Grammar schools -a "think" piece.

[seeker]

New readers start here. I live in a small town in Kent. We have a fully selective secondary education system,- children take 11+ tests in Sepetember of year 6, and are allocated either to the grammar school ( the "top" 23%) and the high school- the remaining 77%, which consists of those that don't reach the required mark in the test and those that didn't take it at all. The grammar school is an OFSTED outstanding school, with 99% a-c. The high school is a good school, with, if I recall 40% a-c. It has excellent vocational facilities and very good sport. There are no comprehensive schools in any sort of travelling distance. One or two children go to other selective schools in the area, and a few go private, but the vast majority go to either school A or school B. ( It's important to say here that I am only talking about a fully selective system here. The areas where there is a grammar school for the very top of the top 5% and all but comprehensives for everyone else are a different discussion)

The reason I think this is interesting in a broader context is that this is the model which many people would like to see replicated by the introduction of more grammar schools. To a grammar school enthusiast, it looks perfect. I think they sometimes forget that more grammar schools means more "secondary moderns" .

Living in in the middle of such system, is possible to see it's damaging, divisive consequences.

We have a town where children, at the age of 10, are told that they are not good enough for the grammar school, with all the societal and psychological problems this produces. The supporters of the system say that it isn't a "pass or fail" system- it is just an "allocation of appropriate school" system Which would be fine- if wasn't described as "passing" and "failing". If the town was not full of congratulations and comiserations when the results come out in March. If the children themselves were not fully aware-because they are not stupid- that tests produce passes and failures. And if the grammar school did not have less than 2% children with SEN and 2% FSM -against the high school's 27% and 22%.

Basically what we have is a comprehensive school cohort, but rigidly separated. The top set are educated completely separately half a mile away. There is no opportunity for kids at the high school to move into that top set if they suddenly discover an academic streak at the age of 12 or 13, and no opportunity for a Grammar school child to move if they discover that they are not as academic as they appeared on one day in their 10th September. Which a properly streamed comprehensive would provide. Such a school would also provide a proper top set, as well as opportunities for the less able. But there would be the possibility of movement. AND, crucially, you wouldn't have a massive group of kids who have been told, in however sugar coated a way, that they have failed at the age of 10. What's, as they say, not to like?

I live in an area that sounds almost exactly the same HOWEVER you are incorrect in stating that there is no opportunity to move.
there is a 12+ and 13+ option, can be actively sought by parents who think their children should be given the opportunity to try again and also by the school.

Happened to me in 1982 (moved into grammar area aged 11 and missed the 11+ altogether)

I absolutely agree with you that this is not a good system. I have a DD at a grammar, but a super selective in a borough where there are other very highly regarded schools. We live right next to a booth which has a system like you describe, and the grammars are not even that highly regarded TBH. So a bit of a failure all round.

Borough, not booth!

I can understand your concerns but those concerns were the very reasons that the grammar system was scrapped and replaced by compehensives and our education system has, since then, gone to hell in a handbasket with enormous social consequences.

I don't know what the best system is but the current comprehensive system is not it.

However the comprehensive system could work - it has the 2 schools in one with the same uniform and the ability to move up or down. QOD is quite right that there can be movement later but only up, those who passed never move down, however unsuited.
The fact that they move up or down tells you a lot about status.

There is room for movement into grammar schools post 11+. The appeals process has, I think, in a lot of areas moved to immediately after the 11+ results so that, quite reasonably, other schools know where they stand with their numbers. However, growing numbers of indie parents are using grammars as their insurance and if they choose not to take up a place, once the allocation process has closed, then there are then places available at the grammar. However, few parents of children who narrowly missed their place realise this...or as yet they don't.

Kent, afair, voted to keep grammar schools. Even parents whose children didn't get into grammar voted in favour. My own London Borough where I grew up consists only of comprehensives and intake reflects the price of the house your parents can afford.

What I would ike is some raw data. If we take the areas of the SE with good grammars like Bucks and Kent and compare them with areas of the SE which are not close enough to send chidlren to state grammars which are comnprehensive but all similar socio economic groups and look at the A elevel results in proper subjects, the ones on the FT league tables (so not A level basket weaving but subjects lke French and physics).

We would take those county results and see whether the comprehensive counties have better results all in all than the grammars. If my streamd off the bright children that county gets more children with better results that's fine. If the counties without grammars in equally prosperous areas get more children with great A levels then that would be interesting too.

Has anyone ever done that study?

[[http://www.suttontrust.com/research/evidence-on-the-effects-of-selective-educational-systems/ Sutton Trust]

Sutton Trust

OP: unless I've missed it, you don't don't mention whether you have children or not. Do you have a dog in this fight? If you do, you could always move to a fully comprehensive area if that's the system you prefer.

Can't you just look at the value added figures in the league tables for eg Kent v. Surrey?

Thank you. It says 4% of children are at grammar schools. May be that is so small a number any comparison with comps is not really going to be very representative.

"In terms of raw KS4 (GCSE) results, it is clear that pupils in grammar
schools do much better. This advantage remains, although the difference
is smaller, if consideration is limited to pupils who achieved level 5 or
higher in each of mathematics, English and science at KS2". So I think that is saying a child from a non selective primary who moves to a comp compared with a similar IQ child who moves to a grammar gets more added value at the grammar. Therefore they are saying if we want more state school pupils to do better at school we should segregate out the clever ones.

Then it says this

"Although these analyses indicate that grammar school pupils appear to make greater progress
from KS2 to KS4 than other pupils, we also find that these same pupils
were already making more progress from KS1 to KS2 (ie in their primary
school). This suggests that there may be important but unmeasured
differences between grammar and non-grammar school pupils and
somewhat undermines our confidence in these estimates of a ?grammar
school effect? "

So that suggests they are not at all sure if those clever children actually do do better at grammars.

"The results presented in Chapter 8 are complex and hard to interpret. It is far
from clear what our conclusion should be regarding the effect of grammar
school selection on performance." So they have done this massive 300 page report and have no idea what their results are? That is a pity. They do think chidlren on free school m eals who go to grammars do better than at comps.

I cannot see how the Sutton trust can conclude that having grammars does not really damage children in other schools in the region and yet say it's fine to have grammars in a few areas but not in others. Either grammars are a good - so we should have them all over or not in which case they should not be in some areas. There is nothing special about the genes of children in Bucks which means they need grammars whereas they were abolished in about 1970s where I am from.

Whenyou read a statement like this - "This report has taken hundreds of hours to produce and now stands at over
100,000 words in length. It may seem somewhat self-serving to call for yet
more research, but we believe there are still important gaps in our
knowledge which need to be recognized and, if possible, addressed. Two of
these are specifically worth identifying." It just makes you think these people have probably wasted loads of time. I hope no one was paying for the report. They conclude very little and seem totally to have wasted their time.

seeker
I do think your post soundsright but in my view, based on my own experience, it is a bit naive.

I attended a comprehensive. OK, it was a long time ago and I am very sure things have moved on. But, what happened then couldhappen now in the comprehensive system.

And what happened?

Well, all the children took a test in the final term of primary school, organised by the comp. That test allowed them to stream the kids even before they arrived. There was an "upper", "middle" and "lower" group. From day 1. Note the lack of ambiguity in the names. Once allocated into a stream, children stayed there. It was impossible to move between streams. In 5 years, I never saw or heard of anyone moving between streams. Even within each stream, there were different strata, and in theory it was possible to move between them. But I never saw this happen. So, there was an 11+ in all but name.

Academic achievement was not valued. Sports was everything. Music was risible. Maths teaching was incredibly poor. School plays were non-existent. it was really a sad place for anyone who was not on the netball team.

I spent five very unhappy years there and whilst I agree with your principles, my experience was that bright children got dragged down by the less bright, the non-sporty were bullied and swots were denigrated across the board.

When I got to a single sex, fee paying indie for 6th form, I have never, ever been so relieved.

So, I do think you idealise the comprehensive system in the way that others idealise the private / grammar system (ie no bullying, nicer middle class kids etc.)

sicutlilium

seeker has two dogs in this fight: her DD is at the grammar and her DS is about to start at the secondary mod.

Xenia, you are quite right, both sides of the fence seized on the report to support their cause

Greythorne thank you - have I just failed to pick that up, or was it not mentioned in the original post? Did Seeker's DS not get into the grammar school then?

those who passed never move down, however unsuited
Yes they do - DD said someone left one of the other classes at the end of yr7 because she found the GS too tough. I've heard of other cases before.

I didn't mention my own children in my OP. Because I honestly don't think they are relevant. My views on the subject were theoretically formed before I had children and have only been reinforced by my practical experience.

I stand corrected Grimma - I never knew it happen. I think that if you have selection at the end of the year DCs should move school if necessary.

I did attend a school such as described in the OP. 3 classes of children who passed the 11+, 3 classes of children who did not with movement allowed based on performance in the standard end of year exams.

I would say the top set under performed compared to how they would have done in a grammar school.

The grammar school is outdated by the very fact that people refer to 'secondary moderns' - they are no longer modern!

Exotic - AFAIK pupils only leave if thats what they and their parents want, they're not kicked out or anything like that.

I think you really have to consider the damage that abandoning a huge proportion of kids to second best education does. I was raised in Kent, I went to a grammar school. I've done adequately.

My brother failed and went to a secondary modern. My partner likewise (obviously before I met him). Both schools were so bad that they have since been razed to the ground and housing estates built instead. My brother actually did try to move at 13, but was not able to, due to his bad handwriting, which of course 2 years at a crap school did nothing to help.

Both my partner and my brother had a bloody awful time at school, are hugely resentful of it to this day, and left with few qualifications. Since leaving school, my partner has obtained a philosophy degree from King's College London, my brother has a PhD, so the initial 11+ results would appear to have been fairly inaccurate.

It's a stupid system that doesn't work - it gets good results for people who would have obviously have got them anyway and craps all over anyone who needs more help, isn't very mature at 11, or is having a bad day when the test takes place (ps, we were lied to about when the test was, we were told it was just another practice one). It was designed to produce factory fodder and keep the nice middle class kids away from the proles - there should be no room for such a system in modern Britain.

Kent may have some of the best schools in the UK, but it's got some of the shittest as well. You cannot consider the grammar system without bearing that in mind.

Your point being?

Until recently I lived in Kent. I worked as a TA at one of the High schools for just over 1 academic year and in that time at least 2 pupils from Yr7 and Y8 transferred to Grammar. One was a boy who'd started with us 6 months previous with no English.

My children went to a mixture of schools and at one time we had 1 at private secondary, 2 at state grammar (1 of them with SEN) and 1 at state high school. With the grammar system we didn't need to live next door to get a place. Where I live now the local comprehensive is our catchment school. It looks like unless we are really lucky our youngest will end up there. You complain that your local high school gets 40% A-C. Well our supposedly wide-ability comp got 41% in 2012. In order to go to a decent comp (in this area at least) you need to have a huge bank balance and live in an expensive area. How is selection by bank balance or by postcode fairer than selection by ability?

My brother and my youngest son both coasted through secondary school. My brother was at a comprehensive so just got moved to lower and lower sets until he left school with no qualifications at all. DS was luckier and because he was at grammar they didn't let him coast, and he didn't move down.

I got 2 years at grammar before it was made comprehensive. I then got bullied so badly for being a 'swot' that I didn't do anywhere near as well as I'd been expected to. To fit in you had to dumb down. I've no doubt there are decent comprehensives somewhere but unfortunately I've never experienced one, either as a pupil or a parent.

I don't even know why I am posting as the opinions are so divided but, having experience of both the grammar school system in northern Ireland and the comprehensive system in Scotland- I can hand on heart say that the comprehensive system is a nonsense. Grammars are not perfect but forgetting all the pc reasons, they do offer so much more for bright children. Stop blaming grammars for secondaries failing.