Fiona Millar on grammar schools in the Grauniad

[samsonagonistes]

This article here is doing my head in on a number of levels, not because I necessarily disagree with it, but mainly because I don't know what I think and I don't know enough about some of the research/thinking behind it to come to a conclusion on my own. So I'd be really grateful for any thoughts and/or pointers.

She's working from the premise that grammar schools are inherently bad, and that this is a clear thing for all right thinking left wing people. Now, when I read MN, I can see that plenty of parents want grammar schools and are fighting to get into them. So I end up feeling about this pretty much as I do about UKIP, that the point is not only/necessarily to condemn them outright, but what would be more useful would be to find out why people feel this way and what is actually going on for them right now. So what's the gap between theory and experience here and why?

Also, she seems to think that the main argument against grammar schools is that they are not engines of social equality. Now, this may be one argument against them, but surely the point of school is to deliver education, with equality of opportunity in achieving that. Lots of other things do not deliver social equality - like private schools, expensive clothes and London house prices to name but a few - but that's never part of the argument against them.

Also - and I am aware that this is going to be controversial - but an argument against their social mobility is that they take reduced numbers on FSM. Now, for this argument to be valid, we would have to assume that IQ is spread absolutely evenly throughout the population.* I would like this to be the case, but has this theory ever been tested/proven?

• and yes I am aware about the cultural relativity of testing, etc etc, but then schools are also culturally relative in that they privilege theater and art over other activities and there are so many knots in this problem that it's hard to disentangle.

It was one policy of UKIP I quite liked in a knee-jerk way!

Won't be popular on MN though.

I think if you grew up in non-metropolitan areas with dire comps the one folk memory of a local school which had approached being half decent academically was the old grammar.

(Nowadays looking at London's success in turning around their comps, maybe there is another way?!)

We moved house to somewhere with a comp where plenty of kids go on to Higher Education. It's actually better for us than a Grammar area as my child struggled at primary. Years ago we may have been the parents sending the struggling child to a private secondary so we do very well out of the state comprehensive system as it is - it's all wrong imo.

Can you link?

I'm wary of grammar schools. I want an education system that strives to bring out the best in every child - everybody has something to offer and nobody should come out of school feeling like a failure. I can't see how grammar schools on their own can deliver that goal. If they're part of a broader provision, with excellent schools delivering other curricula, then fine. But they're rarely discussed in that context.

It's a genuine issue for me. I have one of the country's most super selective grammar schools at the end of my road. DD is currently only 5, but if she's to stand a chance of getting in, she'll have to be tutored for (apparently) a couple of years beforehand. Do I want that? Is it best for her?

I think about the kind of outcome that I would want for her. Ideally, I'd like her to be in a position to go to a good university to study for a degree. She could achieve that just as easily in a good comprehensive - without the competitive PRESSURE which might be counter productive. I look at the news stories about depression in young people and wonder whether academic pressure is to blame. Surely a happy B grade student is better than a miserable A grade student.

Equally, is she going to underachieve in a less academic environment and feel frustrated at her lack of achievement later in life? Shouldn't we at least put her up for the exam to see how she does?

Not really answering your point. But I would rather there were no grammar schools at all I think.

The OECD (the organisation which does the three-yearly PISA education tests of 15 year-olds) said the best performing school systems (in PISA tests) tend to be those which are most equitable (all children get the same standard of education irregardless of social background or ability) and don't segregate according to ability until at least upper secondary (age 16).

Recent research from Europe found that private or selective schools increase the effect of social background. The Daily Mail distorted the findings to claim comps had failed. See here:

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/03/daily-mail-distorts-facts-to-attack-comprehensive-schools-and-promote-selection/

One of the main arguments put forward by the pro-grammar lobby is that they help disadvantaged children to climb up the social ladder. But they actually take a tiny proportion of disadvantaged children (ie those who are eligible for free school meals).

The 'More Grammar Schools' petition attracted 16 comments. The ones by me are against (you'll guess which these are because I'm the only one opposing):

moregrammarschools.co.uk/

Finally, the Sutton Trust found students from comps outperformed their equally-qualified peers from private and state grammar schools in the quality of degrees.

www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/comprehensive-pupils-outperform-independent-grammar-pupils-university-degrees/

Treats - if children need tutoring to pass the 11+ then they may struggle when they get there. Research from Education Datalab found those pupils who just missed passing the 11+ did better than those pupils who just passed and went to grammars (see Schools Week, scroll down):

schoolsweek.co.uk/education-datalab-7-education-ideas-that-could-change-everything-becky-allen-chris-cook/

Countries at the top of the PISA scale don't have selective education systems. In Shanghai all children are taught together in large classes.

I think that it's undeniable that the old grammar school system was an incredibly effective method of improving social mobility, but what we have now, with the highly pressurised, heavily tutored competition for admission to the few remaining grammars, is a very different scenario.

Personally I think it was a terrible shame that the old grammars were got rid of. There was still an unfairness in the system, but a better way to solve that is by working to improve the part that isn't working, not by destroying the part that is.

To my mind the attitude that 'if everyone can't have something then no-one should' has been hugely damaging to education in this country.

Interestingly, I had a quick scroll down some of the comments underneath the article, and I couldn't find anyone who agreed with her.

A recently-published book, 'The Ins and Outs of Selective Education', is reviewed here:

schoolsweek.co.uk/reviews/the-ins-and-outs-of-selective-secondary-schools-a-debate/

One of the contributors discusses the issue here:

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/03/eleven-grammar-school-myths-and-the-actual-facts/

It's just what I've heard (on MN!) about this particular school. It's because the test is in things like VR that they won't have done at primary school and the maths is more advanced.

Honestly, if everyone was sitting the test and you could show up on the day and see how you do, we'd give it a shot. But the tutoring puts me off. And I'm not convinced that all that work to get in, and all the extra pressure during her school years would even be worth it, in terms of outcomes.

Which your links are proving Thanks for sharing those. Good to see my vague assumptions confirmed.

Samson- I think the reason she talks about social mobility is that the pro grammar lobby make much of grammar schools as a step out of disadvantage for clever children from challenging backgrounds. They never have been that- and most certainly are not now. Many have no "pupil premium" children at all- and those that do have a tiny %.

The old grammar schools were great if you went to one (I did ), unfortunately everyone else got treated like an idiot and were written off.

So not all good!

" think that it's undeniable that the old grammar school system was an incredibly effective method of improving social mobility"

Was it?

IndridCold - I read somewhere that the link between grammar schools and social mobility might not be as clear as people think. Basically, the two decades that they were around (50s and 60s) coincided with the postwar years - massive expansion of industry and employment, and they needed more people in white collar jobs.

The closure of grammar schools coincided with a downturn in employment in the 70s and 80s, and there were fewer white collar jobs around. So, the increase in working class people entering the professions was because there were more jobs at that level, not because of how they were educated.

It's a really difficult question. If you read the comments under the article, there are (as there always are) loads of older people who attended grammar schools in the 50s/60s/70s who swear that they were a route out of poverty for them and for many of their schoolmates. That isn't really true today, but one reason put forward is because there are now so few grammars that middle class people have bought into the catchment areas and pushed working class people out. So the first thing you have to be wary of is people using today's figures, rather than the historic ones, in order to claim that grammar schools don't increase social mobility.

I dislike the idea of grammars; on the other hand I also really dislike the idea of academic children not receiving an appropriate education. This has happened to my daughter in our local comprehensive, which doesn't use setting, and she has been bored and frustrated, and also has learned far less than she is capable of. In theory, comprehensives with setting should be the answer, but I suspect they often aren't in practice, particularly in poorer areas.

IndridCold - grammar schools were not as effective at increasing social mobility than is claimed. See Myth 5: Grammar schools enabled greater social mobility at: www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/03/eleven-grammar-school-myths-and-the-actual-facts/

Remember, 75% of children were classed as failures at 11. This is incredibly unfair and wasteful.

There are, as you say, a few grammars left. But the Sutton Trust found students from comps outperformed their equally-qualified peers from private and state grammar schools at university (see my comment above for link).

The number of comments under Fiona's article doesn't necessarily indicate little support for her point of view. In two recent debates re selective education (one at the Cambridge Union), the pro-grammar lobby lost. See here for article by Melissa Benn who took part in both debates.

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/03/winning-the-argument-on-grammar-schools/

I think your gut reaction about them will be focussed on your family's experience of them, particularly those born in the late 40s (so for me that's my parents). My dad failed the 11+ and was written off as thick. He spent years trying to fight that and worked his way up via foundation courses and access courses to art college and into a design career. The grammar wasn't interested in his design skills, and the secondary modern couldn't cope with pupils aiming at a White collar job.

Now I know modern grammars are different but experiences like my fathers' are part of social memory in many areas, in the same way that experiences of successful grammar pupils being first in the family to university are in other areas.

Another thing to think about- if you compare a wholly selective LEA with a wholly comprehensive one with a similar demographic there is very little difference in the exam results. If grammar schools served the needs of clever children significantly better than the top sets of comprehensive schools, there would surely be a marked difference.

I just don't like the idea of grammar schools, in much the same way as I don't like the idea of private schools.

I know that this extremely airy-fairy and not articulate, but I just hate the way children are segregated into distinct camps at a young age because of their family income (I include the current grammar system in this because most children who pass the 11+ have been tutored at a cost to the family).

What is wrong with inclusivity? Not all comprehensive schools are wonderful, of course not, but that is not to do with them not being a grammar school.

It's important to remember that there are two types of grammar school- the "old fashioned" type, which takes the "top" 25%- there really is no excuse for them. And the super selective, which takes the "top" 2-5%. I can see the argument for them. I don't personally agree with it, but I can see the argument.

Remember, 75% of children were classed as failures at 11. This is incredibly unfair and wasteful.

I did address this unfairness in my post, and said that that should definitely have been addressed at the time. I also think that the fact that all our Prime Ministers for three decades were state educated, having come from fairly modest backgrounds, is testament to the successes of grammar schools in improving social mobility in some cases at least.

I think it would also not be fair to claim that everyone who went to a secondary modern was thrown onto a scrap heap. That implies that everyone one who didn't pass the 11+ never achieved anything else later in life, which was absolutely not the case. There were some secondary moderns that were quite good, I had several friends who failed the 11+, but who ended up at the same 6th form college doing A-levels with me, and who went onto university.

I'm not in favour of more grammar schools now, as I think that this nightmarish battle for places can only a benefit a small group of children.

It would be interesting to know what other factors are looked at in the PISA studies. Selection, teaching methods, etc are obviously important, but just as important are things that are much harder to influence - like levels of aspiration, and how much education is valued by young people and their families. These can have huge effects on the outcomes, as does the exercise of proper discipline in schools, to prevent the disruption caused by a few badly behaved pupils. I'm guessing that poor discipline is not such a big issue in schools in, say Shanghai, as it is in some schools in this country.

The fact remains, you can read as many reports and statistics as you like, it would seem that solidly mobility in this country has been steadily decreasing, so the system we have is obviously not working, and hasn't been working for several decades.

Sorry, left off link. here you go.

People seem keen to call for a return to grammar schools - but are noticeably silent on the return of secondary moderns. If you believe in a selective system you need to accept that the majority of children (which may include your child) won't be attending a grammar school.

Abuelita. Thanks for all of the links, but the local schools network is run by Finna Millar so I can't see it as an unbiased selector of facts, never mind opinion. Sutton Trust, yes.

An interesting summary about the Ofsted report which found that able children were less likely to achieve in comps than in grammars and that schools that have been told to put more effort into helping the more able have generally gone unheeded. : sevenoaksgrammar.com/grammars-much-better-for-bright-children-says-ofsted/ So yes in an ideal system a child might thrive anywhere but evidence points to fact this isn't an ideal world and there seems little appetite to change it. Whenever I spoke to any politician about schools they all washed their hands of it saying all new schools are going to be academies or free schools so nothing to do with them.

Hakylut yes, I see this but this is why I ask about the spread of IQ across the population. This may be an unreasonable stick to beat them with, if higher IQs are not evenly distributed (am trying to phase this very fairly).

I have found one fairly right wing piece of research, which does argue that social mobility does now mean that there is a greater incidence of higher IQs in better off social classes, and from which deduced that there are actually too many poor peoplle at Cambridge (I paraphrase unfairly here). This caused a storm of outrage, but has not, as far as I can tell, been refuted. I would like it to be, but can't find the evidence with which to do so.