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?

My son's school is one of those uber-academic private schools with a Famous Name and consistently in the top 5 in the country. It would welcome this move by the government as it is independently working to do better than this and offer need blind admission in the future for both it's prep school and senior school. For several years now, the school has had a very active campaign to raise funds to do just this - the last event alone raised over £300,000 amongst current parents, so this goal is shared by current parents. The school also has an additional scheme which current parents support to fund current bursaries (I believe this school has one of the most generous bursary schemes around). They are not alone in doing this.

Of course children in care would be welcome - as long as they have the academic capability to keep up with the rapid and rigorous pace of the school!

Very reassuring Mominatrix and absolutely as I'd hope and expect, at a top school.

Yes, and I forgot to say that the £300,000 was raised by the Prep school parents - the senior school has its own campaign.

The headmaster of the Prep School is very vocal in his views that the boys there are incredibly privileged, and with this privilege comes incredible responsibility (his words).

"You seem to be saying that the problems at public school arises from mixing children from different backgrounds"

Not at all. I said that at one particular school over 30 years ago, the poorer children were segregated to a degree from their wealthier peers in a way that created an ethos that was unwelcoming (to put it mildly) for them and that bullying of them was normal and not stamped out. I also hoped that such occurances would not occur today in our more enlightened times, but that we needed something in place to ensure it didn't.

I find it reassuring Mominatrex - I would have assumed that any parent who is in the fortunate position of giving their own DC a great education would be interested in raising funds for the less fortunate to access the same. I would like to think that it was only a small minority who wouldn't.

A great headmaster if he puts forward the view that privilege brings responsibility.

Googling around I see that the Head of Eton was one of the people to put the idea forward in the first place-obviously another who thinks that if you have privilege you should have responsibility.

I was at such a school on the edge of London in the days before the area had become gentrified. The whole school was selective, the majority of the pupils were fee-paying, drawn from the rich Surrey hinterland with a parental profile that one might expect to be similar to that at any top fee-paying school. And a large minority were the top echelon of the 11+, who paid no fees and whose backgrounds were random, but to my certain knowledge included many who were shockingly, depressingly poor

I do not see a conflict. I am sorry but I thought we had been discussing the idea that independents would have to take a braod ability range of cared for children from the LA to make things more equal?

I suggested that if a child was clever enough , regardless of background they could apply for a scholarship and there would be no reason they would not get one if they were good enough.

That is not the same as independent schools being used as a dumping ground for those children in childrens homes who need a place to stay and are not selected for anything other than being in a place at a time and being dumped on us in the name of equality.

Direct grant schools did on a brader scale what independents do with scholarships now. They pick the most able children from those applying. That is not what was originally being suggested in the idea that cared for children should be put in independent schools.

I welcome scholarship pupils into my classes. We welcome them to the school because we know they will improve our grades and help drive up standards. I enjoy teaching them because they are always A/A grade . They also spur my other hard working ( fee paying with a work ethic) pupils on because they compete to do as well as the scholarship pupils. They are great to have around. Everyone likes them Other pupilslike them because it is cool* to be clever in an independent school

I doint even know the backgrounds of scholarship pupils and care even less.
Occassionally we do have a scholarship pupil who is unhappy - they most often leave. Usually though, they stay and we love them and they love us.

But I repeat, that is NOT the same as having a bunch of cared for kids thrown into the boarding house without any form of academic selection ( which is what was originally being suggested by others here. That would bring problems.

sorry about the typo's , my hands are fat and old and tend to hit the two keys at once sometimes.

Googling around I see that the Head of Eton was one of the people to put the idea forward in the first place-obviously another who thinks that if you have privilege you should have responsibility

Its good publicity for the school for the school head to have "ideas" like that - those which get you all thinking how wonderful they are. The reality will be different. cynic in me as always. Tell me when Eton takes a third cared for children and I will believe the hype

I don't think that the suggestion is that anyone takes a third-that defeats the object. I don't think that the Head of Eton is in the least scared of taking a few disadvantaged DCs.
You would think that the disadvantaged would want to help others-not lock them out!
Thank goodness for people like Camila Batmanghelidjh who don't just write children off as undesirable.

I can see that the private schools that struggle a bit might be scared.

You should never write off children-one of Scotland's worst council estates has been transformed by music see here

The suggestion appears to be a maximum of 4 per school.

The Sunday Times Magazine features 11+ today and most especially Kent.
A selection of adults took it and the only one who would comfortably have got a place in Kent was Adam Hart-Davis, the science writer-even he only got 72% on the first paper, but made up with 98% on the second one.
Matthew Rudd, who wrote the the article, just scraped in, but admitted to running out of time and guessing the last 6 questions and was right in 5.
Dr Anthony Seldon, Head of Wellington College failed, as did Kate Williams (historian),Michael Rosen (poet)Terry Deary (author), Judith Kerr (children's author), Justin Webb (broadcaster) and Jo Caulfield (comedian)

I expect with tutoring, or masses of practice papers, they would have passed- so i.e. those with 'pushy parents' and not much chance without.

Surprise, surprise, Michael Gove was otherwise engaged when asked to take part!

Thank you exotic- when I recover from my hang over I'll go an buy a copy.......!

It is well worth having if you live in Kent, seeker-especially for the fact that they can pass and not get a grammar school place!

Just read it- glad to say it agrees with me!

It agrees with me too!

'so the concern is that those from well-off, more educated homes will be coached how to do it. It is the test of the school the child has come from,their social class and the aspirations of their parents. This is the opposite of what the architects of the system set out to achieve'-said by Dr Seldon-Head of Wellington College.

They did the test cold-unless they had practised at home-Judith Kerr admitted to having googled a bit. It was clear to me that with a few more papers under their belt they would have had high scores compared to others doing it fresh.
If Kate Williams-Oxford Educated historian can fail then a 10yr old without tutoring or practise doesn't stand much chance!

Interesting piece really :)

In our school prep we have a lot of children who we teach who go on to take the 11+ for the local grammar schools. They usually all pass. I suspect that is what parents are paying for at prep.

Not all of them go, but most do. That means that in senior school we generally have a change over intake. Along with a few of our own who have scholarships or who move up from prep anyway, we take in a whole bunch of those who failed the 11+ in the state schools. These are the refugees from the hellish comprehensive schools where the failures are allocated usually.

Sometimes the children go to the schools and we get them half way through year 7 when parents decide their DC's are " failing to thrive" or they are being bullied or they are rapidly going down hill and " the wrong way" as we sometimes get told.

However, after six years with us, we send those failures out on the road to the same or better universities than those from the local grammar schools. We have better results than the grammar schools. In other words, we take their rejects and make them more successful than they do our "passes" Go figure.

If it is a proper (good) comprehensive they are equally successful jabed.

Of course the 'rejects' are equally good if not better than the passes-as is proved the exam is a nonsense.

Quote from a response to the article

"There was an other interesting talk at Wellington yesterday by Matthew Syed, who argued that we have become obsessed with the idea of talent while underestimating the value of hard work. He pointed out that people who are at the top of their field have got there through years of practice and hard work.

It seems to me that the 11+ is a classic example of trying to spot a small proportion of children with innate talent while writing off a huge proportion of children who could do extremely well if they were encouraged and worked hard. (Leaving aside the question of whether the exam is identifying the right children in the first place, which it probably isn't.) "

"the only way in which grammar schools can work is In a system where people believe they ate not going to a lesser school, that the alternative is catering to different talents. And that is almost impossible" says Williams.
"we keep damping down while chunks of the population by telling them they are not good enough" says Michael Rosen.
I'm trying to find a good pro selection but there really aren't any. The Head of Judd says that "my children gain from being educated with people of a similar ability" but even he thinks the current test isn't good.

If it is a proper (good) comprehensive they are equally successful jabed

Much of seyed has said is 50 year old hat. Vant he think of something new?

However, I saw some research a few weeks which was new ( cant place it now). It found that children allocated comprehensive schools could do as well as those who were given places in grammar schools. However, children sent to independent schools generally did far better. In other words the gap was not between the state comp and the state grammar but between state and independent.

Another part of the article:

"Practice makes perfect. I?m not the only person to have cottoned on to this. In Kent there is now a cottage industry of 11-plus tuition. Teachers charge up to £50 an hour to coach pupils privately in the dark arts of verbal and non-verbal reasoning; some receive enquiries from parents of children as young as seven.

?The 11-plus is the best method that is simple to operate,? says Robert Masters of Judd. ?We are investigating how we can make it better. There is a lack of literacy, a lack of comprehension and a lack of creative writing in the test, and this is a huge concern. We?re also worried about the coachability of the test. There is a sense that in order to keep your correct place in the rank order of ability, you need to have coaching because lots of other children are. Can we get an uncoachable test? No. Can we get a less coachable test? We think so.?

So even the people who are in favour see the shortcomings.

I would really like to see a few people who went through the 11+ process in the "good old days" when everyone did it and who failed it speaking up in favour of the system. Generally, it's either the people who passed and the people who didn't do It who are it's greatest advocates. Frank skinner was talking about it on the radio at the weekend and said in his childhood there was "the grammar, glowing success, the secondary modern, abject failure and the Technical school- you still wore overalls but you wore a tie with them"