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?

I was right in the first place Grimma, in that case. DCs should be moved if they are not keeping up and their place given to someone who has overtaken them in the secondary modern. The great thing about comprehensives is that it happens easily.

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.

Surely that would be their 11th September? I also have experience of a girl in my class 'moving down' - many years ago, obviously. I don't think it was a case of 'not as academic as she appeared', but more likely some kind of administrative error that led her to pass the 11+. She stayed 2 years before she was moved. I think she was in a far worse position than an able child in the A stream of a secondary modern.

I got 2 years at grammar before it was made comprehensive. I then got bullied so badly for being a 'swot' that I didn't do anywhere near as well as I'd been expected to. To fit in you had to dumb down.

Sabriel, just curious, what happened to all the other grammar school pupils when your grammar school became a comprehensive?

I can't see why it changed - surely it was the same pupils in the class - even though it was comprehensive?

I think the moving down thing is a red herring- grammar schools stream too so there are very few kids that are massively behind to the point that they should not be there. I can see the point that some children have a bad day but not the other way round! You can't fluke it!

It works in a crude way sorting the top from the bottom. In the middle it draws a line between DCs of equal ability. This is shown where there is a waiting list and their grammar school place hinges on someone going private or moving - they manage just as well if they get there.Your marks that would get you a place in one area wouldn't in another. The whole system is unfair. The grammar school has just so many places - once they are full they are full despite the fact there are DCs who would benefit from a selective education.

Believe me, the girl I referred to was massively behind.

I will begin to think they are a good thing when people campaign to bring back secondary moderns - it is always 'bring back grammar schools' and it is not said by those who think their DC won't get a place!

It was designed to produce factory fodder and keep the nice middle class kids away from the proles
That's rubbish, actually. The early grammar schools enabled bright children from working class backgrounds to get a good education.

Here's how it was actually designed. I've bolded a couple of bits.

'The basic assumption of the Tripartite system was that all students, regardless of background, should be entitled to an education appropriate to their needs and abilities. It was also assumed that students with different abilities were suited to different curricula. It was believed that an IQ test was a legitimate way of determining a child's suitability to a particular tier.

There were to be three categories of state-run secondary schools. Each was designed with a specific purpose in mind, aiming to impart a range of skills appropriate to the needs and future careers of their pupils.

Grammar schools were intended to teach a highly academic curriculum, teaching students to deal with abstract concepts. There was a strong focus on intellectual subjects, such as literature, classics and complex mathematics. In addition to wholly state-funded grammar schools, a number of schools currently receiving state grants could become direct grant grammar schools, with some pupils funded by the state and the rest paying fees.
Secondary technical schools were designed to train children adept in mechanical and scientific subjects. The focus of the schools was on providing scientists, engineers and technicians.
Secondary modern schools (secondary intermediate schools in Northern Ireland[4]) would train pupils in practical skills, aimed at equipping them for less skilled jobs and home management.
It was intended for all three branches of the system to have a parity of esteem. The appropriate type of school for each student would be determined by their performance in an examination taken in the final year of primary school.'

Well, we can all see flaws in that design, but separating MC from proles wasn't part of it.

Absolutely agree. The worst performing schools in the country (with all the problems that brings) are in grammar school areas. I wonder why. Couldn't be because 30% of the brightest children have already been creamed off their intake?
Makes me mad.

On top of that, it makes me even madder to think of the crap grammar school education ds had, and all the awful teaching that took place.

"The grammar school has just so many places - once they are full they are full despite the fact there are DCs who would benefit from a selective education."

In exactly the same way the good comprehensive only has so many places. Once they are full, the next children on the lis have to go to a worse school even though they'd benefit from a good education at the good comp. It' s a bit of a non argument really isn't it?

THe comprehensive I went to failed those at the top of the sets. There was definitely an element of not wanting to be seen as a "swot" which would not be the case n a selective school where all are "swots".

That is what I find so annoying Grimma - that anyone should think that you can do that to DCs at 10/11 yrs of age.
I did not want to be trained for a less skilled job and home management!! I wanted to go to university - as did lots of us- and we did.
A system where one DC is patted on the head and told 'you can have a highly academic education etc etc' and the next one gets 'sorry dear, you got one mark less you learn home management' is not something that should be happening in 21st century - even if they have dropped the home management!

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.

In my DCs area there are no grammar schools and so those at the top - going to top universities are the 'cool kids'.

"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?

"In my DCs area there are no grammar schools and so those at the top - going to top universities are the 'cool kids'."

That is not my experience at all. It is also not the scenario portrayed by pretty much any TV series I've seen involving children at school.

Never watch TV if you want to see a good comprehensive- it is way too boring for drama. It is in my area- the real high flyers going to Oxbridge are in the local paper and proud to be.
5cm further is fairer than 5 marks.
I assume Soupdragon that you would be perfectly happy to have your DCs in a secondary modern- or are they just for other people's children?

I have never ever seen a good comprehensive in a TV drama - I don't make the assumption that there are no good comprehensives.

I live in an area that has super-selective Grammars, where only the top 5% go to Grammar.

DS1 is sitting his 11+ in September, and even the HT of his school (state school with affluent intake, due to house prices and very little Social housing, school has less than 3% FSM's) is saying he thinks DS1 should pass.

Which would be amazing, as I am a Lone Parent on benefits, DS1 has FSM's, he won't have been tutored as I can't afford it, we aren't exactly the target demographic!

BUT if DS1 doesn't get a place, I'm not that worried. The local Secondary gets the best results in our area, 60% A-C, and I know they stretch the higher achieving DC, they have already had a chat with DS1's class teacher and told him that that school year has "a number of truly gifted students, and they would be working on Y8 work as soon as they got here".

And yes, in my DS1's class, it IS SN unusual cohort, they have, out of 31 DC, 5 girls and 4 boys on a solid, all round NC level 5 in Y5, and they will be doing the level 6 SATS paper next year as well as the 11+.

Getting into the Grammar school, though, would open up so many more opportunities for DS1, due to the better equipment there, and the sheer amount of sports offered too.

IMO, as someone very poor, super-selective Grammars offer DC in my situation a 'way out' of poverty, and I am keeping my fingers crossed.

I'm in Kent too and its not a fully selective education system. You have to opt in to the 11+ if you want to be considered for grammar. If you don't want to take it you have the choice of the high schools or the comprehensives or going private. The comps are far from full of 11+ rejects. Look at the stats. Even the high schools in my town have better results than the government benchmark.

Hang on a min

So the grammer takes the 'top' but 1% still leave withut the 5 A*-C and the school with the 'left overs' has a pass rate of 40%.

So for ease let's say there are 1000 children going into year 7. 230 go to the grammer and 2 leave without the 5 A-C, but at the high school 308 leave with 5 A-C. That means the grammer has rejected 308 children who were perfectly able to get the grades.

That seems so unfair.

I have nothing against the super selective with only 5% because it means that the 95% are offered a good education and in that sort of area many don't even take the exam because the local comps are great and they don't want to travel.

I personally don't see the harm in segregating children at that age depending on their strengths so they can be educated appropriately. The problem is the people that heavily tutor their children when they are not academic.
At what age do you break it to your children that they are not wonderful at absolutely everything? Finding your strong suit in a 'vocational' way can be just as financially rewarding as the academics.
I think comps do a massive disservice to those children who are academically very bright and those who are not. You just cannot cater for everyone - and they are using the brighter kids to try and raise the levels - which in turn means they are hugely affected. The abolition of grammar schools was all very well, but does it not occur to anyone that's why we now have a cabinet full of publicly educated individuals???

My dd passed the 11+

Where we all there is a set pass mark and then the places are allocated on distance. Normally where we live she would have got in, this year she didn't and will go to the comp in a different town instead. We've appealed and were unsuccessful.

She was heartbroken.

It was always the way sashh - if you ask around many, highly successful, adults were failures and didn't put up with being trained for 'unskilled jobs and household management'.

There always has been a cabinet of privately educated individuals!
I would have had a grammar school place had I lived 2 miles away on the other side of the river - the system was always unfair.