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?

"People who made the cut"- that should read

Even stranger then Jabed. You've been officially involved with admissions at three top performing grammars in a small area within the space of the past four years. You can't even be a SIP in that case. Very strange. Indeed.

The only school I can think of who might be possibly able to do any social engineering like this is Thomas Telford, but that's not a grammar school.

You have still not answered my point, seeker, why it is unacceptable for kids to experience this particular kind of 'failure' (your word) at 11 but absolutely fine for them to fail SATs, GCSEs, or fail in any of the other numerous tests/competitions that kids take part in at school and beyond.

Kids are not as stupid as you think - they know that this is one exam only and that failing one exam does not mean they are destined to fail every test or competition. As I said, my dd's best friend 'failed' her 11+ but is much HAPPIER at her comp - she likes being 'top' of stuff for the first time in her life, in her slightly shallower pool. It's done wonders for her confidence. At a grammar, had she scraped in (she was a long way off, despite being at the bottom of the top group at primary school) she would have spent her secondary years in bottom groups feeling like she was a failure.

Not all kids benefit from grammar school type education or having the brightest kids in the same school - for many kids, their confidence is better served by being in the top group of a secondary modern than the bottom group of a grammar.

Well,partly because they are 10!

And also because it is one of the few exams you can't have another go at. Because it's the only exam that total strangers can tell from your uniform that you've passed. Because it's the only exam that says "you're not as clever as that person " rather than "you didn't do as much work as that person". I could go on....

Someone coming from a poor area might come from a better family than someone living in a more affluent area ....particularly in London.

We are an educated family but we live in a 'poor area' - we do not reflect the average demographic for our postcode - and there are other families in a similar situation to us.

Of DS's classmates who got places at selective schools, four have more desirable postcodes but of the six only three of the families own their own homes (and we are one of those); the others rent privately. But the families with the best educated parents live in the 'undesirable' area - go figure!

seeker, my dd is at a semi-selective, as discussed on another thread. We are not in a grammar-school area like Kent, but a 'mixed' area with a range of comps (good and bad), semi-selectives and super-selectives. My family's experience obviously includes areas with the grammar school/SM system, because that's what there was across the UK when my dm/PIL/uncle were at school.

Re siblings who failed, my MIL got into grammar whereas her sister, who was v close in age, failed. The sister was also v bright and did well, but chose a v different life - MIL went on to do a PhD whereas sister married at 19 and became a mum. Neither would regard the sister as a 'failure'. In many ways, she's had a much happier and more fulfilled life. To regard passing the 11+ as some sort of bridge to eternal joy or failing it as descent into eternal tragedy is somewhat silly, seeker, can you not see that?

I will not be drawn yellowtip - sorry.

seeker - "Well,partly because they are 10!

And also because it is one of the few exams you can't have another go at. Because it's the only exam that total strangers can tell from your uniform that you've passed. Because it's the only exam that says "you're not as clever as that person " rather than "you didn't do as much work as that person". I could go on.... "

But it's not the only test you do when you're at primary school - 10 or younger. SATs (done at 6 and 11), the new phonics test done in year 1 which is pass/fail, plus numerous other tests and competitions. My kids have done numerous music and swimming tests, for examples, and certainly not passed all. They get used to it.

Plus it need not be a one-off pass/fail. In my area, every school sets its own test, so many children sit 5 or 6 tests. (More if they are applying privately.) These tests are not all identical - some tests only VR or VR and Maths or NVR and V or English and Maths etc etc - so children who fail one might do very well in another.

Re strangers judging, as stated repeatedly, the only person making those judgements is you. I am certainly not familiar with most school uniforms and have no idea what school kids go to by their uniform. And if I do know, I am not that narrow-minded!

jabed, if what you say is true, you must surely be aware that what you are doing is highly illegal and that you have a moral and legal duty to report this.

I would be horrified if I knew of any school applying those sorts of admissions criteria.

Edit: any STATE school - obviously, private schools can do what they like.

@bread I really wouldn't worry.

Of course it's not the only test you do at primary school. But it's the only one which actually has a direct impact on your future! Yes of course they fail music exams and so on- but once again, that does not have direct impact on their future.

In this area it is a one off pass or fail. And there are only two schools, so it is obvious.

Frankly I think you must be being disingenuous. How can it not have an impact on a child to sit a test at 10 which basically says "you are officially not as clever as the child you are sitting next to?" or "You are officially cleverer than the person you are sitting next to.

I notice that you haven't said whether any of your vast experience includes anyone who didn't make the cut.

It is no wonder social mobility is on the decline if these practices do indeed continue to this day. I have heard that public schools employ such social engineering practices but it's quite outrageous to think that this type of illegal activity might be rife these days in the state sector.

We are not well-off, granted, but we are most certainly highly educated and the thought that any grammar schools might consider our DCs not worthy (fortunately that hasn't proven to bet the case with DS) of a place on a cursory glance at our postcode is absolutely outrageous.

GRRRRRRR!

Seeker, out of interest were you educated at a Comp?

The whole point is that it is ridiculous to make any sort of judgement about education today based on education 20 years ago. Or in m case 30+ years ago.

To clarify ( as we started off referencing Kent), in Kent what jabed suggests absolutely does not happen has schools do not receive the scripts, only the scores. Our super selectives operate as metabalis has described, and the pass/ fail grammars take on catchment or distance if you pass.

I imagine seeker is in a more rural part of Kent than me, as here we have superselecive, selective, high school, and technically comprehensive in the neighbouring area ( still within Kent! It's v v complicated here!).

However the comp streams or the first 2 years, from cats, which I think rather defeats the purpose. It does seem like a v good school though.

In fact, here, you could get into a grammar and still feel a failure because it wasn't superselecive!

It will go on all over the place because schools want chidlren who turn up and have engaged parents. If the child has a posh accent or high income etc etc then you can reduce teh chances the child will not turn up much at school and not work very hard. Most parents want their children educated with those who are engaged and I suspect woudl very much support state schools who seek to weed out those who would damage the education of the rest of the children.

It can't go on all over the place because admissions are handled by the LEA, not by individual schools.

"It will go on all over the place because schools want chidlren who turn up and have engaged parents. If the child has a posh accent or high income etc etc then you can reduce teh chances the child will not turn up much at school and not work very hard. Most parents want their children educated with those who are engaged and I suspect woudl very much support state schools who seek to weed out those who would damage the education of the rest of the children."

Which is why people refuse to be honest, or even have a proper debate about grammar schools. Because if they were honest, the majority of grammar school supporters would say that they are pretty sure their child will pass the 11+ and they actually don't give a flying fuck what happens to the rest. Because they espouse the "look after Number One" philosphy.

I think that's a touch presumptive Seeker. Sorry, not sure if you saw my question-did you go to a Comp?

Some Catholic schools were in trouble over similar criteria so I imagine it's pretty widespread. I think there was publicity about Jewish schools doing it too. It's just common sense that you want the easiest and most likely to achieve and come to school children in your school who will not disrupt others. Those who will disrupt others should be in their own schools.

There is nothing wrong with a parent wanting the best education for their child. That is a moral good not a moral wrong.

I did see the question. I was educated over 30 years ago-another world! So not particularly relevant to the debate.

gazzalw: honestly, take Jabed with a pinch of salt. It's MN at its worst, where falsehoods are repeated and then taken as fact. It doesn't happen.

In fact our grammar is so objective in its ranking of places that the English paper (where there might be scope to seek out middle-classness with questions such as 'Describe Your Family Holiday'), that it doesn't count in the process, except that a pass is required. The VR and Maths papers are then combined to give a rank. End of.