs.

Is that not the same as having a grammar and sec modern in the same building?

No, the crucial difference between comprehensives and grammar/sec modern is the flexibility. At a comp you can move between sets, be good at one academic subject and be poor at and get support in another, and make choices at 14 (to some extent). With grammars/sec moderns, there is very little movement between different schools. If you are good at one academic subject and poor at another you'll either struggle at the grammar or be less challenged at the sec modern. If you're in the grammar, you're designated as academic aged 10, setting a pathway far too early.
Grammar/sec modern is putting a brick belt around something which is far too fluid for such restrictions to work - children's ability and learning.

Reading through this thread, as I understand it, the main argument against grammar school is that it doesn't cater fot the masses?
Not that it doesn't deliver a good education?

From the 4 grammar schools in my area, the results are pretty outstanding. The nearest high/comp school are probably trailing 10% behind in the headline A*-C results.

Or is that conclusion a little bit too simplistic?

They come, ultimately, from the university departments of education that I criticised earlier

They really don't. I've been faced with all sorts of bollocks over the decade I've been in teaching, and very little of it has come from university departments of education.

From the 4 grammar schools in my area, the results are pretty outstanding. The nearest high/comp school are probably trailing 10% behind in the headline A*-C results.

Of course their results are outstanding, they're a school stuffed with bright kids. And of course the local school's results aren't as good, the grammar school has taken all the brightest kids.

Dear god, are we still at the point where people look at raw results and think this is the measure of how good a school is?

Please don't tell me we've had a 544 post discussion and some people don't actually know what a comprehensive school is..........

"From the 4 grammar schools in my area, the results are pretty outstanding. The nearest high/comp school are probably trailing 10% behind in the headline A*-C results."

Can you think of a reason why that might be?

Incidentally, if the high/comprehensives are only 10% behind, they are pretty bloody amazing..........

No, the closest in results are nowhere near the grammar school. I'm talking county wide.
I haven't looked geographically at the results.