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.

Theoretical the point about better was purely and simply because a previous poster complained that the grammars were perceived to be better, specifically by a couple of grammar school kids and by the town mayor.

Grammars are not "better" in my mind than comprehensives. They are better for my DS, when the alternative is a secondary modern.

All the parents that I know that are "devastated" massively play it down to their children. In fact to most people in RL. MN and other boards are a place to vent - I don't think for one minute people that post that they are devastated would necessarli air this in RL, let alone to their DC.

It's never about "comps" versus grammars. Ever.

"Which I don't. I think children of all abilities can learn from each other and that kind of equality will enrich society."

This is what I want too, but our experience of state education was that we had to choose between that and a school that had the time and resources and flexibility to teach DD. I hate the fact that we're not at the local school, I really do, but I also really hated the experience putting a gifted child through a school that doesn't care and watching a child who loved learning and was desperate to go to school, give up, because her needs were being ignored and no one ever asked her what she was capable of.

I don't think anyone on this thread would ever disagree with a state education that suited all children. But right now, it does not exist in every area. And so faced with reality, people have to make difficult choices.

Theoretical I'm not going to read back but the term 'psychological devastation' or similar was used in relation to the child which was what prompted my comment. The discussion at that point was all about the emotional effect on the child, not the disappointment and concern of the parent.

rabbitstew this is very minor indeed, but since you seem to assume everything in the garden here is completely rosy, I would just say that for the duration of almost all of my own DCs' secondary applications the school we would have been allocated to was deemed only 'satisfactory' in successive Ofsteds. Our other nearest undersubscribed comp (9 miles away, no transport) has just been deemed to require improvement in all areas and the third undersubscribed comp (9 miles away, no transport) has a merely 'satisfactory' sixth form. The fourth comp (9 miles away, no transport) is very oversubscribed and no-one in our village has got a place there for years and years, unless they have a sibling already in. Private school was out of the question. So we do have choice, up to a point.

Our comprehensive was excellent for my academic child, my practical child and my artistic child. They do not need to go to different schools with different uniforms, different days off etc etc. If a teacher can only teach the clever child who will understand first time then I question whether they should be teaching in the first place. I would call them very poor. In fact I think all teachers should be made to get out of their comfort zone occasionally. (Speaking as a teacher)
I certainly don't go with the cathedral explanation. If there was a grammar school then there must have been a school that took the other children for just as long. If not the people who are arranging it ought to be asking themselves why and then rearranging to give all schools in the area a fair turn.
It always amazes me the amount of time spent on mumsnet with grammar schools when there are a mere 163 left and they are totally irrelevant to over 90% of parents- most of which have children who have achieved well with a school where the staff can cater for different needs without needing another building.
How many people would want to run the risk of twins in different schools? It has happened twice to people I know- and nothing between them academically other than a few more marks on the day( the week after if could have been the other way around) Separating them so early into different schools seems bonkers to me in 21st century and such a waste of potential.
The majority of posters on here will have been to a comprehensive - unless older like me or they had parents who could afford school fees.

*It always amazes me the amount of time spent on Mumsnetwith grammar school s when there are a mere 163 left and they are totally irrelevant to over 90% of parents"

Certainly for me, this is the only place I can discuss it.

IME it is ideology, or wishful thinking, to believe that DC of all abilities can learn from one another. My (very able) DSSs spent some time in a state secondary school in mixed ability classes and there were consistently 2/3 DC in each class whose abilities and attainment were so low that even playground conversation was beyond them. Class went right over their heads. In parallel, the top 3/4 DC were often bored rigid.

Bonsoir, nobody is suggesting mixed ability classes.

You don't have to be that old to have caught the dying days of the grammar system Mehitabel6....

On the cathedral issue, many grammars were founded centuries ago. Ours was founded in the 16th century. So no, there wouldn't have been alternative schools other than for extremely rich boys. There was nothing else for the middling or poor, boys or not.

On the teacher front - and I'm surprised you don't see this as a teacher yourself - it's not a question of students 'understanding first time', or a teacher being required to 'get out of their comfort zone'. It's the fact that not all those in the profession are able to properly challenge or stretch the most able, particularly not at KS5. They simply don't have the ability to do it. And the most able should be entitled to an education which does just that, or the system is doing both them and society a disservice. Many teachers will be capable of teaching those of middle ability, far fewer will be able to teach at the lowest and highest end of the spectrum, for different reasons of challenge.

I don't know a state comprehensive that teaches mixed ability classes for academic subjects.

I do blu

Why are we talking about KS5?

And where is the evidence that there are teachers in the system who do not have the ability to teach able children? There are most certainly crap teachers- but specifically crap at teaching able children? Really?

Just copying this from the original op's linked Grauniad article:

The thought of new grammar schools popping up in hitherto wholly comprehensive areas will be chilling for many heads, and is frankly horrifying for all of us who know that only all-ability schools can deliver real social cohesion and equal chances. Selective education just widens gaps, fractures communities and benefits the better off.

How about the recent OFSTED report into teaching the able, Hakluyt? I quoted it upthread but the gist is this:

National data show that too many of the most able students are still being let down and are failing to reach their full potential.’
‘Nationally, too many of our most able students fail to achieve the grades they need to get into top universities.’
‘Schools visited were rarely meeting the distinct needs of students who are most able and disadvantaged.’

There is a link upthread to a bigger discussion of it

Sampson- so how come there aren't huge differences in the GCSE results from selective areas? Genuine question. All this stuff about comprehensive schools failing the able- but they appear to get the same results whether they are in a grammar school or a comprehensive........ I don't get it.

Yes absolutely Hakluyt. I'm talking about KS5 because it's relevant to able children and what they should expect from their teachers at that stage, if they want a crack at the best universities competing on a reasonable level with their private school peers. By no means all teachers are capable of stretching able kids, especially at that stage, if only because the students are far abler than the teachers themselves, and it really shows by the time kids are in Y12 and 13. This has got nothing to do with 'crap' teachers, it's entirely something else.

cross post with Samson.

Sure CamelHump but it won't always work I bet - you'll be making compromises, thereby compromising the students.

Can any of the Kent MNers shed any light on reasons why no ballots were held in the area on whether to keep Grammar Schools? As far as I can see only one ballot was held anywhere (North Yorkshire) and that was resoundingly defeated.

Interesting article from back in 1998 here

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/education-the-end-of-the-grammar-school-1179844.html

The above article mentions a growing campaign in Kent at the time, that presumably subsequently either ran out of steam or failed to generate any in the first place. Anyone got any more details from the end of the last century?

boys3 - Because most of Kent is represented by Tory MPs who have shown a preference for the grammar system.