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?

seeker - whilst I agree with your OP that the outlook for kids at secondary moderns is not as good as it should be, the logical fault in your OP is that it presumes - on the basis of no evidence - that the cause of their under-peformance is the existence of high-performing grammar schools in the same area.

This view is based on an unexamined and unchallended assumption that the fact that the majority of the 'bright' kids are educated elsewhere affects the performance of the kids in the secondary moderns negatively. But there is no evidence for this. The fact that grammar school areas and comp areas perform similarly suggests that actually the reason why the secondary moderns get poor results is because this accurately reflects the ability of the intake - in a comp, the same puils would perform similarly badly, although this would be masked by the performance of the brighter kids who would bring up the overall averages - BUT the performance of the least academic kids would be poor whatever they're made of (because - derr - they're just not very academic).

I agree with CouthyMow that the answer to poor performance at secondary moderns is NOT to destroy the (few) remaining grammar schools - which are actually performing very well, and are very popular. The answer is to focus resources and expertise on the poorly performing secondary moderns - improve teaching quality, SEN provision (as a teacher at a 6th form college, it is noticeable that a very large proprtion of those underperforming academically have (often undiagnosed) special needs), and introduce more high quality vpcational courses suited to those who may simply not be very academically interested and who do not see academic courses as interesting or relevant and so muck about.

Your approach seems to be determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The point is, grammar schools are NOT the problem (I have yet to meet any parent with a child at grammar school who complains about the poor quality education on offer) - they're great. Secondary moderns are the problem - along with poorly performing comps, of which there are many (contrary to your bizarrely rosy-tinted view of comps). These need to be brought UP to scratch - not grammar schools dumbed DOWN to suit some ridiculous politically correct and extremely naive dogma.

Well, I think I have said somewhere on this thread the issues I have with grammar school education!

And the fact remains that it seems to me to be bad for society to divide children at the age of 10 in a pretty arbitrary way. I wish we could do an social experiment where we divided children into two groups at 10 at random, told one lot they had been successful in a test and the others that they hadn't, put them both in separate schools, then teach them the same way and see what happened!

We do. It's called life. I assume you also vehemently object to GCSEs, and A Levels, and degree classifications, as it's just so 'unfair' that some kids are brighter/work harder than others and get better results. Presumably in your world, every child should get identical results, as any child who fails to get good results will be gutted. Likewise, the Olympics are clearly outrageous as everyone should be alllowed to take part and be a 'winner'.

I'm v left-wing, seeker, and unfortunately you seem to have missed the point of 'to each according to their needs, from each according to his ability' - that presumes that everyone's needs and abilities differ, not that we are all the same. Academic kids are brighter - end of - and need a different type of educatio that suits their needs. That's what a grammar school offers. Likewise, many of the kids i teach have no interest in that and are best served by education that alows them to excel in non-acdemic ways. To force them into an academic straitjacket that does not meet theor needs is to fail them equally.

It is absolutely wrong that kids should feel like 'failures' at 11 or any other age. But it is you who are labelling them 'failures'. Any half-decent parent will not put their kids in for the 11+ if they think that a chance of not passing determines them as 'failures'. As this thread demonstrates nicely, plenty of people who didn't pass the 11+ go on to have successful lives. My friend's dd didn't get into grammar but is now in all the top sets at her comp, her confidence has soared - she is G&T for loads of things. She wasn't suited to the grammar, but as a big fish in a smaller pool, her confidence has SOARED. She ceetainly doesn't feel like a 'failure' - completely the opposite.

Obviously, if she met you, you'd be keen to label her as a failure, which would no doubt do wonders for her self-esteem.

I thought Xenia was being sarcastic - after all something has to account for lack of social mobility and if it isn't intelligence or education, what is it? I am very torn - I agree with seeker that division at 11 is not great, but I just think that comps are not the answer. I would have hated my chdn to get the education I did, and no doubt many of my fellow comprehensive educated grammar school parents feel the same.

Also I suppose in big cities they do arbitrarily divide children- by catchment- and the results seem to show that that doesn't work either.

In Year 7, DS's CAT scores were pretty poor: 107 verbal, 93 non-verbal, 87 quant. He was only given a 50% chance of achieving 5 GSCE passes at Grade C.

2 years later in year 9, his IQ was tested twice, 6 months apart, as part of a BIBIC assessment (for ASD). To our great surprise it came out at 117/118.

He is now in year 11 and his predicted GCSE results are 1 A*, 4As and 4 Bs, and he is also expected to gain an English baccalaureate qualification (GCSE passes in English, maths, science, an MLF and a humanities subject) He has been accepted into his very competitive and over-subscribed 6th form to take 4 solid academic AS levels.

This is all thanks to the comprehensive system. He would never have passed the 11+ exam in a million years, or been accepted into an academically selective independent school, but as a classic "late developer" has proved how important it is to offer children a highly-streamed and flexible environment over the course of their secondary education.

I would suggest that Xenia looks in the league tables, finds some good comprehensives and looks at their web sites-she might get a surprise because they are nothing like her prejudices.
e.g. this is comprehensive
as is this
as is this
I don't know any of them-I just selected at random.
I would obviously have to visit- but based on the web site I would be quite happy with them.

Breadandbutterfly- before I answer your posts, can I just check that you've read mine? Because it look as if you have- but I don't want to repeat myself!

Or this one with 6 pupils going to Oxbridge-my old grammar school didn't send 6- in my day.

hmmm, has anyone here ever been educated in a real secondary modern school ( not a comp or one of those which passes for a comp in a selcetive area where selection is super competitive)?

So many with so many views about what went on in SM and I vet not one of you has any idea do you?

And who says the 11+ is an accurate selector of those with suitable ability anyway?

I don't think I'd given a view on this thread about the issue. I'd just discussed it. We know there are some high achieving comprehensives. The Sutton trust report seems to conclude it does not matter if there are grammars are comps.

What does concner some people is fewer children of the poor do as well as some of them did in the 50s and 60s. That may not matter of course. If the system is working pretty well we can leave it alone. Perhaps what is needs most of all is 15 years with no changes at all after all the constant and expensive changes it has had.

The national average GCSE pass rate for boys of 5 GCSEs including maths and English is 47%, DS's all-boys non-selective state comprehensive school achieved a pass rate of 80% last year. 120 (more than 75%) of the 6th formers went to university last year, including 4 to Oxbridge and many more to RG unis.

Yes, I've read the thread seeker - quickly, so it's possible I've skipped a post, but please point out any you think relevant. Interested to hear your response.

In a nutshell,seeker, I think you confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

The issue is whether as somie children develop later it is right to segregate them at 11 (or even 5 as some of us do in the private sector). For the children who are bright it tends to make things a lot easier for them. For those put in the secondary modern in the very few areas which does not have comprehensives it might hold them back although the Sutton report does not really find a huge load of evidence that it does hold them back.

So many with so many views about what went on in SM and I vet not one of you has any idea do you?

I have a very good idea myself-I went to 2 secondary modern schools and 1 grammar school.

I think that everyone has their set ideas which -like comprehensives-can be completely wrong.

Secondary Modern 1 had the best reputation for discipline in the town-we were not even allowed to eat sweets on the street-we stood up when teacher's entered the room. It was very small-less than 400 pupils, all personally known to the Head. Great for valuing the person and good name for art. Drawback-not academic.
Secondary Modern 2- much bigger-didn't have strangers writing in to praise politeness etc but discipline good-never any disruption. Excellent on the academic side but also excellent for the SN and practical. We all went down different routes.
Grammar School-fairly typical example. School Hall with honours boards of those who went to Oxbridge (but not 6 in a year like the link that I made to a comprehensive.) Girls only.
All 3 had excellent Head teachers.

Sorry-the raging apostrophe again-ignore!

Selecting at 11 is bad enough-selecting at 5 yrs is a disgrace in a civilized society!

"In a nutshell,seeker, I think you confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome"

No. I am not looking for equality of outcome- that would be silly. I most definitely looking for equality of opportunity. Which is not present when children are rigidly segregated at 10.

If they do as well at the secondary modern as the grammar though as Sutton seems to suggest then segregation at 11 may not matter.

And the issue of the psychological impact of the segregation at 10? Not a problem to anyone but me???

And me-but then I have been told that I have a chip on my shoulder!

But really, it's down to school organisation in the worst performing Secondaries. It's down to the individual school whether they choose to set for all subjects, or just core ones, or none.

If a Secondary has sets for all subjects, assessed on a regular basis to allow for movement and late developers, at least annually if not termly, then they WILL get better results.

If all Secondaries had equally good SEN Depts and equally good equipment, and equally good 'More able pupils' Dept, and the same, national, legal discipline framework that was enforced equally in all schools, then they would all achieve very similar results.

But this would take a massive investment, changing the regulation and inspection criteria of schools, and the Government being more involved in schools and education, rather than less.

I don't think that is likely to happen.

However, in areas with Grammars (though maybe not super-selectives), I TRULY believe that they are the best route out of poverty via a decent education for the brightest.

But Seeker, would you say that setting in a Comprehensive has the same psychological impact of making 11yo's feel like a 'failure'?

Do you mean that ALL DC, in ALL lessons, should be taught to the level of the worst performing pupil in the class, so as not to make THEM feel like a failure?

Surely everybody will be a 'failure' at something in life, as nobody can be good at everything? I teach my DC's to embrace the fact that there are done things that they will never be top of the class for, however, they are brilliant at X, and that is where their talents lie. I teach them that while they may never be brilliant at that subject, with hard work and effort, they can achieve a reasonable mark.

That way they don't ever feel like failures, they just accept that everyone is different, everyone has better skills in one area or another, but even in an area they are not so good at, with hard work they can make improvements.