Grammar Schools : the debate is about what happens NOW

[TalkinPeace]

In the 20 years after WW2, when the baby boomers were kids, grammar schools did amazing things for social mobility.

But then, self preservation kicked back in
and since 1970, selective state schools have become progressively less inclusive
to the extent today where the (grammar school educated head of OFSTED) says
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25386784

the death knell has been rung
as it has for DB pensions (another great Baby Boomer nest lining idea)

so lets bite the bullet and put equal resources into all schools and reduce the carbon footprint of the grammar school madness.

Nit it's not bollocks I'm afraid. It's true. I'm quite happy to believe you when you say that where you live the schools wouldn't be rigidly segregated (but actually, I notice that you did add a caveat about the people living in the catchment of the estate (shock horror) going private.... Yes. :( I realise it's too much to hope for that normal people wouldn't flee from going to a school with 1970s me. :( ) but that wouldn't be the case everywhere.

There are all sorts of ways of making the comp system work and fair banding is probably the best but of course that would mean a test for everyone. At 10. And grading everyone. But personally I'd definitely support that. It would take some modelling but you could, on a countywide basis, devise a system where the superselective percentage were all split between 2 or 3 schools, so they had approaching a critical mass, the rest of the top 25% evenly distributed, and down the scale, with some distance thrown in too (or possibly feeder primaries to mix it up a bit). It would cost a fortune though, because they'd have to administer the test, and then pay for the transport for the superselective ones - and anyone allocated to a school further away than they'd like - but what you'd get would be a reasonable social mix, a reasonable ability mix, and the super selective level kids would be able to function in a fair way too rather than isolating them.

One last thing - people who support the idea of 'community schools' usually live in a nice community. I grew up in two communities, the physical one and the church one. I did go to my community school, my church community school, but it happened to be the other side of the borough, where the posh people lived rather than on the estate where I lived. If I'd gone to school in the community in which my flat was located, I do not believe I would have had the academic success that I did. I believe I'd still be living where (or close to where) I grew up. And while actually - bloody hell, I do wish I'd stayed there because I do not like where I live now and I wish I lived where I belong- nonetheless from a taxation point alone the national coffers are a bit better off for me being exiled from where I belong, I think. Plus, I'd like to think that I do a bit of good in my job, too.

Problem is as pointed out in an article in the papers today - the middle class are not only tutoring their children to get into GS schools but are also moving house or buying a second house to get their children into the GS schools..... so it is a case of money buying education that was meant for the families with bright children that could not afford private education.

I would like to see the end of GS's but still give every child the opportunity to be educated to their full potential ... I think most children have strengths and weaknesses and about 50% of the things they study in school become worthless unless they decide to teach that subject ... I dont think its just a case of looking at the GS system (which no longer services its purpose) but its a case of looking at what education is needed to secure a long term career and enable growth within retail, industry, services and commerce .... at the age of 11, education can still be all encompassing at primary schools.

Snobbery Curlew- it's not snobbery but priorities.The very priorities that give advantages which are then criticised as being unfair.Utter bloody madness.

The hypocrisy on this thread is staggering.

met I was just about to make that point about communities.

I'm not religious myself, but many members of my family would see their church community as their closest band of brothers.

Interestingly, I'm a governor at a school which very much reflects the community near it; overwhelmingly poor, muslim, asian. However, that does not reflect the city in which it is entirely. Not at all.

I thought that, in the days (ie. 20 ish years between 1947 - 1967) when the GS/SM split was the norm and the 11+ absolutely dominated junior school education, that it was acknowledged that about 20% of children ended up in the wrong school.

That meant that 10% who ought to have had a GS education ended up at the Sec Mod, and similarly, although not talked about as much, 10% did not really warrant the GS place. There used to be much talk about those who were late developers who were often failed by the system. There was never as much talk about those who I once heard described as 'early stoppers' i.e. they did well at primary school, but not much afterwards.

Why am I rambling on? Well to get it wrong for 1/5th of our children is quite a large number to get it wrong for. Not only that, I believe that the whole concept was based on a flawed model - it assumed that intelligence was fixed, which I don't believe it is, and that it could be accurately measured by a one or two day test at 10/11.

Comprehensives have now been around about twice as long as the old Sec Mods/ and the post 1944 Education Act Grammar School incarnation, so I suspect that for a good many parents and children that they are doing something right, otherwise they would not survive.

Sorry but the presence of a teeny number of children(who should never be held responsible for the progress of others) along with their desired pushy parents should be neither here nor there.

If a school can't produce fab results without the above it has major problems.

Curlew you are clearly still distraught. Obviously it is indeed a completely wtf situation but that's how you present. And it is not bollocks that catchment systems are driven by wealth (or lack thereof). Anyone who isn't invested in segregating by wealth will admit that.

I'm hoping loads get into grammar instead of our local comp as my other son will then be in all the top sets and get pushed like kids in top sets always do.

Re unfairness middle kids being left to plod is a far bigger and more damaging issue.

All my kids have SEN and to my mind, what is being done to kids with especially dyspraxia and dyslexia is the biggest scandal of all. But I know I'm biased.

looking forward to evidence of my distraughtness!

It's wonderfully easy to convince oneself that a person is wrong by personalising and projecting. "I would be distraught if my child had to go to a Secondary Modern. Therefore Curlew must be too, and therefore everything she says must be wrong. So I can carry on thinking thy system is wonderful- the only people who think it isn't have had their thinking deranged by grief and jealousy"

Mete re dyslexia you're right.

Only the rich with a spare £300 for a private diagnosis seem to get help these days.

It's also easy to convince oneself that a personal bete noir is nothing to do with ones own DC. That the tub thumping is for the greater good .

You're right but the fact is re grammar the numbers are teeny.Standards re middle ability kids are an Ofsted focus as many simply aren't being pushed enough.

There is too much tub thumping over an issue that effects very few but not enough for issues that effect many in a far more damaging way.

There are comps that get better results than Grammars

Yes of course, there are exceptions to every rule. But in general the brighter children get worse results in comps than in selective schools. Why should this only be open to those with the money to go private?

Grammar schools are full of the children of pushy parents, not necessarily the brightest children.

So improve the selection process.

My husband was from a very poor family, MiL has serious mental health problems, FiL not interested in DH or his brother. It was only through a grammar school education that DH got the opportunity to have a good education and the chance of a professional qualification. I came from a family background where the education of females was viewed as a waste of time - boys went to public school and girls at wherever the state slotted them in, again a grammar school education gave me opportunities I otherwise would not have had. We live in a county where there are still grammar schools (5, I think) and both my sons attended one leaving with better qualifications than those who went to prep school with them got in the private sector. I have had it up to here with the constant bashing of the aspirational middle classes that goes on in government and parts of the press, The middle classes pay for everything these days it seems, only to be ridiculed left right and centre.

metebilis - it is bollocks, because you're telling me I'm in favour of selection by wealth (ie postcode) and I'm not!

And the point about council estates in catchments is a RL one - and I agree with you that it's sad people flee from going to school with people who live on one! That is what the problem was with a local school - had a catchment largely from council estate which, whenever MNers mention they're moving to where I live, someone will come on and say 'avoid That Estate at all costs!!!' - but also a very wealthy area too.

The school was a byword for the estate, the people in the wealthy area often cite it as the reason they 'had' to go private, numbers dwindled and it's closing. I think that's sad and shit.

I live in the next area along, which is also very mixed - certainly not 'MN Naice', for the most part. So don't tell me I only support schools which serve their communities because I live in a good one.

Nit - But you are. You don't want to be, you want to deny it, but that doesn't change the fact that selection by catchment is in many cases selection by wealth. It's a far more valid point than the one that so many people are fond of making about those who support grammar schools also supporting secondary moderns. I don't believe that secondary moderns are nearly as invidious as selection by catchment, incidentally.

The only way the comp system can be not based on wealth is by adopting fair banding and abolishing private schools.

Erm, I'm not. This is sounding a bit playground. But... I'm not, and if you could stop telling me I am, I should very much appreciate it .

The very vast majority of catchments involve some better and some worse off families; usually of different faiths and ethnicities also: I want them all to go to the same school.

And yes, that would be radically assisted by abolishing private schools, of which I am also in favour.

I think children should go to schools near them - and I think pockets of unmitigated wealth in catchment are far, far rarer than areas with diversity. You seem to equate wealth with postcode; I don't. Most postcodes (and to be fair, in a catchment for secondary you'd have more than one) are not exclusively one thing or another.

And to be honest, in principle I am not against banding - I just think in the majority of cases you wouldn't need to do it if people just sent their children to the local school, and didn't say 'well, you see, we were actually in the catchment for 'X school', so we had to go private'.

And I'd appreciate it if people would stop saying that to support grammar schools is to support secondary moderns. But actually - both statements are both true and untrue. Selection by wealth is a current consequence in most areas of having selection by catchment. Sec mods are a current consequence in 3 areas of having grammar schools. Most people who support the 'good thing' (comps, grammar schools) accept that the consequence is a bit shit (you said so yourself) and really want that bit to be improved. If the courtesy of acknowledging that isn't extended to people who support grammar schools, I don't see why it should be extended to supporters of comps (which actually, I am also one of, having a DS at one). Even ones who I like and who are completely reasonable about most things (and completely on the nose as regards book choice).

Nit - how about 'we were in catchment for X school so we had to bus the kids miles away to the good school'? Which is the OP's position.

And you would always need to do banding because otherwise each school wouldn't have an equal spread and there would be outliers (in either direction). You'd probably want a few centres of excellence for SEN provision too.

There is SO much that could be done with proper compulsory state education, given the money and the will. But currently, we are given neither. :(

Who said what consequence is a bit shit, sorry?

And how about 'we were in catchment for X school so we had to bus the kids miles away to the good school'? Which is the OP's position - no, I don't think that's very good either.

Nit you said a few posts ago I think that's sad and shit

snowed
But in general the brighter children get worse results in comps than in selective schools
could you provide a link for that as I've never ever heard it before,

and if that was the case then the areas with grammars would have higher average grades than the areas without - which they do not.

curlew
the poster who had one kid at grammar and one at sec mod who always piled into these threads was seeker. She no longer posts (under that name)

and nobody has explained to me why the selection should be on English, Maths and "verbal reasoning"
rather than science, running and drawing ......
why should those kids not get a specialist school safe from the doodlers and dawdlers?

Ah right - but I don't see that (parents opting for private rather than send to what was, incidentally, an Ofsted rated 'Good' school) as a 'consequence' of anything other than their own snobbery - I don't think it's a consequence of catchments or comprehensive education as ideas.

I see what you mean, but that's not the way I meant it.