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?

seeker - yes they are state grammar schools not far from me. All approximate the same strategy.

There are far more applicants that places (they are not "super selectives" though).

There have to be ways of deciding between equally placed candidates.

The school often has 30 places and 50 or more who are tied rank. 20 have to be disappointed. If we used just nearness to school some pupils would have no chance of getting in as the catchment is wide.

It seemed fairest to select on the basis of who would benefit - and we know from research who might benefit. It isnt done on postcode. It isnt means tested. It isnt doen by siblings ( although sometimes siblings will be a factor taken account of). At the end of the day its about who of the 50 will get those 30 places. They are all equal, we have to decide who will be most successful in the school.

But jabed- that is actually not allowed! What grammar schools do is allocate by proximity.

Breadqndbutterfly- I'm sorry, I thought I had.

The whole point of a comprehensive school is that movement between the sets is possible. If the higher sets are in a separate school, then there is no possibility of movement.

And, forgive me, but have you any experience of the sort of selection at 10 that I am talking about? Of course children shouldn't be disappointed or upset or feel as if they've failed if they don't make the cut- and of course nobody should ever mention it- school allocation should be completely secret, and nobody should know where anyone is going til they turn up in September. And of course no child or parent should be at all disappointed that they are going to the grammar school. And of course there should never be anything in the news or in the papers that suggests that the grammar option is the better one. But the real world isn't like that!

sorry seeker, not where I live. I am not going to tell you. Suffice to say I think you are looking to srirr a big spoon.

Suffice to say its one of those areas where grammar schools still exist.

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

I pointed that out two pages ago. Its one of the reasons schools matter little except in ethos.

What on earth do you mean by stirring? You are saying something which everybody's telling you is illegal. And you won't elaborate.

And that's my point, jabed. What matters when chosing a school, especially for a bright DC who has missed out on a Grammar school place, or a DC with SN's, is ethos. If all schools were legislated to have the same ethos, the same expectations of behaviour, and the ability to remove disruptive DC from the classroom (Don't know how my DD's Secondary does it other than the fact that the PRU is literally 5 minutes away, but they DO, 4 DC have gone from DD's year alone in the last 3 years.)

DD's school has an 'escalation' system of punishments, and an 'escalating' system of rewards, they do a lot to promote cohesiveness as a school, their forms are mixed ability but everything except PSHE is setted. Rudeness, swearing, short skirts, makeup, disruptive behaviour, unnatural hair colours and many more things will result in 1) An internal exclusion for a day. 2) An internal exclusion for a week. 3) An external exclusion for a week. 4) A 'managed move' to the PRU.

And ALL the DC there know this. There was^ incident whereby the procedures were circumvented, going straight to 'managed move to PRU', because of the seriousness of the incident. They all have to wear their blazers and tie, stand when teachers enter the class, not sit down until told, not remove blazers unless told.

The ETHOS of the school is what makesat school compared to the others in my town, who seem to be unable to properly discipline wayward pupils, or have set expectations of the DC that they are expected to follow.

DD's school also has a series of rewards that reward things like most progress made in a subject in that year group, Academic excellence, Sporting Excellence, Technological excellence, Most effort made etc. They earn a sticker that when they get a certain amount, it affords them certain privilidges (I know that's spelt wrong!) like being allowed to personalise the home screen of their VLE page with a picture of their choice (but one that they can download at school, through the school filters!).

It WORKS.

The ETHOS of the school is what makes that school a much better school compared to the others in my town, who seem to be unable to properly discipline wayward pupils, or have set expectations of the DC that they are expected to follow.

Goodness knows what happened to the bits I missed!

I'm sure it's just an accident. But several poster in this thread are consistently making posts which suggest that young people with SNs will not be at Grammar Schools. This is a fallacy. While the government's new way of 'measuring' SNs means that in future fewer people at Grammar School will be in the stats as having SNs (because you now 'cannot be' dyslexic if you are getting level 4s at KS2, for example - despite any expert diagnoses you may have regarding your condition) - this does not mean that young people with SEN issues will not be at Grammar Schools, merely that they will not be counted in the stats. There are many SEN conditions which might ordinarily preclude young people from being able to access or benefit from a GS education - but there are many SEN conditions which do no such thing.

"I don't think that anyone would be supporting the system if they knew in advance that their DC would miss a place by 5 marks or less."

Do you support a system whereby your child could miss out by living 5cm further away than another?

But these are the real problems arent they? No matter what system you have you have at some point to make decisions about who is refused a place

Good schools never have enough places. Poor ones are under subscribed. But that is the situation.

It strikes me reading through this thread that there are still many myths going around about " giving working class / poor children a chance under the old grammar system". I am fairly sure the research in the 1960's showed that the intelligent working class children allocated grammar school places were even then few and far between. Yes a few children from the newly emerging post war council estates did get into grammar school in the very early years but then it tailed off as the system established. Also many of those "working class" children were in fact hiding middle class roots as I recall from the research of the day. I cannot recall names now but it was obligatory reading in one of my A levels in 1972. - Carter "Home School and Work? Holt "Home and School"? something like that. There were quite a few in fact.

In the 1990's studies were re done and the same distribution of results came out but middle class ownership of education was more pronounced.

The reality was/ is that social class plays a part far earlier than 11.

What on earth do you mean by stirring? You are saying something which everybody's telling you is illegal. And you won't elaborate

I am not going to give anyone the opportunity to cause trouble for those schools I have been associated with. Why else do you want details?

How they operate is their affair not yours. As you said, this is a theoretical debate anyway.

If the schools are state schools, how they operate is not 'their affair'. It affects every child who falls within their catchment area.

Jabed I'm curious as to why you would shift around the leadership teams of three schools of the same type in the same area in the first place. It sounds very unusual.

You can't seriously believe that excluding children of single parent families on that basis alone is acceptable, even if you delude yourself that it's legal.

Mind you, if these schools select, illegally, on the basis you state, then my guess is that all three schools must be bottom feeders in the grammar school stakes, because they are clearly all suffering from a woeful lack of vision and leadership. I'd run a mile - they sound dreadful.

And as for independents: most just take whoever rolls up and pays the fees, with a few big name exceptions. They might puff out their chests and pretend their exams are tough, but you have to be pretty gullible if you don't get that it's mostly for show. All they really want or need is a P60 or bank statement.

Those criteria are the sensible ones just about any decent school in the land would operate surely? Thank goodeness I pay fees to allow common sense to prevail. Top 10% get in and those borderline you then assess in various ways such as school's report, interview. That is the system most people would expect.

Xenia if your DC weren't clear winners (and you said upthread that they might not have been towards the top end of the ability range at their respective schools) then they would be ruled out ab initio on the grounds that you're a single mother.

So "any decent school in the land" would automatically select out children from single parent families, and children who live in poor areas?

What the actual fuck?

I saw that but it did say single mothers on average incomes, not ones like I am. The point is there is masses of luck in all school entrance and you just have to live with not getting in to certain schools. It isn't a huge deal. Yes, I said the chidlren had varied although if you are in top 20 school and don't do a huge lot of work and are in the middle not the top I suspect you're doing pretty well. One was int he 5th of 5 sets at haberdashers for maths and still got an A so I suppose it's all relative.

Schools have to come up with pragmatic ways to ensure they get the best children and a rough and ready tool is not wrong in that process. IOt is like an employer with 1000 CVs using the blunt instrument of needing a 2/1 from a good university - that will of course discount a fair few really good people but you have so many to look at you need some cut offs.

Hardly any areas have grammar schools at all so it's a bit of a none issue for most people.

Actually Xenia you might squeak in on income grounds, I forgot the caveat.

I repeat "So "any decent school in the land" would automatically select out children from single parent families, and children who live in poor areas?" is that what you are saying?

Cross-post :)

Oh , so many assumptions and so incorrectyellowtip.if you only knew eh? You dont get me that way!

Not bottom feeders though I assure you.

What my personal views are do not matter.

jabed- you refuse to say when you saw this happening, but i repeat my assumption this is not happening now nor in the last 2 decades, as it is completely (a) illegal and (b) impossible as schools simply do not have this information to make the judgements based on single parents etc etc that you claim they have. So you are either talking about the long-distant past, or lying.

seeker - "have you any experience of the sort of selection at 10 that I am talking about?" - yes, I, my dd, my mother, my uncle, my parents in law and my dh have all been through the 11+. so I think I have some experience, over a fairly long time period and over a fairly wide geographical area, to base my opinions on.

breadand butterfly. I was not associated with those schools until after I retired. I retired four years ago. Draw your own assumptions. It remains the same criteria today.

I thought your dd was at a supereselective?

Anyway, are you saying that in your experience, children would be completely unaffected by the circumstances I am describing? That twins would be completely fine if one "passed" and the other didn't?

And, crucially, is your experience propel who "made the cut?"