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.

But Woowoo....This is what others are trying to explain. The reason that some of those comprehensives may not be so good is that they are not true comprehensives.
They will have been affected by the creaming off of the most able students to either private schools (as happens in Bristol) or Grammar schools (as happens in Gloucester).

Just using examples closest to me, as seems standard for this thread.

I agree that even in non-selective areas there are comps that are 'less good' for want of a better phrase. The effect of catchment is another thread entirely.

Teacher- My local boys grammar has one of the worst value added in the area.

I will agree, though, that my use of 'identical' was hyperbole. 'The school they attend does not hugely exacerbate differences that may already exist in their life chances' might be more accurate.

The grammar school / secondary modern system was set up to mirror a very similar set-up in employment - the country needed a rather small number of 'highly educated / professional white collar workers', and a larger number of 'skilled or unskilled blue collar workers'. The changes in employment needs in a modern economy make this a hugely outmoded model.

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?'

Agree it doesn't really make sense. If e.g. 5 children from each primary class of 30 are 'grammar school material' and most secondaries are at least 4 form entry, that is 20 children in each grammar level class.

The advantage is that this caters for children who are good at one subject but need more support in another, and allows for flexibility - no huge problem if a maths class size varies from year to year.

I sympathise with parents trying to make the best of the imperfect situation they are in. Social difficulties are a barrier to education and many schools are not coping with these problems, and few adequately support SEN. I don't think grammars are as divisive as faith schools or independent schools. However, as a system of education to aspire to, the arguments don't add up.

To share another personal example - far from where I live, though.

Even in a school with 'headline' GCSE results below the Government floor level, in one of the toughest areas of a very tough town [I have searched MN for the school, and it has never been mentioned - even the area has only been mentioned once, as an area never to go near!], 3 of the most able students got 10 A* / As at GCSE last year.

The question is, as always, not 'what is the school like overall?', but 'can my child achieve good results from this school?'. Even in the 'worst' schools, the ones MNetters would never consider, able children can and do achieve well. It may just be that, due to the effects of catchment, those more able students might be (according to the DfE website) only 1% of the student body, and so may not have a visible effect on the 'top line' results or reputation.

The reason that some of those comprehensives may not be so good is that they are not true comprehensives

That depends on how you define 'good'. I realise they might not get quite as good results with a few of the local high achievers going elsewhere, but if they get the very best they can out of the intake they have, then that's very good!

No school will ever be truly comprehensive as long as catchments, private schools and special schools exist, so getting rid of grammar schools would do very little to change that in non selective areas.

The comp my ds goes to does a great job and gets good results regardless of the fact that there are numerous private schools, two grammar schools and a special school within a ten mile radius. As a parent of the school, the thing that matters the most is that they will provide the opportunity for my child to do well as long as my child is making the effort.

I'm not sure that value added scores are as important for grammar schools that regularly get very high results as they are for comprehensives.

How do we identify which children cannot be effectively educated in a comprehensive system without a certain amount of selection?

So. Benefits of separate grammar schools
over top set of comprehensive- not doing food tec
and product design - all the grammar schools I know do both. And doing Latin and Greek-well I agree no many comprehensives do that. But neither do all grammars. And they would be a minority interest even then.
So not really a justificAtion for an entire
System of education!

But what you are talking about is value added?

Why shouldn't it be important for every child, regardless of whether they attend grammar, independent, comp, special?

If The VA score is not good for the grammar it implies that that pupil could have done better elsewhere (all the myriad of other factors notwithstanding).

FWIW, I am one of the people who went to segregated (by both wallet and exam) schools.
DH went to comps.
We met at uni at a time when 1 in 20 went - he was the first person in his family ever to go to uni.
Fee paying is not an option for us as fees have risen by much more than inflation over the last 30 years.
There is a grammar in the next country that we could probably have got the kids into, but because of his work, he is much happier that they go to the comp - which gets around 10% of its kids into RG type universities.

I wasn't trying to justify an entire system, I was trying to answer what the benefits for my own child have been, at the only grammar school I have experience of.

Also, the way I would define a 'good' comprehensive is clearly very different from the opinion of mumsnet.

I do agree that you do what is best for your child, but please, it is very short-sighted to bang on and on for pages about this without taking account of the damage it can do to thousands of children.

"I'm not sure that value added scores are as important for grammar schools that regularly get very high results as they are for comprehensives. "

Educationally, that is an appalling thing to say, as surely what is MOST important in terms of the education of every child is that they make the maximum PROGRESS that they are capable of.

If value add is low, then the children are not making the progress they are capable of. Especially in the case of very able children, who have shown a great capacity for making great progress, a lack of progress is really worrying.

[There is, to be precise and fair, an issue with value add for superselectives, because to make even expected progress from their starting points, a higher than A* grade might be needed. But that is not the case for the vast maority of grammar schools]

My proposal, by the way, for identifying the children who cannot be effectively educated in a comprehensive school due to their absolutely exceptional ability would be exactly the same as for identifying children for special school at the moment - a range of tests and personal reports adminstered by an ed psych.

There also are many who hated the GS experience.

Kitchendiner- My DH was one of those. Interestingly he went to a super-selective that has been mentioned a few times on this thread. He wasn't the only one from his peer group who has said that they wished they had gone to a different school in hindsight.

My understanding of VA scores is very basic, so my thinking for my last post isn't very clear, let alone my writing!

I think what I trying to get at is the point you made for SS's. When I made my choice to apply to our GS, VA didn't mean a huge amount to me because it was quite clear that the children would be starting school at level 5a and 6 and that the vast majority then left with As and A*'s.

It made more difference to me when I was looking at the comp, because they don't have the expectation that every child will leave with Bs at the very least, so the VA score was worth paying attention to.

Hope that makes some kind of sense, I wasn't saying that VA scores aren't important.

Pat - I have several friends like that and they have made sure their own kids didn't didn't go there (and it's a very highly respected and sought after GS).

If value added is low then they might as well be anywhere - all the school is doing is keeping them out of trouble. In some areas that actually might be a real advantage, but again not really a system of education for the country to aspire to.

^PatTheHammer Mon 28-Oct-13 12:57:37

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?^

and to complete the conclusion, let us put this into perspective. How many grammar schools are there is this country? How many comprehensive schools are there?

So in real terms grammars do amazingly better if their miniscule number provide almost a third of all Oxbridge entrants. Same holds for private schools, there aren't that many in relation to comprehensives, but they sent an awful lot more students into good quality unis.

But is this exactly news?

The point is that, if you are arguing for grammar schools as 'a better way of educating the more able', then that should imply that in a grammar school, those more able children should make significantly better progress than they would in a comprehensive.

Otherwise, there is surely no benefit of the grammar school ...

(One of the reasons DS and DD attend / will attend the local comprehensive is that, from their 5s and 6s starting points, they will end up with As and A*s, and the school will make certain that they do because their high VA and high results really matter to the school. There is no additional benefit for them - and some significant disadvantages - of travelling to a grammar)

Errr, no summerworld.....because they don't have the same intake.

So not amazingly better.

My post was just highlighting an earlier very incorrect post that only 3-5% of Oxbridge entrants come from state comps. When actually as teacherwith2kids clarified it is more like 40%

The barriers for many students of applying to Oxbridge are absolutely nothing to do with their results - as I said upthread, there is probably an even stronger correlation betrween family + Oxbridge entrance than there is between type of school and such entrance.

A better comparison would be between 'qualifying A level results' - ie those young adults who obtain A-level results that COULD gain them an Oxbridge or similar place SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO APPLY.

Agreed, anyone who thinks students can get into Oxbridge based purely on the results they achieve has no knowledge of the admission and application process.

Yes, lets give private schools a big pat on the back shall we for all that difficult work they do getting their students into good universities

"The point is that, if you are arguing for grammar schools as 'a better way of educating the more able', then that should imply that in a grammar school, those more able children should make significantly better progress than they would in a comprehensive"

Which they don't.

What are the benefits of a grammar school education over being educated in the top set of a comprehensive school?

I remember once suggesting on a Xenia thread that the best outreach many private secondaries could provide is to help with university admission / Oxbridge entrance for all the state school pupils from the surrounding area who have certain qualifying grades. For it is often that expertise / personal contacts / knowledge of 'the system' / confidence that is responsible for additional places, not the A-level results of the child.

(Also, looking at the architecture of many leading private schools, dare I say it that Oxbridge would seem much more familiar and approachable to one of their products than it would to the products of many of our 1970s built comprehensives - as my mother said, when passing our local [not great] private in all its Gothic extravagence "No wonder they grow up to think that they are Lords of the universe"]

(Curlew, dare I suggest it might be 'separation from The Great Unwashed, even in the canteen' that is the desirable feature? Or am I being too cynical here?)