Genuine question - why do some people have a problem with the grammar school system

[englishteacher78]

I went to one - my choice in part, parents would have preferred me to go to the Catholic secondary. As a teacher I have worked in two.
I know if I had gone to the Catholic school I would have coasted (even more than I did).
Some people seem to he very against the grammar school system and I'm not sure why. It was the making of my dad (miner's son from council estate in Scotland)and I think that all counties should have that provision. Surely it's just split site streaming in a way.

Riiiight... and for as long as not all parents are 'supportive', it's best if those children are all kept together away from the nice ones - even if we accept your premise that there's a direct correlation between supportiveness and passing the 11+.

And in the utopian day when all parents become supportive, nobody will mind at all if they don't pass the 11+, and the schools you go to if you fail will be considered just as good as the ones you go to if you pass. The only thing that's not so good about not passing the 11+ is that you most likely have unsupportive parents, you're saying? Which makes it less likely you'll pass anyway, I supppose.

I remain unconvinced.

What benefit do you think they bring those who don't go to them?

Why do they need to bring benefit to those who don't go to them?

They don't need to benefit those that don't go to them. Those that don't go to them need to seek their benefits from their own schools.

But if I were forced to answer this bizarre and frankly irrelevant question, then I'd say that the GS that we use probably turns out a lot of students who go on to be higher rate tax payers and society sees the benefit through having lots of well educated solicitors, doctors, scientists etc.

I think I'll stop reading this thread, as a teacher it distresses me to see people making ill-informed comments about what happens in comprehensive education. Sometimes when they have very little or no experience of it.

'It's nigh on impossible to move up to the top set at a comprehensive school as they do different work' is an example of such an ignorant comment.

That's because the argument for grammar schools that is always trotted out is that they aid social mobility. Well, if that ever happened, it most certainly doesn't now.

So improve the admissions system. Use updated tests and take into account each student's background and the opportunities they've had so far.

TheOriginalSteamingNit why should grammars be responsible for other students? It's up to the non-grammars to benefit their own students. If they're failing to do so, then they need to improve

Erm, never said they should be. But if you are talking about a system - of selection, that is - then that system should be fair. It shouldn't be designed with the advantages of a minority as its priority. We need a rationale for why this system is best for everyone, not the ones who pass the test. I think it's very telling that people refer to 'the grammar system', actually.

The schools you go to if you fail are defined in part by the fact that they are not the school you go to if you pass. You can't consider a school in a vacuum from its entry policy and the schools around it.

TOSN, you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I'm actually writing. I'm not saying that it's best if children are kept away from each other.

The fact that children are separated isn't that big an issue in my mind, but then I don't live in an 11+ area where one test literally makes the difference between going to a good or bad school.

Children get separated for secondary school in this area regardless of the 11+. Some parents choose the local comp because its a good school, some choose private, some choose the religious school, some choose the single sex state schools over the co ed ones. They are all valid choices that parents should be able to make for their children.

Erm, never said they should be.

Not directly, but you implied it though the question that you asked, which I then answered for you.

I give up, the level of obtuseness (to put it politely and avoid saying 'stupidity) is unbelievable.

If you campaign for grammar schools, you campaign for a less comprehensive education in the other schools around them. You're not campaigning for 'more grammars' in a vacuum, you're campaigning for a selective system of secondary education. I want to know how that's best for everyone not just the minority.

It is quite evident from the utterly baseless observations like 'everyone on here who's anti grammar went to private school' that the level of reading comprehension is pretty low - have yet to see that one backed up!

Oh, actually found it myself:
'In 2011 students from grammar schools made up around one-third of state school entrants to Oxford and Cambridge respectively'

So if 35% come from private schools, that still leaves just under a third to come from state comprehensives doesn't it?

TOSN,

We are really lucky, because that's exactly the choice that my children have had - they have passed for our (few) local grammars BUT we live in the catchment of an excellent comprehensive and both children have chosen that instead of the journey to a grammar.

However, we are in an exceptionally lucky position, as the comp in question comes above some of the grammars (and all but 1 of the privates) in terms of absolute results, and above almost all in terms of added value.

Given that the margin between 'success' and 'failure' at 11+ is tiny, the question about grammars vs comprehensives has to be about who they disadvantage as much as who they advantage.

At the very top of the distribution of 'academic ability', there are a very tiny number of children so able that they are genuinely difficult to educate in a system designed for the majority - and as I have said upthread, a system of 'special schools', for those whose ability is so high that mainstream schooling is both inappropriate and inefficient may be needed. A very few superselectives are probably already in this category - I did once work out that the one closest to me probably took 1 in 5-10,000 of the children in its 'effective catchment' - whether it effectively identifies the correct children is another matter; it probably just takes a random, heavily coached, selection of the top 5%.

Then there is the vast bulk of the 'middle ground'. The existing grammar school system in many areas - and the traditional grammar school system even more so - puts a line through these and puts some in a 'grammar' box and some in a 'secondary modern' box. However, on a different day, a very large number of children - at least the top set of any sec mod and the bottom of the grammar, possibly even 2 sets of each - could have been swapped over, as statistically there is no genuine difference between their intelligence. Yet the system pretends that these children 'belong' in different boxes, and give them separate educations with different opportunities. Which is at best unfair and at worst immorally wasteful, especially since the current employment landscape (much more than the 'blue collar / white collar' dichotomy of yesteryear, for which grammars were designed) requires very much the same of ALL these children when they gro to be adults - which is why a comprehensive system that gives them all the same opportunities makes so much more sense.

There is also the issue of 'spiky' children - exceptional mathematicians with ESL who flunk VR tests, for example. In a comprehensivem children like these are simply set for each subject appropriately. In a secondary modern, their true maths set is not available.....

Mobility between sets is, IME, relatively easy in the younger years of comprehensives: DS and his friends are re-assorted every half term.

TOSN, the access to grammar schools I would like the whole country to have would be similar to the access I have around here.

There are not enough grammar places for the existence of the grammar school to make one iota of difference to the level of comprehensive education in this area.

It doesn't matter if its good for a minority, because the majority get good too!

It's not a selective system because you can be in the system and barely register that there's an 11+ available if you want it. It's an option, not a system.

Pat, actually a little more:

35% from private.

According to your figures, about a third OF THE REMAINING 65% - a bit less than 22% - are from grammars.

Which leaves around 43 - 44% from comprehensives

Thanks teacher, I strongly suspected it was a lot more than 3-5%.

Mobility between sets or streams is one of the strong features of any of the comprehensive schools I have taught in. Utterly confuses me that people think this is not the case.

[A more interesting question would be what proportion of Oxbridge entrants are from families who have been to Oxbridge in previous generations - this may well be a stronger link than the school one.... Certianly in my immediate family (2 Oxbridge educated parents), the comprehensive-educated child, the privately educated one and the half-and-half child all went to Oxbridge... and all the children of my Oxbridge contemporaries, howsoever they are educated, regard the 'dreaming spires' as a wholly attainable ambition]

Maybe those genuinely on the borderline could be given a choice as to which sort of education they'd prefer, or have the chance for a re-test.

The fact there's a borderline isn't a reason to deny the grammar education to the many who are clearly well above the pass mark.

2012 data from Oxford:

www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/undergraduate_admissions_statistics/school_type.html

% from private schools: 41.5% of acceptances

% from grammar: 18.4%

% from comprehensive institutions (comprehensives + 6th form colleges as none of these tend to be selective) : 34.7%

% from FE college / other maintained (I was tempted to describe these as comprehensive, and tbh I suspect many are, but I suppose some could be selective): 3%

Will see if I can find the same for Cambridge

This has happenned because so many grammar were closed and the quotas for disadvantaged students abolished (which were there originally).

This is the very first I have heard of this. Do you have any evidence of this ever having happened?

Coupon, ability is (roughly) a bell curve. So, statistically, the number around the borderline for all except the most extreme superselectives is much higher than the number well above - bizarre but true!

Cambridge satats are here:
www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/publications/docs/admissionsstatistics2012.pdf

They are slightly harder to interpret, because of the breakdown of the table into 'home' and 'other' applications. However, the percentage of acceptances from 'comprehensive institutions' of all types, added together, is around twice the percentage of acceptances from grammar schools, which is similar to what Pat originally posted.

Those on the borderline in 11+ areas can go through the appeal process.

Woo, But that doesn't compensate for the very large number of children who, on a different day, would fail rather than pass, or the other way round.

The margin of error on 'are these children of the correct ability for grammar?' is really quite large - probably 10% either way, maybe more when coaching / not coaching is taken into account. In a fully-selective county or town, that really would mean the exchange of complete classes of children from one school to another without any impact on the school .... but a huge amount of impact on the children involved. Whereas in a comprehensive system, that entire group of children would have identical educational opportunities and identical future prospects.

I genuinely believe that we are asking the wrong question here. The question should be 'which children CANNOT be effectively educated in a comprehensive system?'

Teacher- I think that is a much more valid question.

In counties and cities where there is no nearby grammar or super-selectives, then is there evidence of a poorer outcome for the most able?
I would hazard a guess at no, but would be genuinely interested if any studies have been done. Surely if thousands of high ability children are being left to rot in comprehensives in non-selective areas then someone must have noticed and be taking action? Again, I strongly suspect that it is a non-issue fuelled by a misunderstanding of the type of teaching and learning that goes on in the vast majority of schools.

Good question Teacher. And if anyone says "children in the top 1%" then they are also talking about the children you mention with the spiky profiles who would fail their 11+ because they might excel only in one area. Is it fair that these children who might be 1 in 200 or fewer have to go to a secondary modern school where all their intellectual peers have been creamed off? Surely they deserve to sit in the top group with children of similar ability and the only place this can happen is a comprehensive.

I agree there are major flaws with the system in fully selective areas, I was just pointing out that results on one day do not necessarily mean that a child in these areas has no chance of going to the school that is right for them.

I disagree that comprehensive systems mean that all children have identical educational opportunities and identical future prospects, because as I've already said, I think so much depends on parents. You also have to consider that not all comprehensives are of the same standard.

Woowoo - but nor are all grammars.

The value add for many are shocking: essentially they get the results they do because they have a selected, easy intake with which they do...not a lot...