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?

Belay answering the last question. This isnt about independents. Its about grammar schools and its state alternatives. Lets not get off the topic shall we?

Over to you seeker!

It also discriminated against people of the majority ethnicity in fabour of those from minorities - I suppose that was OK though? All policies have discrimination in them. I did point out that there were quota systems already in place for affirmative action on those who came from socially deprived backgrounds. The policy is there to be fair to all candidates. It only plays on the bottom 10% anyway - the borderline. I cant see a problem

No- I'm off applying my Miss Marple brain to working out what area we're talking about so I can blow the whistle on them!

How come you're involved with grammar schools and yet you're planning to send your child to a private school? That sounds like a vote of no-confidence Jabed!

Blast, didn't log off fast enough.

There are some fabulous schools in the independent sector: in theory (leaving aside the small question of ability and entrance tests) I'd love my DC to have had an education at Westminster or Habs/ SPGS or at any of a number of the North London schools. I think.

I'm stating the limited fact that the independent sector in this area is outperformed by the state sector and that the extra curriculars offered are certainly no better either. That's not a global comment (unlike yours :)).

How come you're involved with grammar schools and yet you're planning to send your child to a private school? That sounds like a vote of no-confidence Jabed!

I have absolutely no confidence in the state system at all when it comes to my own DS. I had a particular experience last year which led me to favour independent education for my DS.

It has always been clear to me that the selection process-however it works-isn't going to be fair.
It works wonderfully as a rough test and finding the top 10% is no problem-they shine through, equally the one who do very badly in tests are easily defined as a group. You are then left with the bulk in the middle and they have to be sorted out in relation to the number of places available. You will get to the stage where you have, for example, 10 places left and could have 20 children with exactly the same mark-they have to be whittled down in some way and yet there is virtually no difference. One then gets all the advantages and one doesn't.

I am however immensely cheered by the fact that only 4% go to grammar schools.

I can see that you have no confidence in grammar schools-just because they cherry pick their pupils and get good results doesn't make them good schools!

Perhaps I should say I'd have been very happy for mine to have had the education that those schools provide but would still, if I had a choice, choose the school that they actually attended.

Jabed - the policies you state are simply illegal in the sector sector - I was the one who called you a liar, and the more wild your claims get the more likely I think this to be. Nothing in your posts suggests why you would have been in the position you claim to have been in 3 separate grammar schools over a period of 4 years. Grammar schools have plenty of their own staff. They don't need to bring in random retired ex-academics to sort out their admissions, whilst breaking the law, at the same time.

If 1 grammar acted as you claim that would be astonishing and would make national headlines if true. To suggest that 3 in 1 area all operate these discriminatory policies is so unlikely as to be ridiculous.

@ seeker -

"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. "

seeker - please bother to read my posts, rather than repeating the same guff. I stated clearly that in my area children get to sit as many as 5 or 6 (or more if independent schools are included too) different exams, testing different strengths, so they have many shots at passing the exam. It is not a simple one strike and you're out. Plus there are more than 2 schools.

I also gave a number of examples of people i know personally who failed the 11+ but were either not affected by it or were affected positively. Why d you persist in your narrative that failing the 11+ = failure in life???

It's just 1 exam. We all fail some stuff. The issue isn't that some kids are labelled failures. The issue is that some schools are crap. We should be focussing on raising standards at all schools across the board - going to a S or comp shouldn't be or shouldn't be seen to be a worse option, just a different one.

Yellowtip, like you I would have chosen grammars for my kids over any private school - something I feel v strongly. dd's best friend is at Habs - am v relieved dd is not. I would hate her to go private; the values she would pick up about buying privilege are the opposite of the values I would wish her to have.

I mentioned at least 3 types of schools which had had similar issues and investigations. I had the impression admissions had been riddled with these very sensible practices which may not strictly follow the rules but benefit most parents all round and we all ought to endorse. Interviews allows you to see the child, hear how bright it seems, ask questions. Seems very wise.

I just now checked the Oratory and they give priority to children in care...sigh. If schools are going to give priority to children with lots of problems you will just get a flight of parents away from those to fee paying schools or other schools who select by houseprice because only those a few yards from the school in houses costing £600k can get in.

Also by the way parents in the private sector don't choose the school nless they have a child who passes to 4 or something. In most cases there are many applicants per place and most don't get in. If a school always has places and takes all comers in the private sector it means it's no good.

I think that a civilized society ought to give first choice to children in care-they are looked after by the state, get a rough deal, do very badly in education and certainly deserve the best-certainly before those who have 2 parents and a loving home life.
How terrible to say to a poor child who has been sent from pillar to post, with no love, -'we don't want your problems because 'decent' parents won't use the school!!!

Every independent school with charitable status ought to take some of these children -or lose their status.

Unless maybe are independent grammars and used their own selection criteria?

That sort of information (lone parent etc) does not get submitted on application forms for state grammars. The idea too that this is some sort of secret that the governors, teachers and admissions are party to but somehow no one has clocked it is not feasible. Schools have to state their admissions criteria which is examined not only by the LEA but also by the DFES, something I know a little about.

LEAs administer state grammar admissions and schools have no input to ensure complete parity and fairness. The criteria is simply a mathematical one.

There are state schools that make prospective pupils sit a cognitive ability test and places are allocated in a proportion that reflects the national ability range but by it's nature it weeds out the parents who couldn't give a toss.

breadandbutterfly. I did not say I worked in any of the schools. In fact I did not. I was made familiar with their policies. I was not " random" academic staff. I will not add to that lest it identify me the LA or the schools concerned. We already have Miss seeker Marple on the case. I dont Butterfly Poirot as well.

Something only makes headlines when found out. No more to be said. You will not find out from me.

@jabed the evidence that the independents where we live are inferior to the GS can be found in the league tables. HTH

There are plenty of areas of the country (usually those with not much money areound and low populations) where the private schools are pretty useless and the state schools are better. That is not true of the SE but you certainly need to check.

I like the FT tables best as they weed out subjects like A level needlework and they look at 5 year patterns etc not just one good year when the school fixed the results and they give all schools in the country, state and private.

rankings.ft.com/secondary-schools/secondary-schools-2011

Every independent school with charitable status ought to take some of these children -or lose their status

Why exotic fruits?

League tables and grammar schools. Well any state schools really. Now there is an interesting one. I could give you some insights on the way they manipulate those too but I am already in enough hot water.

However, there is near me a grammar school which trips of the mouths of many when they mention performance in league tables . But , when you take account of the fact it is highly selective via the 11+, and all the pupils are selected to get those grades there should be no failures to get A*/A at that school, but that is not the case. League tables are a blunt instrument and open to much manipulation in many ways. I trust them no more than I trust those "reputations" some schools have for being outstanding.

O am old enough to have been around the block a few times and I am aware of many of the tricks schools get up to in their drive to meet targets.

I really must love you and leave you all ladies - at least until after DS bedtime.

My DW and DS have been out and left me with the unwashed masses to deal with. I still have to fold and pile the clean washing ahead of their return. This is the blitz before of our departure for the summer holidays (which is next week when I break up). Tomorrow DW will dash away with the smoothing iron whilst I have a play day at work. :)

Whereas Yellowtip and I are both idiotic knownothingnicks. With no experience of educational success whatsoever. Oh dear how sad never mind. :(

Yet the schools who year after year are high up the leagues tables which are virtually all with a few exceptions private schools we all know are some of the bst in the wolrd and get the most pupils to Oxbridge so I think the FT tables are a pretty good indication of how good the schools. There was one not near the top school in Mumnet and in the press which apparently had some chilren taking exams at a different centre to change league table position but the very best schools just do proper good A level subjects and get the best results. I found if you are picking from the top 50 schools the league tables are a pretty good indicator. Manchester Grammar (private) will always do well, Eton, Noth London Collegiate etc not because of any manipulation just because the brightest children in the country go there and the teaching is good.