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.

But Hakylut, this is the question I asked at the start.

The presumption in all of this is that IQ is distributed entirely evenly in the population, but no one ever provides any research to back that up. There is a very controversial bit of research which claims the opposite but as far as I can tell no one has tried to disprove it.

I don't for a minute believe that the system in your town is fair, or that middle class parents aren't gaming the system, or that IQ tests are not culturally loaded, but without some kind of stab at this basic bit of knowledge no one can actually say anything one way or another.

"The presumption in all of this is that IQ is distributed entirely evenly in the population, but no one ever provides any research to back that up. There is a very controversial bit of research which claims the opposite but as far as I can tell no one has tried to disprove it."

There are however studies on twins that seem to show that environment affects IQ more than genes and ones that show that adult adopted siblings have no more similarity in IQ than anyone else.

There are also studies that show that IQ has no effect on wealth.

There's also lots and lots of disagreement over whether IQ is even a concrete trait or if it's a completely flawed and culturally biased concept.

So on balance, it's taken for granted that IQ is evenly(ish) distributed because studies into other things have found it seems to be.

'There's also lots and lots of disagreement over whether IQ is even a concrete trait or if it's a completely flawed and culturally biased concept.' yes if you delve into the history of the IQ test and the 11+ you get into some quite murky waters of eugenics

In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker argues persuasively that intelligence is inherited, and that nurture/environment counts for much less than we like to think. I have also seen the argument that wealth and IQ cannot really be correlated. But there is also a large American study, alluded to upthread (from the University of Chicago IIRC) which showed how much more advanced in language and development terms were the children of parents with tertiary education than those without degrees, before the children were three. All to do with the amount the DC are talked to, and how they are talked to. The difference by the age of five was spectacular, and we have all seen that in classrooms. The combination of inherited intelligence, encouragement, ambition, access to books, travel and intellectual leisure pursuits, as well as parental expectation and probably a better diet with regular routines makes a potent combination.

There is also the argument that schools do not build on the 'culture' of all children (not their racial culture, but the world they inhabit). Children from different social cultures do not do so well at school because their behaviour can be misunderstood, or their levels of intelligence can by underestimated. They may not understand the methods of communication, or they may just not be used to sitting still quietly. Not of this has anything to do with their innate intelligence, just whether they connect well with the system.

Education is one of the mechanisms by which we transfer culture between generations. A degree of control (self-control or imposed by parents/teachers) is essential to learning. Children who arrive at school uncontrollable are signalling that education/culture is not valued in their world. By definition, such children are more likely to fail educationally and their life chances may well suffer accordingly. This takes us into dangerous water; if a part of the population rejects the social and cultural norms of a society, then how are they to be integrated into the world in which they live? Or are we happy to live with large numbers of estranged people?

I'm not talking about culture in it's racial sense (or in a high brow sense), I mean that the culture of a white child living in a house with no books, telly on all the time, he eats his tea on the sofa and everyone talks over everyone else. He is really loud and boisterous and loves fighting with his brother. He is not going to have such a great time at school, where his natural behaviours won't fit with what would makes him a good pupil.

It doesn't mean that he is less intelligent than any of his peers, just that he won't fit comfortably with the culture of most schools.

No, quite true, but it also probably means that he is going to struggle to prove his innate intelligence when he leaves school, and will find his horizons circumscribed accordingly, which may make him resentful of the "system" that was always against him and his ilk, which he will transmit to his own children -- unless something breaks the cycle. Trouble is, there aren't many opportunities for people who won't or can't conform. And surely part of the purpose of education and the obligation of educators is to overcome natural instinct? I spend hours training my dog so that she does not put muddy paw marks over everyone she meets.

And as a society, we are not getting to grips with the scholastic under-performance of (particularly) white working class boys. I don't have any answers for that; I wish I did!

I think, like always, it is a mixture of nature and nurture. We are not all the same and nor do we have the same environment from birth. Therefore we will all have different pathways of development.

As I have mentioned before, education attainment differences manifest themselves before school and this is because of genetics and parental input.

The Sutton Trust has done work on this.

"Early years and primary school experiences, along with better home learning environments in the early years and up to the age of seven, provide a significant boost in attainment for children at the age of 11 and help to counteract disadvantage."

Link here for the full report

www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SUBJECT-TO-BACKGROUND_FULL-REPORT.pdf

Sorry to keep repeating myself here, but "closing the gap", "improving attainment" and "social mobility" are only in part about schools - schools which can always be better. The biggest contributory factors by far are home life, parental contribution and resources.

As people have noted here, with great parenting and resources kids can go to the local comp and thrive.

Right, a review of the subject here

I am not a psychologist, so can't interpret fully, but it does seem to be saying that "Identical twin studies (and other kinship studies) indicated that genetic influence on IQ is strong and the effects of environment on IQ are weak."

I just want to say first that I have no solutions to this but that they are interesting cases to consider.

If I was the mother of the boy in my post, and I was perfectly happy in my 'culture' along with my extended family and friends, I may not really see the point of trying to get my son to be different from me. I probably hated school myself. I think we fall into the trap of thinking that everyone want the things we want, and they just don't.
I think schools can be really off-putting to some people. (I find the drop off at my school playground pretty stressful most days).
I think the jobs that white working class boys used to go into don't really exist any more (docks, printing, manufacturing) so they probably don't see the point to it all either. If all you want to do when you grow up is watch football, go to the pub and hang out with your mates, why put yourself through the agony of 'o' levels!

Sorry this has all rather moved on while I was reading that rather dense paper.

But one of its key findings is that - and this relates to what MN164 is saying - that the heritability of intelligence varies with social class. The implication is that your environment can hold you back to a certain extent. Which would imply that grammar schools should, like universities, offer a flexible entrance point, depending on social class - i.e. should positively discriminate for FSM candidates.

SEM. I think this is all true. And I also think that if he is intelligent he may have got bored with school and found alternative outlets, which are unlikely to be music/theatre/reading like his middle class peers. So his brightness may make him more likely to be perceived as 'difficult' or 'a troublemaker'. And so it all spirals off from there.

And from that paper, the conclusion about Hakylut's grammar school town is that even if you provided an entirely tutor-proof test that worked, the FSM level would not be 30%. Educational intervention would have had to have happened much, much earlier on in the process to make a difference.

So the traditional comp does a fabulous job of increasing social mobility and ensuring kids on fsm reach their full potential? I think we all know that's not true- and yet the arguments focus on the tiny minority of grammars that may fail those children not the many hundreds of thousands of comps that do exactly that everyday. Ho hum.

I believe grammars can increase social mobility- (that's not their sole purpose anyway) but you need a parent who really believes in education to get in- there seem to be plenty of that ethic in ethnic minority communities but not so much in the white working class at present Ime.

I like to think that my imaginary boy won't go off the rails, but may find school success in sport (maybe a champion boxer), but you see what I mean don't you. His family might not want him to go to grammar school and play grade 5 music a band etc etc.

SarfEast's imaginary boy's is an entirely credible construction and I have met his brothers and cousins. One told an interesting story about his parent's generation. His uncle passed the 11+, went to grammar school, then university, where he is now a full professor. The father also passed, but there was no money left for a second round of books and uniforms. Forty years on, the family has effectively separated, apart from Christmas cards. The non-grammar school lads have all done pretty well in life, but found their ways up and out of the London Docks through the services.

"I just want to say first that I have no solutions to this but that they are interesting cases to consider.

If I was the mother of the boy in my post, and I was perfectly happy in my 'culture' along with my extended family and friends, I may not really see the point of trying to get my son to be different from me. I probably hated school myself. I think we fall into the trap of thinking that everyone want the things we want, and they just don't.
I think schools can be really off-putting to some people. (I find the drop off at my school playground pretty stressful most days)."

Absolutely. All the more reason, then, not to add to his alienation by segregating him at 11 into the secondqry modern, while all the "successful" school shaped kids go to the grammar. At a comprehensive he at least has the "chance" to make choices if he wants to. His background and environment has already closed lots of doors to him-why should his school shut even more? And this is even more true of his brother, who given the choice might actually want to take a different path- but who won't get the chance at the secondqry modern?

I think TinklyLittleLaugh Thu 14-May-15 20:23:48 upthread felt hers was very good. I think there are a lot of very even grammars like yours JRF and a lot of very decent comps like hers. I don't think we have to give up hope just yet.

' At a comprehensive he at least has the "chance" to make choices if he wants to.'

Exactly. My personal preference is (brilliantly funded) comprehensivisation were children of all abilities get the option for lots of different subjects (metal work, carpentry etc) and the ability to move around the sets.

The only way I can really approve of grammars is if they are part of a properly funded tripartite system, where equal funding status is given to secondary modern schools and technical colleges, and transfer between the types of school are encouraged.

"But one of its key findings is that - and this relates to what MN164 is saying - that the heritability of intelligence varies with social class."

But that is followed by evidence that working class children adopted by middle class parents then experience an IQ jump of 12 to 18 points.

It's also worth noting that the first author of that paper wrote this book and that more than one of the other authors have works supporting nurture over nature in intelligence.

What they're concluding is not that socio economic status is determined by genetics and so passed on, but, that socio economic status affects how genetics perform.

"It seems safe to conclude that low socioeconomic status limits genetic contributions to intelligence, which means that poor children do not develop their full genetic potential,"

Diane Halpern discussing that paper.

cressetmama Fri 15-May-15 17:43:53
SarfEast's imaginary boy's is an entirely credible construction and I have met his brothers and cousins
I'm going to call him Harrry

Culture was an issue with grammar schools - some children were educated beyond their families in a sense. My mother had 52 first cousins in the NE who were not that well off, was very clever, went to state grammar, married someone at university stage and in a sense moved class which of course is what social mobility does. That is not a reason to allow children to stay in one culture by denying them access to middle class culture of course but there can be a downside in making them different from their family, a huge issue with many second generation immigrants who want free love, boyfriends and not to preserve their virginity and who are not keen on arranged marriage at 16.