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?

There seem to be flaws in the system, Seeker, but what I am not clear about is what you suggest as an alternative.

Would you like to live in an area with superselectives? Or in an area with no grammar schools at all?

I would like parents to be given a voucher worth £5k to use at any school, private or state, of their choice and with the right to top it up. There would be a choice of state and private secular/religious, single sex/mixed sex, selective/comprehensive, academic technical.

You will never get the school of your choice- some will be over subscribed and simply not have space.

@exotic 5 CMOS absolutely not fairer than 5 marks. Because those 5 cm can be bought. Which is clearly your point. You've already told us in many threads that you were able to buy your way into an area with very good comps. You support selection according to depth of pockets. And then pretend you are somehow egalitarian. You are not.

No I am a hypocrite - I have never claimed not to be. The whole thing is unfair. I much prefer 5cm to 5 marks because I can do something about it and I can't with the 5 marks.

Aaaarrrghhh. Mumpy autocorrect. I meant to say 5 cm is absolutely not fairer than 5 marks.

And I KNOW that others in my situation do get into the Grammar, it is an ability test, no more, no less.

I have an older DD who would NEVER get into Grammar, due to SN, but she has flourished at the local Comp. she left primary working on p-scales still. She is now at the end of Y9, and is a C/D student taking traditional GCSE's, yes she has chosen more 'vocational' subjects, her options are Catering, Textiles and Health & Social care, but it reflects where she is aiming for.

What is wrong with a Grammar system? If your DC is able but 'fails' the 11+, even in a not-so good school, they can still do well, it just means more parental input.

I know my DD's school moves DC's between sets - DD was in set 6 for everything at the start of Y7. She is now in set 5 in Maths, set 4 for most subjects, Set 3 in Geography, set 2 for Textiles and H&S care, and set 1 for catering.

So in catering, she has moved from bottom set to top set in 3 years!

I can't see the issue with having a Grammar school system, it isn't divisive to me, it is just about sending the brightest DC to a school that fits their abilities better, the problem IMO is that some Secondaries just aren't up to scratch.

If people concentrated on getting these schools to up their game, instead of complaining about the Grammar school system, then many more DC would get an acceptable education.

I agree that in an area like here, with a super-selective, lots of the schools only get 30% A*-C, but that is because the SCHOOLS aren't run properly, not because of the Grammar or the intake. One of the schools in that situation had a change of SLT, and the school is bettering its results year on year, last year they were at 48%, rising from 28% two years ago...

If all Secondaries worked the way my local one does, they would all get 60%+ at GCSE.

And anyway, if your DC is one of those who just misses out on a place at Grammar, then it stands to reason that they will be in the 30% or whatever that gets 5 A*-C grades at GCSE?!

I have never pretended to be egalitarian - I would like to be- but I am going to do the best I can for my DCs which means playing the system which many parents do in one way or another.

I wouldn't say you were a hypocrit. I'd say you were a perfect example of the sort of middle class entitlement that thinks that because you have a bob or two your kids own the places at the good school, and you will do everything to ensure that poor but bright kids don't ever get the chance to take 'their place' (as happened to you). It's people like you that changed the system, and for whom the system was changed - entitled well heeled middle class people who didn't get in to grammar school or whose children didn't get in. You designed a new system to ensure that you could buy your way to the decent schools, and devil take the hindmost (in terms of depth of pockets).

Which all goes to show that the entire education system needs to be redesigned for 21st century.

I had never really given much though to the grammar school system before seeker but reading your description it sounds cruel and unfair to the children and parents that have to go though it and doesn't seem to leave many options open for mobility at a later date.

Whatever the system the middle classes manipulate it to get the best. What we need is excellent education for all.

Ha! You really think that all the Secondaries in the area when there is a super-selective Grammar are decent? There are 8 Secondaries in my town. The best 2 have a pass rate for 5 A*-C of 60-ish%. The RC Secondary has a pass rate of about 50%. The other 5 hover somewhere around 30-40%.

It's the ethos of the schools etc that makes a difference, IMO it's not even down to demographics and house prices, it's purely down to the way each school is set up and run. If you have an excellent SEN dept and do excellent work with the most able, as my local Secondary does, you will achieve the results. If you are like my next closest Secondary, and don't enforce the school rules, have a practically non-existent SEN dept, don't do anything with the higher achieving students, then your pass rate will reflect that.

It's all down to school leadership IMO.

Where I live the local comprehensive doesn't do much, if any, better than that - a lot worse in some years (around low 20's percentage 5A*-C fairly recently). Even the outgoing local MP said if he lived here he'd have moved heaven & earth to get his child somewhere else. I really don't like selection at 11, but the comprehensive system has its faults too. There simply isn't a perfect solution.

But a Grammar school system IS the best education for all, or would be if the performance of the worst-performing Secondaries was brought up to the standard of the best performing.

And I'm speaking as a raving Lefty, who IS in the poorest demographic. I AM lucky that I have lucked into Social Housing well within the catchment of the best performing Secondary in my town, granted, but if the other Secondaries locally were managed the same way, I see no reason why they can't bring up their pass rate.

If DD can be taken from p-scales to a C/D grade student in 3 years because the school have an amazing SEN Dept, why can't that happen at ALL Secondaries?

To me, "middle class entitlement" is summed up by the call for more grammar schools. The crucial point is that where they exist, poor and disadvantaged hildren don't get into them The FSM figures I mention in my OP apply to all Grammar schools, not just ours.

"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?"

If that was where their ability fitted best, then yes. I would not be happy for either DS to be in "secondary modern" because they are both very bright.

DS1 would have been "fine" in a comprehensive as he is a diligent child. I would not be happy for DS2 to be in comprehensive education because not only is he very bright, he is very lazy and has a tendency to coast along with minimal effort. He needs to be surrounded by a cohort full of equally bright children in order to fulfil his full potential. Shove him in a comprehensive and he will coast on natural ability, play to the crowd and completely fail to fulfil anywhere near his potential. I've made no secret of the fact that both are in/will be in private secondary. In DS2's case I turned down a place at a super selective because I felt, depute his academic ability, it wasn't time right environment to get the best out of him.

The point about schools on TV (and I'm not just using the UK as an example) is that they, without fail, portray being non-academic as being cool. The academic children are all portrayed as geeks. This is a constant subconscious influence. Of course I don't think they are real I am not stupid.

"The FSM figures I mention in my OP apply to all Grammar schools, not just ours"

And good faith schools.

I think generally faith schools have more than 2% FSM. But you probably won't be surprised to hear that I don't agree ith them either! Maybe another thread though?

Our Grammar school actually has a higher % of DC on FSM's than my local Comprehensive does!

DC who are on FSM's can and do get into Grammar school, if they are naturally bright enough. There is selection by wealth everywhere, not just Grammars, as the houses around the best performing Secondaries will cost more, so the majority of DC there are not on FSM's.

Why is it such an issue with Grammars? If your DC is able, they will get into a Grammar without tutoring. I'd rather be a DC on FSM's that got into Grammar without tutoring than a DC whose parents are wealthier and they were tutored to the hilt to get in. Once they are there, who is likely to perform better? The one who was tutored to get in, as most parents stop tutoring till Y9/10 when they realise their DC are struggling, or the one who was never tutored and got there on natural ability alone?

I'm speaking as someone who missed out on a super-selective Grammar school by one mark, I took the test with gastroenteritis, and ended up at a local Secondary.

Didn't stop me from doing a degree.

People often talk of the appeal of the 'grammar school system', but in fact because the grammars only take a minority of children it should be described as a 'secondary modern system'. The test of whether it is really viewed as the most equitable and successful system for the population as a whole is whether you ever hear anyone saying, 'i wish we lived in XXX county, it's got a great secondary mod system'.

I have a friend who is really pleased because she has recently moved house next to a very good grammar school. Her DC will take the 11-plus next year and while I expect (and hope for her sake) that they will pass, I do wonder how she will feel about the system if they don't.

Really? You have a grammar school, a proper comprehensive and the grammar school has higher FSM than the comprehensives? Where's that?

I think the top girl's state school in my borough is RC. It has 3% FSM. Personally I think selecting on the basis of a parent's apparent religious commitment is worse than selecting on the child's perceived ability. I do think different abilities require different teaching methods/environments and that the far ends of the ability spectrum are best served by selective education. Faith? Not so much.

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

They combined the boys and the girls grammar plus the girls and boys secondary modern into one school. In the main the ex-grammar pupils stayed as a 'grammar stream' but we did have a lot of mixed-ability classes, which were a disaster. It went from a 4 form entry girl's grammar (120 pupils per year) to a 12 form entry mixed comprehensive, so I'm assuming they must have 'lost' some pupils on the way? There were still some single-sex and faith schools in the city so I guess some parents moved their kids there at that point.

The sad thing is that as a grammar it was one of the best schools in the county. Now 30 years on it is the 'sink' school you only send your kids to if you've no other choice. I've just checked and they got 43 % A-C last year.

43% A-C is pretty good for a sink school that nobody sends their child to if they have q choice!