Middle class access to grammars via tutorproof 11+ part 2

[boschy]

May I do this? only there were some contrasting views at the end of the last thread which I found interesting.

One was mine (sorry!): "I think fear actually drives a lot of those parents who are desperate to get their child into GS, so they can be 'protected' from these gangs of feral teenagers who apparently run rampage through every non-selective school in the country.

Because clearly if you are not 11+ material you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who likes nothing better than beating up a geek before breakfast and then going to score behind the bike shed before chucking a chair at the maths teacher and making the lives of the nice but dim kids a misery."

And one was from gazzalw: "If you had the choice would you opt for a grammar school or a comprehensive that has gangs?"

Soooo, do people really think that all comprehensives have vicious gangs, and all GS children are angels? Or that only those of academic ability adequate enough to get them through the 11+ should not have to face behavioural disruption of any kind? If you are borderline, or struggling but still work hard, should you just have to put up with disruption because let's face it you're not academic?

PS, re the knuckle dragging Neanderthals I mention above, should have said - "and that's only the girls"

Ok here we go. Nit, these are the contradictory arguments one tries to respond to - the trouble is when one follows the line of thinking of one anti-grammar, another anti-grammar will come along and say "oho, so you think this" - to which the response is actually - no I'm just following the train of thought of someone else who wants to abolish grammar schools. I can't remember what you said on the last thread so am happy to start afresh with yr responses !

"I think those denied access are denied a better education in the broader sense of the word, although I am sure there are some incredibly dedicated and talented teachers in secondary moderns/high schools, the main issue they are facing, I would think, is that they're teaching a group of children who've been told at 11 that they've failed."

I'm not sure what you mean by education "in the broader sense of the word".
But you believe then, that the fact that they have failed means that their education will be detrimentally affected even if they have the same level of education in a sec mod as they would have done in a grammar school, and that effect is enough to affect their life chances? I don't believe that with excellent teaching, this should affect their education and their life chances in the way you describe.

"I would imagine that those who pass the 11+ are more or less the brightest in their year group, but with the obvious caveats about coaching."

Thanks that is enlightening: the whole premise of the last thread was that the "wrong" people were going to grammars and that new tests would make sure the "right" people were going to grammars.

I do not think that the 23% themselves as human beings and individuals are personally and individually capable of turning a school around, but I do think a school that's missing the top .25 (give or take) is going to struggle with its aspirations and its sense of what is possible or realistic. A school you go to if you fail is clearly, to my mind, going to face different challenges from the school you go to if you pass.

Those are good points. My own view is that it is up to the school to deal with the issue about aspirations and sense of what is realistic, and to instil the highest expectations and set the strongest example. In a way the attitude should be really gutsy - we'll show them. If the school suffers with low expectations and poor aspirations then the teachers, headteachers and parents should deal with that. It's their job. I also don't think the sacrifice of the education of the top 20 per cent is worth this intangible benefit: which could be achieved in other ways (ie through the staffing and ethos).

That was EXCESSIVELY LONG AND BORING! arf I wonder if anyone will read all that

Anyway thank you Nit this is a nice conversation

Tbh teachers I actually never knew the schools were technically secondary moderns.
Yes it makes sense what you are saying, like I said, I don't think these schools are failures, my son will go to one of those schools as opposed to a selective and no doubt will do very well.

But I suppose that's my point, the GS do not achieve the same results as SM due to that fact I guess, I struggle with the idea though that the brightest of children would be given the same opportunities and standard of education, if there were no selective in the area.
But that's something I will never know. I can only try and judge what is best for my own children in my own opinion which is why they will be at 3 different schools.

And now I really am going to bed

TalkingP:
"Statistically, Grammars do get less progress out of their kids than other schools BUT having researched it, I (as an anti grammar school person) do not hold that against them."

a festive arf - I really don't

Gosh this has moved on since lunchtime!! I need to read through before I comment.

Ok. In terms of 'better education': many may feel this is naive or idealistic, but I do feel that my daughters have gained something by going to school with people whose background is very very different from their own, just as I believe anyone would. I think that a better education does or should include being able to get on an and be taught near people who aren't like you, and in the cases of children at high schools, I think it's an opportunity missed.

I'm fairly sure that some middle class children who are no brighter than some disadvantaged children gain places at grammar: I think that's probably inevitable, but I don't think grammars are full of thick but posh children any more than I think they're full of an intellectual elite.

I have an issue with your last point, Brycie, because I don't think you can just say, oh it's up to the school to deal with disillusionment and install high expectations etc etc, when the whole point of that school is that its there to cater for children who have failed. To lay the responsibility for making sure that doesn't affect them purely at the doors of the teachers who teach them is too much to ask.

I would take that to be "rounder social education" then because "better" assumes that it's automatically better, which it might not be.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the last point too - I don't think it's too much to ask at all. I think teachers need backing from supportive management and sensible inclusion/exclusion policies and if they got that, along with the confidence that high expectations would be supported by the head, then I see no reason why teachers couldn't achieve this.

I'll just respond to TalkinP's comment more sensibly. In your research, did you find that the top 20 per cent progress in a comprehensive as much as they progress in a grammar ?

I Am reluctant to say no danger of falling below 40% but it would be something of shocker.

Students are never pulled out of one subject to help with another.

Apparently grammar schools educate only 4% of the secondary school population! Anyone would think from this debate that they were relevant to most DCs when, luckily, they are not.
If 6-7% are educated privately and and even tinier percentage are Home Educated that still leaves more than 85% educated in state comprehensives. I think that therefore we ought to be improving the comprehensives.
They will not come back-if at least 75% are doomed to fail then the majority of parents will be against.

You might be interested in this report Brycie

Brycie
No I did not find that because the DFE have not yet released those statistics.
The data set to hand is the 2011 set - that looks at VA across whole schools.
The 2012 data set - that fully splits VA by bands will not be out till January
and then I will merrily waste spend many hours data mining it

Brycie, are you talking about expectations in a secondary modern?

If so, I don't understand how you can expect a secondary modern to have similar expectations/results to a grammar, when they don't contain the top 20% of the children.

I do agree with having similar expectations in a comprehensive. In fact there was programme on Radio 4 yesterday where this very point was discussed. They found in many failing comps that the biggest turn around in results came when expectations were raised.

gelo
THe data set on which that paper is based is from 2002 : ten years ago - back when London schools underperformed relative to the rest of the country - which is no longer the case.
history not research.

Thank you gelo. It seems to support an argument in favour of grammars?

I have read as far as the part where they talk about what Nit was discussing: ie the effect on students of being told they'd failed. This paper talks about the effect being the result of low expectations and a continuous diet of low level work. This is a resolvable issue within the school. I'll carry on reading.

Oh well there we are - should I carry on TP

Brycie
YES - if nothing else to read Appendix table A1
The list of local authorities with children at grammar schools - see how few all the fuss is about.

"The bottom line for menus that in grammar school areas ( not in suprselective only areas, obviously) 75ish% of children AF publicly told they are failures at the age of 10. Nothing is worth doing that to a cohort of children."

No...they are told they have failed a test for academic ability, that's all. It's not like they have been officially informed they have failed as human beings, or anything

I can tell you that you do feel a failure!
Doors are closed.
Before I failed adults asked me what I wanted to be 'when I grew up'-I could say 'doctor, lawyer etc' and they smiled nicely. After failing the exam the same result got a doubtful 'can you still do that?'!! I got totally fed up with saying 'yes I have to do x, y and z' and I stuck to a simpler 'I haven't decided'. Thousands of DCs who failed got went to university and/or got top jobs but is wasn't easy when at 11 years old you are more or less told 'they are not for you and we are not even going to educate you to give you a chance'!
No one should do that to a child at such a young age.
At least if a DC does fail you can do them the courtesy of taking them seriously if they have an ambition to get to Oxbridge-there is no reason that they can't-other than the government has denied them the best academic education on offer.

Yes it's old.

It finds "selective LEAs are not substantially more successful in raising attainment for their
pupils than non-selective areas, on average." The upper bound by which it raises attainment is 1 GCSE grade, the lower bound zero.

Also that very highly able children benefit less from grammar schools than borderline children.

I'll look for something more recent. Not sure what difference London schools would make.

But if the system says 'you're here because you faled', don't you think it is a bit unreasonable to say it is only the specific teachers' fault if they feel they have failed and aren't as good as the people who passed?

I have to say that the teachers in the secondary modern were very good because they told us, in the A stream, that were were just as good as the grammar school-which obviously we were because one mark would have separated us in some cases! It was the general public who were the problem in thinking you couldn't aim higher than shop work!

ok I have skim read and sort of caught up, in between a failing internet connection!

I think TOSN and I are on the same wavelength. That a rounded education, where students learn that talent is not just about academia, and that you can shine in one, two or all subjects is a cause for celebration and not the reason for those who only shine in one to be split from their peers at age 11, or those who shine in none to be split from their friends at the same age. And also that children benefit from knowing and being friends with those of different intellectual abilities and social backgrounds is a really important factor long term. TP2 also has very valid points I think.

For me, it boils down to strong management. I/my DDs are very lucky to be in a secondary modern with just that situation, where expectations are high and where issues with progress are addressed immediately and on an ongoing basis. Behaviour management is also key.

What I think is spectactularly unfair is that some on here are trying to directly compare GS with SM, when it is clear that if the GS takes the top x per cent in a particular area then of course the SM's broad results will appear lower in comparison (because they take on the students with challenges - and in most cases they do a pretty good job in meeting them).

And I really didn't like Laqueen's comment about GS students "ripping the shit out" of others - how is that good for anyone? Elitism is fine, as long as it is tempered with a healthy dose of self-awareness, and this is something I do not see in the GS students of my acquaintance - obviously this is my personal experience, and I am sure many GS pupils have empathy and emotional intelligence in spades.

Emotional intelligence (not exhbited in rip the shit comment), the ability to be flexible, to get on with people is, I think, far more important longterm than 12 A* at GCSE.

My girls came in at nine and asked what I was doing on here: the older one, as I was explaining the 11+ to the younger, said 'it's like you're telling her a fairy story!'. Ie., in some places, dd, even now, you would have found out a year ago whether you were going to school with your friends or not based on a test you sat about now.....

And then she said 'but that's bullshit, there are people in my geography class [not set] who are predicted a d, but I'm still predicted a*'.

Though I'm sure I should be cross she didn't get to do geography a year early or something.

At last there is some understanding here that the league tables do not necessarily demonstrate that grammars and private schools are superior just because they have better results.

I really do believe that the top sets in our comp (in an area happily free from gs and private schools) are of a comparable standard to a gs top set. They work hard, there are not discipline problems. At risk of repetition, they go on to RG unis and Oxbridge.

I think one reason why our town has such a great community spirit is because everyone's children are at the same school (there is only one) so we all have that in common, whether we have higher degrees, no degrees, high paid jobs, no jobs, children with high or low learning potential, severe learning difficulties and so on. I don't consider a friends' child who is in the middle sets to be a failure, his passion is the family farm and he will be a success at that.

For me, that is what matters most.

Are the adults in your lives really such mean busy bodies? I mean, all these anecdotes about adults asking which school you got and then looking down on you or your DCs because you got the Sec Mod. You should move to a nicer area or make new friends.

The 'funny' thing is that some of the usual suspects go on about not sending their kids to private schools even if they could afford it. Why? Because its full of snobby parents and/or kids that look down on people who aren't well off is the reply.

They now come on threads like this and go on about being made to feel like a failure by their fellow salt of the earth parents/friends because they or their DC aren't going to the GS.

And there you were, thinking that you had to pay £15k pa in order to be around people that look down on you. Aren't you glad you are getting it for free?

what are you on about APMF?