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?

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

Tell that to Mr. Gove who wants to take the examination system back 30 years!

However, the verbal reasoning paper does tend to favour children from "bookish" homes.

I was educated over 30 years ago too-in a Comp. Not really another world away. And I think it is relevant to the debate-many people on the thread are referring to their own experiences which will form part of their views on the subject. I was just wondering what type of school you attended-I don't see that it's irrelevant. I'm assuming from your response that it wasn't a Comp though....

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 have already admitted this. I am oposed to inclusion policies if they are going to adversely affect my DS (been here already in a school).
If you do not look after yourself and your own, no one else will. I am pretty sure my DS would pass the 11+ - his ability being similar to my DW ( who is super) and myself and he would not be on the borderline.

However, there is no advantage in having a grammar school education these days. I believe the research shows that there are no differences in educational outcomes between comprehensives and grammar school pupils when all is matched for ability and social class etc. ( I didnt read the report only the abstract a few weeks ago) . Since all pupils now take GCSE, top ability pupils do well anywhere anyway, grammar schools have no real purpose as far as I can see. The big differences lie between state sector and independent sector education now - and that is where decisions have to be made.

I think that is part of the problem. People are assuming that things have not changed since they were at school. And they have. I was HEed, by the way.

It probably favours children who read. That doesn't mean their home has to be 'bookish'.

Sorry. A home with books.

Well we are a bookish home but our DS (who did pass and get into a super-selective) is decidedly unbookish....(much to our chagrin) and practising VR with him took some effort .

Still don't see how any of the grammar schools could operate in the way Jabed described, as they have to be open and honest about marks after Offer Day....

And for a lot of the grammar schools (well in our neck of the woods anyway) children are not just entered per se, but parents have to apply on their behalf. If that is the case is it not also likely that any parent who would wish their child to go to a grammar school would have children who would turn up, behave and achieve, regardless of their postcode?

Surely any experienced parent can see exactly how things have changed?

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

I resent that yellowtip. You do not call people liars without proper proof and you have none except your own experience of your own places.

Until you commented I was not aware that the schools I knew had done anything wrong ( I still do not know). I do not personally morally or any other way find it reprehensible or wrong. I certainly am not going to play whistle blower for you! I do know what I said was accurate about the criteria they use and the system in place. I am not saying more now because I am not getting them into any trouble or even potential issues over the methods. Its what they do in my area. Thats that.

YT - surely a child's chance of being keen on reading is at least a tiny bit more likely if their household is 'bookish'?

I was educated nearly 20 years ago in a comprehensive school which has now been through special measures - it should have been then, but wasn't, as Ofsted only came into being when I was about year 11. It's part of what makes me aware of how much things have changed - that school is now not allowed to get away with being as dire as it was when I was there.

Had I not looked at any schools since, and based my ideas about my children's education on what I had and extrapolated from my comprehensive school that a) all comprehensives were the same or b) all comprehensives are the same now as in 1996, I'd probably have been searching like a maniac for a grammar area or a bursary somewhere!

"Until you commented I was not aware that the schools I knew had done anything wrong ( I still do not know). I do not personally morally or any other way find it reprehensible or wrong. I certainly am not going to play whistle blower for you! I do know what I said was accurate about the criteria they use and the system in place. I am not saying more now because I am not getting them into any trouble or even potential issues over the methods. Its what they do in my area. Thats that."

So no issue at all with selecting out the children of single parents? I can't begin to understand why, if this is true, you're not whistle blowing.

It wasn't me who used the word lie Jabed, someone else got there first. I'm not generalising from my own experience I'm merely stating the law. If your three schools operate as you say then those in charge are breaking the law. That might be a worse option than a few posters here implying or questioning your facts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the three schools are applying the law as they should.

Let's hope you and your DSs mum don't divorce before he's 10 then Jabed. Would you whistle blow then? :)

No you used the word " falsehood"- in the OED that is another word for lies. Check and see. Dont try to be mealy mouthed.

Some people may be assuming that things haven't changed since they were at school, but that would be pretty stupid and I think that would be to underestimate the people who are engaging in this debate.

I think there are certain broad questions that are as relevant now as they were 30 years ago, and which I think still haven't been fully solved. Hence, if you believe global league tables, the UK is going backwards in terms of how successfully we educate our children.

Loads of the better schools break the rules. It's been all over the press in all sorts of areas and they interview and do things they are not meant to to ensure they get children in there who will benefit the school and other pupils and I do not really see what is wrong with that.

They should interview the children too (may be they do) to see if they will fit in as well. IN fact some of the criteria now are in a sense perverse eg if the child is in care it is more likely to get in (yet we all know that that probably means a less useful child to have in the class). The sttae system is so silly it's not surprisingly so many mother choose to pay school fees to avoid it.

Jabed I said I wasn't the first poster on this thread to use either the word 'lie' or a synonym for it. My english is poor when I'm on MN but I don't need to go to the OED to look up the meaning of words that I've used.

You have at least now explained that you didn't know that what the schools were doing was wrong. I can't quite see how anyone in a position of authority wouldn't have thought should we really weed out the children of single parents on that ground alone?And what's the national statistic now for divorce? But still.

Yellowtip,my DS will not be attending any grammar school. I thought I had made that quite clear? I do not think grammar schools ( any more than comprehensives) offer an educational experience or skill set suitable for the modern competitive world. I want my DS to have an edge.

Whether or not I remain married - and I love my DW and see no reason for us to be separating at any time, I am still my DS's father and I will provide for his needs financially , including school fees.

Hope that fully answers your question, which I think is impertenant and to be honest only one a woman could get away with. I am too gentlemanly to call you what you should be called here for that piece of nastiness. My family have nothing to do with this grammar school debate.

I missed the bit about you going independent with your DS. Since you tell us you endorsed a manifestly discriminatory policy which will have affected prospective single parents at those three schools, it was entirely fair - and not 'nasty' - to ask you whether you would complain about the policy if you youself were ever to be in that frame. The question is hardly likely to affect the stability of your marriage!

The national statistics for divorce - now there is an interesting set of numbers for interpretation. It seems anywhere between 40% and 60% of marriages end in divorce depending one who is asked. I think officially its around the 40% . However, at the same time 66% of those who marry remain married for life.

Go figure that. Interpretation would suggest that 2/3 of men and women marry and are life long partners whilst the remaining 1/3 are serially monogomous and make up that high divorce figure.

That coupled with the fact that most marriages end within 7 years and I have been with my DW some 30 + years now I would say we have every chance of making it "till death us do part"

I would add that it's a bit impertinent to damn all the schools in the state sector who are doing a fine job of preparing DC for the modern competitive world. The state sector in my area is far superior to the independent as it presumably is in other areas too. I'd choose it for that reason even if it weren't my only option, which it is.

On the contrary yellowtip I do not think the policy I endorsed was discriminatory in an illegal way All policies to an extent have discrimination in them - in order to offer equal chances to those who might best be served by it. I thought it was clearly one of equality and recognised diversity and wasfair. I still think its fair. It you who seems to think it was illegal. It is you who has issues with it.

It's also pretty bloody impertinentnto say you support an admissions policy that selects out children from disadvantaged areas and from single parent households.

Again, only your opinion on state schools yellowtip . Where is your evidence that idependents are inferior?