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?

Oh definitely! Both DS and DD attend and they love their schools. Generally we have found that the students want to learn and therefore there is less bahaviour issues and more engagement. The teachers are, on the whole, very enthusiastic teaching those who are keen to be taught.
I had a terrible comprehensive education in the 1970s so am very "keen" for them to have the best education they can!

Do you have any idea how the calculation underlying the old 'Contextual Value Added' score (which used to exist at least for primaries, I wasn't in the market for a secondary at the time) used to work? I know it was based, for primaries, on progress between KS1 and KS2, but it was the contextual factors that made it interesting.

They didn't have grammar schools in our area. I got a scholarship to a private school but chose to go to the comprehensive instead which was probably the biggest mistake of my life. I did well but I'd like my daughter to have the opportunity to try for grammar school so I support them. Although if everyone's getting privately tutored then it's still financially selective anyway...

Where I live they're not all privately tutored. The schools here usually know who have been and the naturally bright diligent children still rise to the top.

Aawishes- are you at all interested in fairness and social mobility?

The school with the highest Progress 8 (at 0.32) had a 53% pass rate at C or above in English and maths.

That to me is not good.
Do others think it is good?

Genuine question. I'm wondering if one person's good is another person's terrible.

You do understand that means that at another school those same kids would probably have got worse results overall?

(Although of course when talking about progress 8, no one ever provides the error intervals)

Or does it mean that the kids came to them from KS2 below where they should have been?

Those results aren't great though are they?
The only other local school had 5% better attainment but less of a Progress 8 score.

Out of 2 choices of schools, which would you choose for a bright kid (110-115 sat score)?

It doesn't mean that they came in below expected levels. I can only find the 2015 data online, but only 49% of students in 2015 who achieved the 'expected' level of a 4B at KS2 achieved 5A*-C inc English and Maths at GCSE.

What that progress 8 means is that compared to the average pupil who had the same results at KS2, the kids at that school got on average about a third of a grade higher at GCSE in each GCSE. Maths and English are double weighted so count as 4 GCSEs in that calculation.
That's an average, so if you've got bright kids in the school who are underachieving compared to other bright kids nationally, then there would have to be some other kids in the school overachieving to compensate.

If I had to choose out of two schools for a bright kid, I would suggest you look at the compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk for the school, go down to performance by prior attainment, and look at the progress 8/results for the high achievers in the school.

What I do doubt is that all these schools are in areas where people routinely have money for tutoring and private school fees (which is the classic mumsnet take).

But it isn't necessary for all these schools to be in areas where people routinely have money, in order for a handful of people out of the thousands who use Mumsnet, and the hundreds (probably thousands) who read thread titles in AIBU to have experienced them. It's only necessary for some of them to be. And the 22% figure I quoted indicates that there is a reasonable likelihood that there will be some, which is why I quoted it.

My area is a market town which is is pretty socially mixed, which draws pupils from the surrounding farms and villages as well. There are both people who can afford tutoring, and people who can't. There are some who can afford private schools, and many who cannot. This situation is not that unusual in places other than the Southeast and large cities.

I really, really resent people implying that I am lying when I say that in my opinion the school is not good, (and I will be very surprised if this is not reflected in the GCSE results next year once controlled assessments are got rid of).

Also I disagree that it's the 'classic' mumsnet take. People who clearly live in areas with sink comprehensives, who could never afford private schools, also post about their poor schools, and also get their experiences dismissed on these threads. (Not surprisingly, they tend to stop arguing and go away.) And a fair number of people don't say whether they could afford private schools or not.

I admire your passion to support comprehensives, but implying people are lying about their local situation doesn't do the cause any favours, in my opinion. If people feel their experiences are being dismissed as lies, they are less likely to believe it is possible that problems with comrprehensives will be addressed, IMO, and more likely to turn to alternative ideas like grammars.

I've never seen anyone say anything like 'shit comps don't exist'. Clearly they do. What people don't agree with is not fixing the shit comp and instead building a new good school that only a minority of pupils in the shit comp can access, leaving the majority of pupils in the shit comp with no hope of improvement because now any parent with an interest in education is tutoring the hell out of their kid to get them into the grammar.

People who argue for grammars are arguing for only the education of a minority to be improved.

No, they don't argue that: that would obviously be a very difficult position to defend, because it is such an extreme.

Instead, they insinuate that the poster is likely to be lying, because the Mumsnet demographic is such that it's highly suspicious that someone from an area with 'shit' comprehensives would be posting here. I'm not saying everyone on these threads does this, but I have seen it done by some, and allowed to pass by the rest.

Also, comprehensives don't have to be "shit" to be poor, or less than good: this is a misrepresentation of what most people who criticise their local comprehensive are actually saying. My local comprehensive isn't 'shit' by any means; but it is poor, because it clings to old, bad styles of teaching, including problematic mixed ability, and does nothing to deal with the continuous low-level disruption that let down students of all abilities.

That's not an argument for grammars, though, is it?

How is introducing more grammar schools going to improve the remaining schools?

That's not an argument for grammars, though, is it?

I didn't say it was. What it is, is an argument for accepting that it's more than just a handful of schools in deprived demographics that are poor, and for making an honest argument against grammars to people who are experiencing a poor school, rather than insinuating that they are lying about their experiences.

If we want people to believe that bad comprehensives can be improved, implying that they are lying about the existence of one locally isn't a good way to encourage them to think that anyone is listening, or thinking about how to improve them.

I don't think anyone has accused anyone of lying about a bad school existing locally. There was a terrible school near me that closed recently, for example.

Kesstrel,

I don't think I have ever said that someone on here is lying when they said their local comprehensive is poor.

What i don't understand is why the standard response, from many here is 'I want grammars in my area because i want my children to get a really good education', rather than saying 'I want all comprehensives to be as good as the best [in terms of progress]'.

I would also say that some people think grammars are good because their raw results are good, and better than the raw results of comprehensives. There is an obvious fallacy in that, but it is remarkable how persistent it is.

I would also say - because i live in an area with a 'honeypot' school - that there can be a tendency for all other local alternatives to be compared to the honeypot one, and seen as 'poor', whereas looked at in their own right, the other schools are pretty good.

Also, I think you have a much more subtle, reasoned and informed approach to WHY you think your comprehensive is poor to many I have heard.

There are others - 'It's not Outstanding'; 'It takes children from the estate'; 'It has lower raw results than x'; 'It has a high proportion of Traveller families' - which are perhaps worth digging below to understand whether the school genuinely is poor, if that makes sense?

Asking question about progress etc is not ignoring that poor schools exist - of course they do, all types of school from private, through grammar, to comprehensive and secondary modern can be poor - it's just exploring whether a judgement of the school being poor is well-based in that particular case.

cant I agree - and I'd much rather our comp became bigger ( which would negate the downsides of that particular comp school) rather than send my children to different schools.
I wonder how much tutoring either paid or by dad alters the results if schools.
I certainly heavily tutored mine - there was no way she would have passed otherwise.

My local comprehensive isn't 'shit' by any means; but it is poor, because it clings to old, bad styles of teaching, including problematic mixed ability, and does nothing to deal with the continuous low-level disruption that let down students of all abilities.

Would the answer not be to address the issues within that school rather than removing10% of pupils and leaving 90% in a poor school.

Wanting the availability of grammars doesn't mean you don't want excellent comps too.Some of us have been waiting for that for years( and are still waiting). Plenty of us look beyond results, our grammars have far better progress 8 scores than the comp I was supposed to send my school to.

And why is improving comps sooo reliant on 10% (and far less in many cases) being there?

You could turn it round and ask why your children need to be educated away from the other 90%