Grammar schools - interesting article

[UnquietDad]

it be here

I know it's over a year old, but I'm new here, so apologies if people have seen it before!

As a former grammar school boy myself - whose parents could never have afforded to go private - I found it interesting. I find it a shame that my DD won't have the same opportunity.

"(the two Tiffin schools are still grammar schools and are always in the top 10 performing schools in England)"
Not this year apparently!
The Times list of top state schools has Tiffin Girls School at no. 4, but Tiffin School is no 43!
(Mind you this list was produced very rapidly and it actually says that Tiffin School is for girls as well, so there may be other mistakes....)

I think I've had it in my blood to defend grammar schools ever since a particular day at the age of 13. I, in my new blazer and tie, was walking up the hill from school to be met by my mum, and two girls - quite attractive in a nasty sort of way - sashayed past, one of whom loudly sneered "fing posh wr" over her shoulder.

A few years ago in a socially "crunchy" part of our city, the council decided to shift the catchment area for one of the most popular comprehensive schools down about 50 houses. As you can imagine, it caused the middle-classes of our fair city to start having steam coming out of their ears.

It meant that people who had paid over the odds for their houses in the nice area were now in the catchment for one of the most shoddy comps in the country, let alone the city. I was quite amused to see people who had been vocal supporters of the comprehensive system suddenly cutting and running when their principles were starkly challenged.

Yes Unquiet

It is ALWAYS amusing to see the smug middle class liberal suddenly grasp that the comfy words they espouse so easily, actually have a consequence for them in the real world!!

Not that I am especially cruel at all. Just dislike the "it's ok for that lot, but not for my little Jemmima.."...

Did anyone else read the article on exactly this subject in yesterday's Telegraph magazine, and if they did, am I right in thinking that it all sounds far more competitive and "cruel" than the 11+ ever was?

I am confused, I thought the tiffin exam was just verbal and non verbal reasoning...it seems they have a separate mathematics and english paper too..is this right?

Sound like the 11+ by the back door.

Yes, Celia2 is right, and some of the Sutton schools also do an English paper. It's all mix and match, and very tiring for the kids.

There's nothing more I can say against grammar schools. If you are defending them because they benefited you then that's understandable. If you are defending them because of the benefits they brought to the relatively small percentage of the population (which should tell you something about the class of the majority of its pupils if you don't believe anything I say) then that's just a bit weird... As I've said a bunch of schools which only educate a minority cannot possibly benefit the majority (even if you don't buy the argument that they actively damage the majority).

I also want to question some of your recent points Unquiet dad,

'I think that in 30 years' time we will look back at the comprehensive system as a hollow "success" containing a huge failure.'

While, I agree that there are huge problems and inequalities in our education system (largely in my view because there is still selection whether explicit or covert in the form of grammar schools, faith schools, schools which select on aptitude, schools which select according to your ability to afford the catchment etc etc) I really believe (and thought most people did) that comprehensive schools have been a huge success. The aim of the comprehensive school is to provide every child with an equally high-standard of education regardless of his or her background, faith, gender or ability. I have acknowledged that in reality this doesn't always happen (largely because of the reasons I've listed above) BUT I again refer you to the fact that every child sits the same exams and pass rates are rising as is entry to university. I don't think anyone should undermine these huge and important successes.

'What I feel we need in our school system is not just grammar schools but even more diversification, not more homogenising.'

Absolutely disagree. In most cases a local comprehensive school can and should meet the needs of all the students in the catchment area. It is faith schools, specialist schools, grammar schools and this govt's insistence on parental choice (which in practice means more choice for the middle-classes and less for the working-classes) which conflicts with the comprehensive project and leads to inequalities in the system.

'the secondary will be seen as a "second best" option to the grammar for as long as people, both outside and WITHIN the system, treat it as such.'

That's a bit like saying 'silver' will be seen as 'second best' to gold for as long as people treat it as such.

'I can see how some people feel selection discriminates, and feel that people who deserve a place are overlooked. But if there are only so many places, it's going to be inevitable.'

Thank goodness for that - the fact that you can see how selection discriminates I mean. But it's not inevitable if you refuse to accept a school system which has limited places. The comprehensive system has no limit to the number of students who go there. Nobody is discriminated against. Everybody gets an equal chance of a good education. How revolutionary!!

'The argument then becomes another, perhaps more interesting one: to what extent is there a vast, untapped wealth of talent which should have been given a chance to shine at grammar school and wasn't given that chance because they messed up the 11+? We may never know.'

Yes, we do know. Every child is born with a 'vast, untapped wealth of talent'. Almost every child who 'failed' the 11+ or 13+ (the majority) was refused the same kinds of chances to develop that talent as the children who went to grammar school (the minority).

'We do know grammar schools aren't right for everyone, so it's a question of whether the cut-off came at the right percentile.'

It just seems so painfully obvious to me that we need a system that is 'right for everyone' partly because, as you point out, those who narrowly miss the cut off point (wherever it is set) are going to be the ones who suffer most. If that study someone cited earlier is to believed it is actually students of middle ability (at the lowest end of the ability range in the grammar schools) who benefit most in grammar schools and suffer most if they are rejected by the grammar schools.

'But I must admit that I don't really understand why anybody who was not that "academic" (for want of a better word) would WANT a place at a grammar school, let alone feel they'd been diddled out of the chance to have one.'

Oh dear, there are some things you really aren't getting aren't there?

1. Who decides that the kids who don't get into grammar school are not that 'academic'. It wasn't and isn't necessarily the case that they weren't academic so much as they didn't score as highly in the 11+ exams as the other kids who filled the limited places in the grammar schools.

For example, in the London Borough of Redbridge where I used to teach in a comprehensive school. There are 2 grammar schools (1 for girls and 1 for boys) which each take 120 kids in year 7 each year a tiny minority of the 1000 kids who apply for each school each year and an even smaller minority of the kids in the borough as a whole. Nobody would dream of suggesting that the kids in all the comprehensive schools in Redbridge are not academic. In fact, I have taught many gifted children who got 7 or more A*s at GCSE whose parents chose not to put their kids through the pressure of the 11+ or who didn't know about it or how to go about applying or didn't care.

2. At grammar school kids sat different exams. CSEs were considered fairly worthless in comparison to O Levels and it was much harder to use them to get into uni.

3. Secondary moderns received less funding, worse facilities and the best teachers were often attracted more to grammaar schools. Those teachers who found themselves in secondary moderns often resented it and the kids they taught.

4. In spite of some of my points above, you may be right that many of the kids who didn't get into grammar school were not considered 'academic' in the conventional sense whatever that is? But how do you think it feels to be told this when you're 11 years old? Do you think you would ever be able to shake the label 'non-academic'? Would it make you more inclined to work harder at your studies? Would it make you feel good to know that some of your friends, family, class-mates were going to grammar school but you weren't because you weren't 'academic' enough??

I wanted to say also that comprehensives do tap into the 'wealth of talent' of our youth more than any other school. If you compare value added league tables with exam results league tables you will see what I mean. I think I'm right in saying that grammaar schools and other schools which often seem to be performing highest in the league tables actually often add least value whereas comprehensives which often seem to be performing badly (according to exam results) are actually making an enormous differnce in terms of value added.

I'm afraid the most recent (January 2006)value added results don't bear that out. The top school is certainly comprehensive but the vast majority of the rest of the top ones are selective (and largely independent, with lots of faith schools - but that's another thread)

Have to confess that I'm surprised by this. Seems depressing and unlikely that so many appearing on this chart are independent and selective. However, I'm noting that there aren't many state grammar (as opposed to private schools which use 'grammar' in their name) schools on this list. Looks like all Ind or comp or va. How do they calculate Value Added then?

A lot of this I can just let go, but I have to pick up on some key bits:

"pass rates are rising as is entry to university. I don't think anyone should undermine these huge and important successes."
Depends on a lot of things. If you're comparing like with like, for one.

"In most cases a local comprehensive school can and should meet the needs of all the students in the catchment area."
Should? Yes. Can? No.

"Oh dear, there are some things you really aren't getting aren't there?"
Please don't be patronising. I could say the same to you.

"That's a bit like saying 'silver' will be seen as 'second best' to gold for as long as people treat it as such."
Not at all. Your false analogy is a perfect example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. YOU're putting down secondary moderns - not me.

"The comprehensive system has no limit to the number of students who go there."
The system as a whole may not, but the more "desirable" schools do. There is a HUGE gulf between the performances of the best and worst comsp, and these performances can be plotted almost perfectly against the

"Nobody is discriminated against."
Except people who don't get into the comprehensive school of their choice, because they don't happen to live in an affluent catchment area.

"Everybody gets an equal chance of a good education."
Or everybody gets an equal chance of a mediocre education.

"CSEs were considered fairly worthless in comparison to O Levels and it was much harder to use them to get into uni."
Not worthless, but certainly a different qualification which was more appropriate for a different route. I'm sure some people who "only" took CSEs could have done O-levels. Now, we have the GCSE, a halfway house which doesn't stretch the most able. Neither system is perfect.

And if it's true that some pupils at secondary moderns were made to feel less than welcome and less than worth teaching, that came from individuals and not from the system or the kids.

Can we agree that:

• the 11+ was not a perfect method of selection and isn't itself something to go back to (even if wer don't agree on what should replace it).
• the current way the comprehensive system works is flawed, particularly with regard to catchments.

and agree to disagree on:

• the overall merits of selection.
• the need for diversity within the education system.
• the conclusions to be drawn from the fact that more people are passing exams and going to university?

Sorry - this bit made no sense because I didn't finish it.

"The comprehensive system has no limit to the number of students who go there."
The system as a whole may not, but the more "desirable" schools do. There is a HUGE gulf between the performances of the best and worst comps, and these performances can be plotted almost perfectly against the socio-economic standing of the area. There are glitches, but as an general rule, the best comprehensives are in the affluent areas and the worst are on sink estates. So if you're a reasonably bright kid from a council estate, the CURRENT system puts you on that "scrap-heap" - don't try to convince me that all comprehensives offer an equal chance, because I'm not buying it.

I went to a grammer school as did my partner. We were both the first people in our not well off families to go to university, although subsequently one got there from a comprehensive. We earned more than most - but not all - of the other members of our families who didn't get to university. So for us the system worked and did just what the rather forgotten original article said - it improved social mobility.

Now the better off families send their children to private schools but fewer poor families have the option of grammer schools. Comprehensive schools can be great if your children are not easily led but a disaster if they are and they happen to be a class with disruptive children. In my, and my family's, experience disruption is less common in grammer schools.

It was wrong for grammer schools to get more generous funding than comprehensive schools but it was the children who went to them - and their parents and teachers - who chose to label them as "failures" if they weren't academic. At grammer school school I learnt to value excellence - whether that was in the arts, sports, a good chef, plumber, electrician or in the academic world. Pity more schools don't teach their kids that, instead of apparently regarding them as failures if they aren't academic.

The funding discrepancies have now been rectified and university education opened up to anyone who doesn't mind starting work with huge debts. Will university degrees still be a passport to higher income when they are so widespread - I doubt it. We now read all the time that exams have been "dumbed down" so that instead of learning to value what our kids are good at we just devalue the whole lot of them. And someone thinks this is an improvement - they could only be a teacher!

oh and they did teach me to spell - but also not to be a pedant about it.

No pedantry required, tatt, as there are no spelling mistakes in what you have written - except "grammar". We perhaps all ought to get that right as it's what the thread is about!

?Will university degrees still be a passport to higher income when they are so widespread - I doubt it.?
Presumably what this will do is extend the current debate about universities being unable to distinguish between a ?good? and an ?ordinary? A grade, so that employers have to distinguish between degrees ? not just 1st 2:1 2:2 etc, but between a 2:1 from one university and 2:1 from another ? the point being that unlike A levels which have a common curriculum, mark scheme etc, university courses & exams are set taught & marked by the university itself , (and without any great degree of transparency as far as I am aware) so it is almost impossible to compare them except perhaps on a very subjective basis of what constitutes a ?good? university.

'Will university degrees still be a passport to higher income when they are so widespread - I doubt it. '

This is already proving true in the US.

"employers have to distinguish between degrees ? not just 1st 2:1 2:2 etc, but between a 2:1 from one university and 2:1 from another..."

I'm sure plenty of them already do this unofficially, and have done so for years.

I'm sure that's true - but soon we'll start getting articles about it in the Daily Mail....

Even if all grammars were done away with, as other LEAs without them have shown, there is always the 'better' school that parents are keen to send their child to due to its reputation which is then self-perpetuating. The intake often have parents who place a high value on education (I dislike the term 'pushy'!) who are likely to have like-minded offspring - a grammar almost but in name.

Unquiet, I would be much more prepared to accept your argument that the non-grammar schools were only 2nd best because of people's perceptions (though as I tried to point out earlier what else matters but people's perceptions which are usually based on truth i.e. gold is considered more valuable because its more rare type thing) if it weren't for one crucial thing. CHOICE. No child or parent chose the secondary modern or indeed the grammar school. The 11+ was compulsory in the 60s and if you PASSED you went to the grammar and if you FAILED (note these terms 'passed' and 'failed' which were the REALITY not people's PERCEPTIONS and consider their impact). So, in spite, of your 'hooray, you've won yourself a chance to avoid that nasty academic stuff and get ready to become a plumber or a chef spin', there were many thousands of children who had the desire and ability to undertake an academic education and a career as a doctor, teacher or whatever who weren't able to. Many 100s of kids will have missed a place by a mark or two and actually be more able than those who did get in to school. Any system which splits students in such a crude way into 'academic' and 'not academic' regardless of their wishes and their ability to undertake an academic education is immoral. Not to mention the fact that even if you did go to a grammar style you could still leave school at 16 and become a plumber or whatever (plumbers still benefit from O LEvel maths and physics and nowadays almost every employer usually ask for Cs in GCSE Maths and English as a minimum). I would still have big reservations about a system which allowed the choice of vocational or academic education at age 11 (because how can you make a choice like this at age 11 and how much will be your parents' influence?) but at least it would have been a choice of sorts which the grammar system never was.

I totally agree with you about inequalities in the system. I actually brought these up earlier but I also said that these have been exacerbated by the fact that we never got a totally comprehensive system. There are still grammars, faith schools and now city technology colleges, voluntary aided schools and specialist schools which, together with league tables and the govt's insistence on choice (which we both agree means more choice for the middle-classes and less for the deprived). I would argue that more different types of school and more 'choice' would make this even worse. I, for one, don't want my children going to a faith school or a specialist sports college and, unlike many, I am able to read and interpret the league tables (just).

Before I go (I'm at work today delivering a medicre education) I really need to challege your perceptions of comprehensive schools. I have worked in many over about 10 years as has my partner over about 15 years (and a period of supply teaching where he visited about 20 schools in and around our local area) and I have never come across a really bright student who did not fulfil his or her potential in a comprehensive school. I have taught many students from deprived backgrounds who came out of school with As and As. I have taught students mainly at the C/D borderline and below in terms of ability who did not fulfil their potential because of laziness, or lack of parental support or behavioural issues and not because of any failings in the school but these children would not have benefited from a grammar school education because they wouldn't have got in. I have taught many students who looked up to the example and benefited from working with really able students and almost certainly achieved better results as a consequence (I can think of specific examples really easily e.g. an A student working with a C/D borderline student in a speaking and listening activity where he was able to demonstrate his skill in encouraging her to join in the role play and she was able to expand her range of ideas and develop them because of him)

I teach in a 6th form college (though I also teach on a borough wide G & T programme and teach 'masterclasses' in English to students under 16 of all abilities from all local schools) and this year we have got 7 kids into Oxbridge. Can't honestly tell you what class they are but I do know all 7 came through the comprehensive system. So social mobility is alive and well in the comprehensive system except that now everyone has the opportunity to move up the ladder and not just the most able. We also had an 82% pass rate for GCSE re-sit in English which is well above the national average even though we were dealing with lower ability students. Part of my salary is dependent on my being able to demonstrate that I have added value to my students. In this age of league tables, threshold pay etc etc it is virtually impossible for a teacher or school not to do its best by each and every one of its students. Schools now have G & T programmes for most able and learning support programmes for least able. I am 100% confident that my kids will do well academically in any school (with teachers as parents and considering they have grown up seeing learning as fun and with a house full of books it would be hard for them not to but I absolutely see them as lucky because parental influence is much more important than what happens in school anyway) as I did in the comprehensive system. I accept that they may struggle socially in a rough comprehensive. And we all need to think what we mean by 'best' schools. In my experience some of the best schools with the best teachers are those getting exam results way down the league tables but dealing brilliantly with challenging students and ading value to them.

Forgive the rambling and lack of order. As I said I should be on my way out to teach.

Fewer children from poor homes get to university than in the 1960s. The Sutton trust has done the research on this. The principal cause is the demise of the grammar schools. This makes it easier for children like mine educated from 5 in academic private school to get to universities so I shouldn't complain but it is not good for the UK.
There will always be inequalities because some of us are born thick as a plank or ugly or with parents who don't care and because some areas have more expensive houses in them so richer parents congregate there unless you bus children around.

My own preference would be to privatise education and give every parent a voucher to spend where they wished.