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?

And the whole idea of different schools- why is it a good idea? Seriously, what's good about it?

The DC will still know that they aren't in the top set. So why does it cause 'psychological harm' to be put into different schools at 11 if it doesn't cause 'psychological harm' to be put into different 'sets'?

I concede, though, that it would be fairer if there was some way of introducing extra admission exams for 'late developers' in Grammar schools, but realistically, it draws parallels with another education problem.

If you move house after the normal admission round for schools, Primary or Secondary, usually the only schools with free places are those that are not performing well for their pupils. This is because the better performing schools ARE FULL.

How does this relate? Well, the Grammar school can't actively kick someone out if they are working, non-disruptive, and doing what they are meant to be doing, no matter how many DC's would pass a selection test at 12 or 13, the Grammar school IS FULL...

No school, Comprehensive or Grammar, is going to take LESS than their maximum admission numbers to keep places free for pupils who may or may not pass a selection test two years after their usual Y7 admission, are they? And that would be the ONLY way the Grammars could run an additional selection test at 12 or 13.

It really is no different to moving into an area after the end of the normal schools admission period, there are no Grammar school places LEFT to give to a late developer, just like there are no places left in the best performing Comprehensives when you move into an area after normal admissions.

"The DC will still know that they aren't in the top set. So why does it cause 'psychological harm' to be put into different schools at 11 if it doesn't cause 'psychological harm' to be put into different 'sets'?"

Well, if you don't have the imagination to see what it might be like to have "failed" what everyone is telling you is an important test when you are 10, and to have no idea why this is different to being put in an ability set with and being told that if you work hard and do well you can move to the next set up, then then there isn't much point in having the discussion!

That's the thing though, Seeker. While my closest Secondary DOES move DC between sets, most of the other Secondaries locally don't, they set them in Y7 based on SATS results and CATS in the first term of Y7, and there they stay till they leave.

NOT all schools have movement between sets.

And how do they move someone from, say, 2nd set to top set? In order to do that, in return someone must move DOWN from top set to 2nd set. If YOU were the DC that was moved down from top set, how would you feel?

So, some schools decide not to have movement between sets so that no-one has to be moved DOWN a set, other set but then have to move someone down. Neither system is perfect.

And WHY are they all telling their 10yo DC's that it is an 'important' test? I have told my DS1 that it is like a job interview, no-one gets every job they apply for if they aren't a proper 'fit' to that workplace, and the 11+ is no more than a 'job interview' for a place at that particular school.

If he does his best, and doesn't get a place, then that school wasn't the right 'fit' for him.

In other words, some DC that don't get a Grammar school place may actually be MORE academic than some people who gain places, but may not write as quickly, and therefore lose marks if they don't finish the paper through lack of speed. Their answers might be more detailed, and show more knowledge, but it doesn't mean they have been able to answer every question on the paper.

That's what the 11+ tests, speed IMO. It doesn't test DEPTH of knowledge. Which I feel is more important. Who will be better educated in the long term? the person who can write three sentences about a subject, but just grazes over the surface of what there is to know about that subject, or someone who can write extensively and in depth about that particular subject? Who is better educated overall?

CouthyMow-are you talking about a superselective?

Ah, yes - is the 11+ rather different in other Grammar areas then?

Yes. It's easy to explain why you don't get into a super selective- no reason to feel any sense of failure if you don't make that cut! Where we are, 23% pass. A bit different!

It's NOT different, though! It's purely that in an area that takes 23% of pupils, they have more Grammar school places. In an area that takes 5% of pupils, they have less Grammar school places.

You still either make the cut or don't. You can be one mark below the last place offered and not get a place in EITHER case.

It doesn't matter whether the cut off is 23% of the pupils in an area or 5% of pupils in an area, that is purely down to the number of Grammar places available in that area.

No. If the grammar shool only takes 5%, what's left is a decent comprehensive school. If the grammar school takes 23%, what's left is a secondary modern.

seeker you say that a child who doesn't get a place at a super selective won't feel like a failure since only a tiny percentage get in. Wrong. Some children will be ok with not getting in, some will be devastated. Since these children are so young, their reaction depends overwhelmingly on the parent.

But those 95% are split up, by house price into two decent comprehensive schools, one reasonable one, and five or six downright awful ones. By house price. And lack of social housing in the catchment area (or last distance offered) of the two decent ones.

Still selective!

I can assure you seeker that in our area some unfortunate children have parents who have made it a mission to secure a place at the grammar and feel that they've utterly failed.

So those who don't get into the Grammar are far more likely to go to a secondary modern than a comprehensive, because even those who have remotely able DC's that are in social housing do their damndest to exchange into the catchment of the two decent Secondaries, it ends up that those with money whose DC don't get into the Grammar buy a hideously expensive house in Catchment, those who CAN get an exchange will, and the ones that are left are in catchment for a school whose intake reflects that of a Secondary Modern!!

So super-selective areas don't avoid the problems you are talking about, it's just that MORE of it is done on money than selection by ability to pass the 11+.

Still ends up the same, though.

I'm sure that's true. But all the sensible and caring parents on here would have no more tha n a moment's difficulty making a child who didn't make the top 5% feel ok about it. Making child who didn't make the top 23% feel ok is a bit different. Particularly if there is an "us and them" culture in the tone!

CouthyMow- where we live you would have to completely uproot your life to move to an area where there are comprehensive schools.

As you do here. Most Secondaries have an intake reflective of a Secondary Modern. Only two have a truly 'comprehensive' intake. And they are not in 'town', they are not accessible by public transport from the areas with the 'Secondary Modern' style schools.

And WHY is making someone NOT in the top 23% feel OK when they may be in the top 24%, any different to someone NOT in the top 5% who may only be in the top 49%?! Surely it is ALL about how you approach the 11+ exam with your DC, and how you deal with them not getting a Grammar school place.

The only person who would be 'failing' in the instance of ANY DC feeling bad about not getting a Grammar school place is their PARENT, for putting too much pressure on their DC, and not MAKING the DC feel like it is a 'pass' or 'fail' situation!

AArrgghh! - and not MAKING the DC feel like it is a 'pass' or 'fail' situation!

At 10 years old you know that you are a failure - however much your parents or other people tell you that you are not.
There is no problem with a super selective - it might be disappointing not to get in but because 95% of your class will not get in, you have to expect that you might not make it. You know perfectly well that some of the brightest will opt not to take it because they want a local, good, school with friends. They may also opt not to take it because they don't want to have it as first choice and fail in case it misses them a place at their second choice.
The situation in Kent is very different - you are allocated the school according to the test. It is then sorting you out for the next 5 years. It isn't like doing badly in a Maths exam or getting into a sporting team where you can think ' I will try again next year'.
There is no shame in being in a lower set because it isn't set in stone. I wouldn't send my DCs to a school that didn't have movements between sets. DCs move down all the time - some ask to. No DC wants to be in a Maths class where they don't understand and can't keep up! They move up all the time - a teacher wouldn't want a DC in the set who was way ahead- they do the sensible thing and move them.

That's how I have explained it to my DS1, and I agree with the poster who said that any school would be benefitting from my DS1's presence there, and that provided he puts the hard work in, he will do well even in any school

I would be careful about telling the school that if I were you. In my general experience the teachers will not like it. Its a snobby statement which makes the next almost inciomprehensible......

And jabed - It's NOT inclusion that is the problem, it is the fact that inclusion HASN'T BEEN FUNDED PROPERLY BY SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS

In my extensive experience if you are putting pupils of a very wide ability range into the same classes - as will and must happen with a policy of inclusion, then by definition you cannot serve those at the top of the heap
(like your other DS who might be benefitting any school he goes to).

I recall asa young lad in SM asking one of the teachers - art I think it was - why we didnt learn how todraw properly ( like they did in grammar school) and his answer ( even for the A stream) was " do you really think that anyone in this class wants to learn perspective? I dont most could understand anyway" The attitude amongst teachers has not changed despite inclusion - believe me, thats the private face, not matter what they say to you.

I spent five years in a school who had a very ability range and it had an impact on me (as the one kid who was effectively benefitting any school I was sent to!) . Even streamed we could not work at a pace much greater than the least able ( even with differentiation by teachers). In many instances, the social issues (not disruption - just chattiness and what is now the "Sir I dont get this" syndrome kicks in. In the lower streamwhere there was disruotive behaviour, things were worse - and all this was without the inclusion of those with even greater difficulties.

In some classes even in my old SM ( and more so now) many classes are not set and this has a greater impact still.

The big thing about those in the lower stream ( and those who even my school might now have been seen as SEN ( including specific bneeds) did in fact have far more of the resources of our school than I did. Just a simple thing- they had a book each, I had to share between 3 ( for homework that was a nightmare and for tests, where I wanted to do well, even worse. My solution? I got my own copy - and that set up even more problems as everyone told me off for an "unfair" advantage.

The other thing is, despite inclusion, you find that socially most kids seem to hang out with gangs of friends who are similar to themsleves , so the inclusion just leads to small cliques gathering in bigger classes, as the quiet hard workers try to get way from the less able or the ones with EBD issues. But those issues still spill over into their education in ways unexpected and which most people do not even realise.

I am sorry you find it offensive but its how I feel. Inclusion is a great policy and , yes every kids deserves the opportunity to have a chance but the chances given to those at the bottom have the greatest impact on those at the top. Of course those at the top dont matter do they , because they will , it seems do OK anywhere you put them and no matter how badly they are taught or how little they are taught ( as I did in fact demonstrate).

However, I do not want my DS to have that experience, thanks.

I know it offends ( I guess) but sometimes you have to shoot straight I am afraid. I am pro inclusion for everyone else. I agree with the principle. But my DS is very precious to me. I will pay what it takes to get him the best I can ( and if I pay I get that choice - so effectively, I am benefitting everyone else again anyway by not darkening the doors of the local school with my ideas and my DS's presence.

It can't miss you a place at your second choice school because of equal preference rules.

And it's still no different at a super-selective, the amount if people who get Grammar school places in a given area varies by how many Grammar school places there are.

5%, 23%, no real difference to the fact that not everyone can get a place. The only reason the percentage of people getting a Grammar place in Kent is higher is BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE GRAMMAR SCHOOL PLACES.

You still run a very high chance of getting into a Secondary that has an intake reflective of a Secondary Modern if you live in the catchment area if that school.

After the 11+, it's down to money and sheer luck whether you are living in the catchment area of one of the schools with a true 'comprehensive' intake. The same as it is in Kent.

I should quantify this - I have family in Kent who have a bit of money, have a DC at Secondary school, and moved from one side of Kent to the other when their DD missed out on Grammar because of being 2 marks below the Grammar cut off mark, and their local school being woeful.

Exactly as happens in this County. Those that can afford to move away from the dire schools do, if they don't make the top 'x' amount of 11+ marks that gets them a Grammar school place in their local area.

Those that have even more money than those that move usually choose to go Private at that point, rather than face the upheaval of moving.

Those that 'just' don't get in, but don't have enough money to do either? Well, they are the ones that end up at the 'dire' school and get the 25-30% A*-C grade GCSE's.

Selection first by aptitude test and then by money.

The DC only 'know' that it is a pass/fail situation because that is how their parents (collectively in some areas) have acted. If the majority of the parents in Kent suddenly decided to tell their DC's that it is just a simple application form to see if that school is a good 'fit' for them personally, and that ANY school would benefit from their DC being a pupil there, and campaigned for better OTHER schools, rather than on pressurising such young DC into getting stressed about it being a 'pass/fail situation', then the DC wouldn't feel so bad if they didn't get a place.

It's the parents causing all the angst for the DC's, not the DC's themselves.

But can't you see that there is a difference between belong in a class 30 and taking a test that I of you might possibly pass, and taking a test that 10 of you will?

Oh, and with this "a test to choose the right school for you"line, which believe me people do use constantly- what do you say when the child says"well, why is x the right school for me and y the right school for my friend Fred?"

And the whole idea of different schools- why is it a good idea? Seriously, what's good about it?

I think the "good" about it is that they are smaller.Unfortunately small schools are not economic units in the same way as large ones .

Also folks, please be disabused about this " movement" between groups thing. In my own schoolling I suffered from the movement from lower to upperstreams because in order to give those at the bottom a lift in selfesteem ,rather more less abile kids were squezzed into my stream The left the lower stream as a smaller ( if more disrupted) class. My class on the other hand because completely broad in ability and so , to use the modern phrase was " dumbed down" . This affected mostly the middle range ability more than me.

In most schools even setting causes headaches as teachers try to balance who should be there and who shoudl go toshow some form of movement. It often results in decent kids being put down to give others an ( undeserved) chance.

Personally I am all for mixed ability, setting by behaviour.