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?

Every DC is an individual. I know plenty of people with DCs in the top 5% who have opted for comprehensive schools, as more suitable. I have yet to meet one who opted for a secondary modern.

@exotic and you just don't pull a hair about the kids who are way above average, do you.

I have absolutely nothing against super selectives and the top 5% but I have everything against dividing DCs where there is nothing between the ones in the middle.

My flight is about to board. Seeker, I've enjoyed discussing this issue with you. I think we have to a limited extent agreed détente.

"Many schools favour those who have disadvantage"

In what way?

Affirmative action policies. The education system is full of them from infants school to university entrance.

It's a complete no-brainer that children in care should be given the best chances possible and if that means first choice of the best secondary schools (and primary ones) so be it...I cannot think that any compassionate parent could think otherwise. I have posted this very comment on the Graveney thread that's currently running too!

I am quite happy with this as long as it is your child who gets to go to the asda price school when there is only one place at Fortnums and they give it to a deprived, unloved one even if that child has scored 4 percentage points lower than your DC.

I do not want it to be my DC who has to give way. I went to asda price school despite not having deserved it and I worked my way into Fortnums by sheer personal effort and without any affirmative action. I will be hanged before I let someone take the advantage I gained from my DS. End of.

Hope you don't get that swiftly-pulled up ladder all tangled round your neck then, Jabed.

Posts like that make me despair.

I am further appalled that those who are born with every advantage in life can have the 'Fortnum and Mason' of schools and those without a single advantage are stuck with the 'Asda' of schools and 'little Johnny at Fortnum and Mason' doesn't want any association at all - it isn't his problem - by pure luck of birth he can get all the prizes in life- without doing the slightest thing to deserve it - just by being born to the 'right' parents

That is called life exoticfruits - you of all people know how unfair it is.

I am one of those you refer to who doesnt want my Johnny at Fornums to associate with Asda school types ( or should that be tykes?) . I will pay to keep him out of it. This is because I know what it is like and how it can affect you adversly. Not myself this time but a young man I know who came from a decent family. He failed the 11+ and he was allocated to one of the worst schools in the area. This , despite the fact he had to pass two good schools on his way there. This was due to those policies which gave the deprived and unloved opportunities to go to the better school and thought it would help improve the other school. His parents were Christians ( I mentioon this only because I suspect had they not been so charitable what followed would not have happened as they would have ensured he was not some experiment in osical engineering) . He spent five years in the sink school where disruption and bullying were rife. Where fights with knives was an every day occurance and where drugs were iopenly traded despite the police having a "station" on the school site. He was out of his peer freiendship group. He made new friends with those available. He ended up getting a good education in criminal activities. At 15 he was in juvinille court despite his parents doing all they could . At 18 he was sent to prison. Thus started his life of crime. He is inside right now.

The experience was an eye opener for his family who ensured the other two children did not follow his path to this school. They have both turned out fine. The one boy runs an outreach centre for drug addicts ( started maninly to help his big brother) and his sister is in counselling. What happened to this lad broke the family and the families hearts.

For me, thats lesson enough in why I will ensure my DS is "kept away" from those influences as much as I can.

They make me despair too. You may have worked your way in, your DC has done nothing except have the sheer good fortune to have you as a parent.- the DC of the drug addict has done nothing except have the sheer bad luck.
I for one would like a handicap system where those who have no parents to care for them have a few points added before they start.
I really fear for our society where we get 'I'm all right Jack and I really couldn't care less that the DC who has grown up unloved, hungry and suffered abuse has the sink school because after all they had rubbish parents and they don't deserve better- as long as my DC gets the best all is well.'

Do you not think that the child in care wants to be kept out of it too?!

They make me despair too. You may have worked your way in, your DC has done nothing except have the sheer good fortune to have you as a parent.- the DC of the drug addict has done nothing except have the sheer bad luck

Thats life as they say. There is no room for misplaced sentiment -and sentiment I think it is - when you have DC's to take care of. I will do all I can for my child because he is my child. I see no further than that in this debate.

Philosophically and theoretically I can happily agree with any position which gives others a chance but not at the expense of my child.

"his , despite the fact he had to pass two good schools on his way there. This was due to those policies which gave the deprived and unloved opportunities to go to the better school and thought"

This I am afraid is another fabrication. That is not how admissions procedures work.

exoticfruits - I think you have a very romantic idea of those unloved and deprived children you want to save. They are not little orphan Annie. Many are badly damaged and will never recover. Most are not little angels waiting for a chance , they are little hellers mostly who cause untold grief to others. They learn early before they start school and are semi feral and under socialised. I worked in a very challenging school so I know where they come from and what they are like. I also worked for some years ( alongside my present job - when I worked two part time posts instead of one full time - I now just work part time) in a "good" small community comprehensive which the local LA decided to use as a social experiment. They moved in some families on relocation from a inner city deprived borough ( most had histories of crime and addiction, benefit culture, sitting home, bingo ect.) . The idea was that if they took these families and children from the environment and gave them decent houses with decent law abiding hard working folk around, they would learn from that. The result in school was quite the opposite. What had been a pleasant school with nice children and little diciplne problems turned within a year into a violent ,disrupted environment with no work ethic and massive social problems . Parents of local children complained but the damage was done and the school has not recovered.

And then people defend selective education by saying it gives the disadvantaged a way up and out!!!
Of course I do the best for my DCs but I do want to help the rest too- especially the ones born with huge disadvantages- I don't want to pull up the drawbridge and stamp on their fingers!

seeker, would you like me to give you the name and address of the parents and their telephone number? I am sure they would love to hear from you with your views!

And then people defend selective education by saying it gives the disadvantaged a way up and out!!!

People defend it as such but all the research shows it does not do anything of the sort

We could actually easily spot the DCs at three years old - spend the money and improve their prospects.
I much prefer my 'romantic' view which is at least compassionate - rather than the alternative - which I won't put into words in case it gets deleted.
I am very much of the view that the education system would only be good for all if it could be designed by someone who had no idea where they would be in society or how bright their DCs would be. It will never get anywhere while those in power either pay their way out or select their way out and couldn't give 2 hoots for the rest.

At least you are honest jabbed and not mealy mouthed enough to put it forward as a defence of the 11+ when it is quite simply not a way out these days- I don
't know how anyone can pretend it is.

Yes, please, jabed. I could help them with their appeal. Actually, they wouldn't need help. The schools your friend's son walked past are so blatantly breaking the law with their admissions policy that the hearing would take about 35 seconds.

Yes, please, jabed. I could help them with their appeal. Actually, they wouldn't need help. The schools your friend's son walked past are so blatantly breaking the law with their admissions policy that the hearing would take about 35 seconds

I think you have misunderstood somewhere - what appeal? All three kids are left school now. Unless of course you are a lwyer and can get them millions compensation? Maybe you could get me and exoticfruits damages too for our schooling? ...... No I didint think so. You are a stirrer and nothing more.

By is it stirring to point out that the admissions practices you keep talking about are illegal?

@exotic The only child I knew while at school who was in care not only passed the 11+, she got a direct grant place to a posh school. I know she was probably in a small minority (although her sisters were similarly clever - but the 11+ had been done away with by the time the youngest was 10 and the middle girl died before she reached the age of 10 :( ) but once again, you are making massive assumptions about children in care just as you have about children with SEN. Neither label automatically means a child has no chance of passing the 11+. Some people are dealt spectacularly bad hands at the start of life - please don't attribute them with even more 'bad' labels than the ones they cannot avoid. I feel really strongly about this. It's lazy and it's also cruel.

@jabbed in my direct experience selective state education definitely can give disadvantaged (economically and socially) but bright children a 'way out' of their situation.

I have no doubt they did in the old days Metabilis but not now when people are employing tutors - it is possible but a very slim chance. In 2010. 0.6% of looked after children were in grammar schools so I don't think it is a massive assumption!

But only 4% of all children are in Grammars. While obviously it would be best if 4% of looked after children were in Grammars also, to match that, it may be that demographics will affect that anyway - I have no idea what the skew of looked after children is but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of them weren't living in metropolitan rather than rural areas. The hotbeds of grammar school survival are more rural than metropolitan.

But my point remains. Being looked after, like having SEN, does not in and of itself preclude a person from going to a grammar school.