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?

Not inherently. It depends on the school and the quality of teaching and learning.

Head- are you absolutely sure you know what a comprehensive school is?

I support grammar schools without going to one myself. I went to a very good independent boarding school instead. However, my parents were wealthy, I and DH are not. As a result I will send any future dc to grammars if they can get in. I feel it's the best they will be able to get without paying, which I would t be able to afford on two teachers' salaries.

Also, as a teacher I feel that bright kids often don't get the best out of comprehensives, and they should have a chance to shine whatever their parental income.

Comprehensive education is a very broad term which implies they the school will take on all ability levels. However the make up varies widely, because they can gave all ability levels doesn't mean they do.

Now I can imagine it not making any difference to achievement if the top cohort is substantive - you wouldn't find a difference whether you are sat in one building (the grammar) or another (the comp).

However I do wonder if it does make a difference for those of much smaller number in comp schools which maybe only have a handful in the top cohort. How do they fare?

Well as DH and I both teach, we should be able to get them in, and will be focussed on their eduction throughout primary. If not, then we will beg, borrow or steal to put them through private. If all else fails, take jobs where there is a decent staff discount for our dc. Or teach overseas, again with a hefty staff discount or even private fees paid as a perk.
I admit this is specific to my situation only, but you did ask.

If ÿou're going to airlift out any group, with the self esteem boost and everything else that that implies, then it should surely be the bottom 25%?

I never heard any debate locally about a desire to bring back grammars, although I am no longer involved with education, so things might have changed in the last 5 years or so.

Sec Mods were brought in as a result of the 1944 Education Act, so came in, in the late 1940s and by the mid to late 60s the system was disliked intently by a majority. Some people argue that it lost the Tories the 1964 election. Comprehensives came in in the mid-sixties to early seventies, so in most places they have been there getting on for twice as long now as the Sec Mods were. Where they are good, which contrary to what you read on MN is a lot of places, there is little appetite for change.

The things that I find most depressing about these selective education threads.

1. People completely ignore the fact that grammar schools do noting for social mobility.
2. People who believe in selective education do so because they think it would be best for their child, and care little or nothing about the majority.
3. People think the most important children are the high ability ones, and their needs should take priority over everyone else.

It's a bit soul destroying really.......

Pretty much exactly the same as those who ensure they get the best comp place they can via property.

Nope. I'll post this graph again, it shows clearly that grammars are significantly more stuffed with the relatively affluent than even the top comps.

"Pretty much exactly the same as those who ensure they get the best comp place they can via property."

I remain to be convinced that that is the problem some people suggest it is, but as you know, I believe in admission by fair banding and lottery, so that will solve that issue too.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/top-state-schools-preserve-rich-sutton-trust-education-charity-gcse-school-places-national-offer-day-a7604176.html

Sutton thinks so.

Assuming that by selective they aren't including private( doesn't make clear)that link you can barely read and which gives very little detail and doesn't differentiate between best/ worst schools doesn't show exactly how the richest buy up places in the best comps. I'll wager those above the median in the non selective are in the better schools going by Sutton's concerns.

It's a shame you don't like that graph, Green because it's actually the graph from the DfE that they used to support grammar schools in their manifesto.

It does differentiate between the best/worst schools - at least by your usual measure which is headline results. Grammar schools are represented by the bar at the top and you can see that selective schools take on average 9% of pupils on FSM or PP, 36% of pupils below the DfE defined median income but not PP/FSM, and 53% of pupils above median income.

In contrast, the comprehensives in the top 10% for results, 19% are FSM or PP, 35% are below median income but not FSM/PP and only 44% are above median income.

The Tory manifesto ignored the 53% of students in grammar schools coming from more affluent families in a grammar school compared to 44% in the country's top comps, and chose instead to focus on the fact that if you compare grammars to all comprehensives, 36% of grammar kids come from families below median income but not FSM/PP, only 35% in comps are in the same income bracket. An extraordinary and dishonest sleight of hand.

Might that be affected by the types of areas with grammars though?
They do tend to be in wealthy areas.

So do top comps.

so it's hard to argue that the people indoctrinated in those methods back then are even going to be teaching still.

But it's not a question of actual teachers in actual schools. They aren't the ones who are considered to be the 'experts' I was referring to earlier. Modern 'experts' (not all of them, of course, but often the most influential ones) are the people in the university departments of education. It's precisely because they are in ivory towers, isolated from having to make their ideas work at the chalkface, that they are able to keep promoting ideas that sound good but don't work. And when someone in their department retires, the rest make sure to appoint someone else who agrees with their point of view. It's also important to remember that these ideas have traction because they are often intuitively appealing. Who could object to children learning 'naturally'?

An example: the 'whole language' approach to reading lost credibility with most reading psychologists (in departments of psychology) by 1990 or so. The main debate from then on was about what kind of phonics instruction was best, because phonics was what the evidence pointed to. But 20 years later, the government had to force the education academics who teach our teachers to give them exposure to phonics methods and how to teach them.

Peregrina Of course you are right too, the government meddled and bungled it. But a lot of people, including some teachers, feel we need more and better teaching of grammar in our schools, both to help improve writing, and to provide a basis for later MFL teaching. But without the kind of sound research base and expertise that could have been available, if academics had not been rejecting the whole idea for so many years (this is the case in other English-speaking countries as well), governments trying to implement change are pretty inevitably going to end up floundering.

kesstrel I am pretty sure that noble addressed this very question a good few posts back. Yes, they met those theories in college but how they practice and how they teach different classes varies, and develops with experience. I dropped out of a PGCE, as a mature student, about 25 years ago, even then, there was a recognition that ideas popular in the 1960s, although they brought energy and enthusiasm into teaching, only worked for some pupils. My subject was going to be maths, (as noble's is) and there was a recognition then that many pupils needed to be taught - learning by discovery only worked for some. Ditto a vigourous discussion about learning times tables. All the staff had been practicing teachers for a number of years, some were still holding part-time teaching posts. Were they untypical?

But a lot of people, including some teachers, feel we need more and better teaching of grammar in our schools, both to help improve writing, and to provide a basis for later MFL teaching.

Yes, but do we need to know about subjunctives at 10, or 'fronted adverbials'? Or whatever? We learnt about verbs in infants - 'doing words'. I can remember as a 10 year old learning about adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions and different types of nouns. Quite honestly, that was sufficient for primary. We followed it up at Secondary.

Peregrina We seem to be talking past each other. I''m talking about the lack of proper research into the subject of how best to teach grammar over the last 50 years, and why that happened. I'm definitely not defending the SPAG recently introduced by the government - my posts are simply about explaining some of the reasons why such a poorly designed program ended up being introduced, and how that relates (in my view) to the lack of a research program over the years. It's easy to focus on just blaming governments. But I think the picture is often more complex than that.

I do wonder whether education is not as helpful for social mobility that it once was.

kesstrel I think you could certainly say that of the 1960s and 70s. I had earlier, in the 70s as a new graduate, not taken up a PGCE place simply because of those attitudes. 25 years later the emphasis did seem to have changed significantly. There was much more emphasis on research into evidence and what worked.

Not in the same way.

Kent and Bucks are totally grammar as I understand it and will account for a large number of grammars. Incomes in the Home Counties are massively higher(my dh would earn double what he does). There are no plans for the Kent model to be rolled out,I'll wager the breakdown would look very different in individual areas.

Can you link to the entire report please. I'm sure you're right but said graph doesn't stipulate it is comparing to top comps or what selective schools are- are church,single sex,private included? It's a very hazy tiny graph with very little detail.

It would also be interesting to see what impact the measures being brought in are having- before and after graphs. Also grammars already with such measures compared to those without.

The demographics are very different in different areas.
Top comps in some areas have very educated parents but maybe not the incomes. Ive always been very surprised just how different the incomes and demographics are round the country.