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?

You are obviously the same 'era' as me, jabed, and interestingly you were affected by failure and being in the 'wrong' school for you-in the way that people are saying shouldn't matter

I think you are correct exoticfruits.The thing is in my old age I am now angry about it. I try to not to think too deeply about the experience because it makes me even more angry. It certainly is underpinning how I view my plans for my DS

*It's NOT different, though! It's purely that in an area that takes 23% of pupils, they have more Grammar school places. In an area that takes 5% of pupils, they have less Grammar school places.

You still either make the cut or don't*

I think you are quite right. There are three grammar schoos in my catchment - for they still work by catchment here. I know how they make their selection because I have been on the "inside". In the street this is not known. They are not "super selectives" but competition is still hot because the choice is the hell comp (several of them - they like to spread the problems around. At least in the old days you could get a half decent SM for those who " failed but were bright" in some places)

To make the cut:

a) first if a script is not completed ( all questions answered) it is discarded without marking. It wouldnt matter if every question were answered correctly and the candidate got twice as many right as any other applicant, it just isnt marked so they are not in the cut.

b) Marked scriptsare ordered according to scores and those who are in the top 20% make the first cut.

c) there are too many in this cut so it has to be narrowed down. This is done in a number of ways

the top 10% are always in regardless of any other factor. The problem is with the " mass" of scores around the cut point.

the school looks at
a) home background - declare you are a single parent and you are out unless there is a very good reason like income - top income!

b) If you are from a poorer area you discounted

c) special needs are discounted

d) social groupings are looked at

e) school reports are gathered.

Both b and c though may get " wild card " places because of "quotas" that they school has to accept to show diversity.

But largely this keeps the school middle income, middle social grouping and without "problems"

Thats how they make the "cut" May not be true of all schools but I know three who use it and several more who use something similar.Parents are not told of course. Its not public knowledge.

@seeker I would say 'because Fred has the sort of learning style and current level of attainment suited to school Y and you have the learning style and current level of attainment suited to school X. People aren't cybermen'. That is exactly what DS said to ME when telling me plainly he didn't even want to think about trying for Dd1's school. He assured me he knew he was just as bright as her but he also knew he was less hard working and he didn't want to squeeze 3 years work into 2 years and do his GCSEs when he was only just 14. If it makes sense to a bright 10 year old (as he was when the decision had to be made) why can't you grasp that? Different kids have different learning styles and different learning needs. Not better, not worse, just different.

Also, 23% of 30 != 10

This is where I agree with you jabed. It certainly underpinned my plans for my DCs-they were just different plans from yours-and as they are now out the other end -it worked. I know they would have worked in the private sector, but it would have cost a lot. I did it for free.

One thing is for sure-my DCs were not going through the 11+. The eldest I would have estimated to be border line but by the end of year7 was a definite pass. DS2 was a definite fail and DS3 was probably a fail.
When I just had the one in the 11+ area I was going to send him to private school-whether he passed or failed. I wasn't impressed with the pastoral care in the grammar school and the stories about the secondary modern were the 'over my dead body' type.

DS2 has done very well and I think that he will be the most successful in the end-if you rate it by earnings. He may have been in the lower sets but he has always had his friends from the higher sets and I don't see why this should be denied him. He left school at 16yrs but his girlfriend is just finishing a Science degree at a RG university-they are well matched. He is perfectly intelligent and can mix with anyone.

As I get old I am very angry about it. It doesn't come out in everyday life, I just don't think about it- but on threads like this I am extremely angry-especially when people blame my parents for making me feel a failure. They did everything to boost my confidence and they are responsible for me being where I am today. However much you are told you are not a failure you know that you are. What rankles more than anything is people expressing doubt and surprise when I was 12 years old that I might want to aim high in a career. Why on earth can't a secondary modern DC want to be a lawyer?

I still feel like this even though my secondary moderns were good. They did set. Sensibly those with SN stayed with one teacher for most of the time and he knew them well. We were not treated the same but we were under the same roof.

You say you were 'on the inside' of the admissions process Jabed - at all three schools?

What you've just described is entirely illegal and, if true, the HTs and governing bodies of all three schools should be sacked.

As I get old I am very angry about it. It doesn't come out in everyday life, I just don't think about it- but on threads like this I am extremely angry-especially when people blame my parents for making me feel a failure. They did everything to boost my confidence and they are responsible for me being where I am today. However much you are told you are not a failure you know that you are. What rankles more than anything is people expressing doubt and surprise when I was 12 years old that I might want to aim high in a career. Why on earth can't a secondary modern DC want to be a lawyer?

Absolutely how I feel and how I experienced it.

It was not my parents. They did everything they could for me. They tried to get me into grammar school at 13. I was "promised" I would have a place at 13 under the 13 + when pupils are moved if they have made progress.

When I was in year 2 ( thats 8) I was disabused of this by another pupil who was a year above me and was in the 13+ year group. She told me that the LEA had stopped the 13+ because there were no places in grammar school for those ( like me) who needed places. She pointed to a girl in her year who wanted a place in grammar school. She had been told she could not go, despite being good enough because for her to go, someone from grammar school had to be sent to our school - and that was not going to happen.

I dont know what happened exactly however, that girl did move ( parents moved I think to find her a decent school) .

I told my parents. They questioned the LEA who blatently lied. It came to pass there was no 13+ and I was stuck.

Still they said it was acceptable because I was doing OK wasnt I? I could take O levels ( even though the school didnt do them!). I was offered O level English Language and Maths at school but no teaching for them. I was told point blank by my teachers I wouldnt pass because the syllabus was different - so I took myself off to night school. ( Did the same at A level in the grammar school).

Despite knowing I had passed. Sespite knowing I was a top 1% my SM did everything to make sure I felt I could not "aspire to high" as this was not what "kids like me" ( in SM) did. I had the same feedback when I went to grammar school. I had not been there at 11, therefore I was a "failure" and would NOT be allowed to take the necessary A levels to get further than teacher training college! I did it, but I did it by going to night school again.

One thing I remember vividly which exemplified the difference between my SM ( where we were all "failures" but it was never said, expect in how you were encouraged to aspire) and the grammar school . I recall teachers frequently saying to upils " You are la creme de la creme" .... therefore you have to do xyz etc.

That phrase - " la creme de la creme" . They werent for the most part but they thought it didnt they?

I noticed in the grammar schoollocally something similar going on - there they now divide pupils according to the IB at Sixth form. Only the ( so called) " best" take IB. They even give those in IB a different uniform to denote the status!.

So it perpetuates. But as I said somewhere else, its becomes hard to fool bright kids all the time and uptake to the IB is dropping in the grammar school as the "best" realise A level will get them there and is less of a risk.

Thats my rant for the day. :)

You say you were 'on the inside' of the admissions process Jabed - at all three schools?

Yes, at different times ofcourse, not simultaneously.

What you've just described is entirely illegal and, if true, the HTs and governing bodies of all three schools should be sacked

No its not. It comes under the criteria of "selecting children who would benefit form a grammar school education" when we have to decide who will go where because there are more applicants than places.

The official position is quite different to what is actually done, Thats all I am saying. I know what goes through the minds of those making the decisions because I have been there. Live with it. Get real. How else do you think its done? You may not like it but its been going on like that for donkeys years.

It sounds grim for you jabed. And to add, my mum ( who passed11+ and went to a grammar in 'the old days') felt stupid for years because she was at the bottom of the grammar- despite being in the top 20% ish!
I do want to reiterate, that ime, movement between sets is vanishingly small. Particularly in something like maths, the gap just gets too big to cross. And does anyone know why our local comp ( in Kent) streams, rather than sets, off the back of cat tests?

Well that's another issue. Did I do so very very well in life. income career etc because I was the best in my class at school, most girls did not go to university and I got the best A levels in the school. In fact so good did I think I was that I wrote to universities asking if they had scholarship exams and I arranged for my school to let me sick 9 hours of papers (I got one). Did my daughters at some of the most academic fee paying schools in the land feel less bright because they were with children some of whom were even brighter? Is it best to be best of people who are not that good for your self confidence or in the bottom third of a group who are very clever?

I suppose I decided the latter because of where I sent my children and they have done pretty well but it is by no means certain and may depend on the child.

Most of the country has no grammars at all so this thread is not really an issue which affects them at all. 4% of children in the UK are in grammar schools.

I think it all starts way before the 11+

30 kids enter reception at 4/5, some go to the library every week, museums blah blah, some have two books at home, some have one or two parents comatose from alchol/substance abuse.

One teacher, part time TA.

There is NO WAY those 30 kids reach Yr6 with the school having ironed out the differences and giving them all a fair crack of the 11+ whip.

Until you sort out the social, the rest is fluff and flim flam.

And even they all enter comprehensive school together, all 30, the gap is so entrenched the opportunities for mobility, other than the most marginal, are fantasy.

Xenia DD3 and I had that conversation last week and we both agreed that we'd far rather be small fish in a big pond because of the people we're with. But as you say, it depends on the individual concerned.

Jabed it's wrong to scaremonger with what purports to be 'insider' information. I am completely for real and I don't need to 'live with it' because it's just not how it works. Any school making decisions on that basis is acting unreasonably and therefore illegally. What was your role at each of the three? Were you were on the governing body of each school in turn and seconded onto the admissions team at each? And then turned a blind eye? Wow.

4% of children in the UK are in grammar schools.

I didn't realise it was quite so low.

I think that my experience was similar jabed. I failed, my primary Head got me a resit- but that was for very few places and a lot of us. I took it again at 12 and there were again a lot of us for 2 places and I was 4th.

Yt, I think it depends on the pond. If the pond is a school where you are a big fish but no one works and that holds you back and you cannot concentrate in class and are given lower tier GCES options or cookery GCSE only then yes it will hold you back. If it is a decent school where that is no so and you are one of the best then it will not matter and indeed might help you feel good about yourself. On the other hand plenty of teenagers are pretty lazy and will try to get away with as little as the worst person in the class does. If the whole class is very bright and going to the top universities it is less likely your average lazy teenager will not do any work.

The Jabed critera seems exactly how many many schools with selection works and could be on the whole a very good set of tests. The top 10% get in. That's fine, all the private schools are the same. Then the private schools rely on a head report too and an interview in case this child is a nightmare and stops others learning, kicks the teachers and is terrible to have around. I don't see why for marginal cases those soft factors should not be used. We all know state RC schools were told off for doing interviews and looking at these types of issues but they can be good tests to determine if that child would be a useful addition to a school. I don't think the jabed criteria are too bad for the very few areas of the country with state grammars.

It doesn't surprise me at all jabed.My brother got a place at 12 and I think that it was because he got an interview-the girl's school didn't interview and I bet I would have got the place if they had because the 2 who beat me left after O'levels.
Education is unfair-whatever the system-up to now-it is time for change.

The 4% is in the latest Sutton report. Huge areas of the country lost all grammar schools decades ago. years ago in about 1970 the North East did for example. I don't think Wales has them. Off the top of my head I think most of Kent and Bucks and I think some bit of South London. Herts has none - watford grammar is comprehensive.

The Jabed criteria may be suitable for a private school because of the business element which the SLT has to factor in (likelihood of fees being paid, parental preferences for a 'nice peer group' for DC etc).

It is totally and utterly unacceptable for a state grammar and it doesn't work like that with a HT and governing body of integrity. It is definitely an illegal exercise of discretion and Jabed, if he was in an insider position, would have had a duty to blow the whistle.

The GS which my Dd1 and Yellow's DCs attend selects as follows - there is a test (actually, 3 tests, English, Maths and VR). The marks achieved are ranked. The top 120 get offered a place. The tie breaker for the last place is distance from the school (this could be a license to buy a place but youd be taking a huge gamble that your child would be tying for the 120th place. The state options that you would be left with would be not good, and if you wanted to go private the better posh schools are some distance away. There are no interviews. They do not ask for any information about parents. I suspect few if any of the teachers at the school who have to do with DD1 know much about her parents' careers or educational backgrounds.

jabed- you aren't, presumably, talking about a state school in the United Kingdom today? Because if you are, then those admissions criteria are absolutely illegal. Apart from being bonkers and unfair- starting with the having to answer every question bit.

ed it's wrong to scaremonger with what purports to be 'insider' information. I am completely for real and I don't need to 'live with it' because it's just not how it works. Any school making decisions on that basis is acting unreasonably and therefore illegally. What was your role at each of the three? Were you were on the governing body of each school in turn and seconded onto the admissions team at each? And then turned a blind eye? Wow.

I am not scaremongering. Its what happens.

Look its like this (lets use some simple figures).

The grammar school has 100 places to allocate in a year.

Those who want the places ( or everyone in a truly selective system) sit an exam . The exam is designed to select out those who come top ( which in the test used is a reflection of percentlie ability - or if you prefer an IQ test by any other name)

The scripts are marked.

As in any exam scores are given and the data is ordinal ( can be put into rank order).

However, a lot of the places are tied in ranks ( ie the candidates all got the same score.

At the top end of the list this doesnt matter as the highest scores get in anyway - they are above the 100 in place order.

At the bottom frequently there are 25 candidates all of whom have scored the same marks but there are only 10 places left in the school.

How then do you think those 10 are being selected for places? By lottery?

Yes, you can say its by interview, or by some other test they complete or references or whatever the system. You can tell the kids and parents they failed to get the mark ( usually two marks below the entry set level).

You can tell them there were six places and they came in seventh - so no place!

But in the real world what you have is a bunch of kids who all got the same and only a limited number of places - so some have to be told they " failed".

Where do you live, jabed?

Yellowtip - I personally think the selection system was pretty fair. You have to select pupils from a mass who are "equal" by some means. Just like in a job really. Why blow a whistle because you dont like it and think its not acceptable (or legal). It was legal as far as I am aware.

I work in an idependent myself and we do things very differently in fact but we have the flexibility to remove any pupils who cause problems anyway.

Jabed, as you are quite, ahem, old, can I suggest your experience might conceivably have been true in some grammar schools say 30 years ago but are, as Yellowtip and others have stated, absolutely illegal now and bear no relationship to the current situation now.

When I applied for grammar school in the early 80s, I did have an interview, and parents' jobs etc etc were i'm sure all on the forms. These days, schools have none of that info - they have no way of knowing, for example, if you are a single parent or not. It is certinly not the case that those who fail to finish the paper are automatically discounted - my dd failed to finish the paper as she didn't see any of the questions on the back page! but still got through. Your experience, if not complete fantasy, is so outdated as to be entirely irrelevant nowadays so can, I think, be ignored.

Likewise, all SMs, comps and grammars these days sit GCSEs, so the idea that pupils at SMs or comps are disadvantaged by not being allowed to do GCSEs no longer applies. The nearest to it is that some schools do 2 rather than 3 sciences.

seeker - you have not answered my points at all. You claim repeatedly that children who fail at 10 or 11 are inevitably labelled as or see themselves as failures. Yet apparently kids who fail GCSEs or are bad at sports or put in the lower sets at comps do not see themselves and are not labelled as failures.

There is no logic in this position.

The reality is that none of these kids are failures or should label themselves as such. We all have different abilities and all of us will fail something at some point. Learning to deal with failure whilst not labelling yourself a failure is one of the most useful things an education can teach a child. Thanks to beimg a swot i didn't reach that realisation until university level - having understood my limitations as well as my strengths at a much younger age would have been massively beneficial for me, actually.