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.

And let's not forget we were also host to the delightful narrowly defeated lunatic Farage in Thanet.

So why do we think that some teachers have trouble teaching high ability students? Is it because teacher training isn't long enough, or is it because teachers get more brownie points by moving children up, and when they children are in the top set, there isn't any further to go?
I have no clue, my dd is 7 - why do any teachers here think that this may happen?

I appreciate the point of PP upthread who said that they pick grammar over sec mod, but given the choice would have comprehensive. That's good to know...

theo the legislation at the time was for locally generated parental ballots, whether the MP was Tory or not would not be relevant - albeit they could, and no doubt did, argue against it The MP for Ripon at the time was a tory, that did not stop the ballot taking place. So what was the real answer (if you know of course). Kent seems to generate such intense passions on this subject so there must be rather more to it?

Better the devil you know? It's hard to vote for something that will result in disruption, now, for your child, even if you think it might in the long term benefit other peoples' children. If you are asking current parents with children currently in the system to vote, therefore, they might not want to rock the boat. Parents tend to like consistency more than politicians appear to!

Also, parents aren't stupid - change is never properly funded.

rabbit you may well be onto something. Report in the Graun at the time quoting £150 million cost of change - not clear if that was just for Kent or for all areas with GS.

A number of posters on thread have raised the apparent lasting impact of not passing the 11 plus, alongside the seemingly less than stellar alternatives in Kent - which presumably were even less stellar in the late 90s than they are now. Given the majority of the population were not successful one might have assumed a groundswell of opinion to take the opportunity to get rid of GS in Kent. However this was clearly not the case. I'm still intrigued as to why though

The alternative view though is that in Kent GS were / are quite widely popular, despite the majority not actually being able to get into one and facing the associated implications. Not that that makes a great deal of sense either.

Hmm. How many MPs were educated at secondary moderns? How many people that went to secondary moderns get involved in educational policy in Kent?

I suspect most that have influence and are engaged in educational policy went to grammars. And so it perpetuates.

17 years later since the proposed ballots and grammar schools are are still here and probably in there strongest position since the early 1970s .

Is the Weald Of Kent Satellite annexe in Sevonoaks going to get the go ahead ?.

This will have a interesting effect if it does get the go ahead !

would this mean we could see grammar schools opening up all over 'England' ..

I think it probably will sunshield. The original linked Grauniad article discusses this.

I think grammars are a shorthand for 'free public school education' and mp's know they are a vote catcher.
Comps have such a bad rep in the press (unfairly), that no-one party will want to promote them.

How many people commenting on this post were educated in a 'Secondary Modern' school.

I think the answer is just 1 'myself'.

The other reason is that those who were educated in Modern Schools are to busy getting on with their lives, to talk to the chattering classes on this thread or to actively get involved in education policies. however, to a person you can bet they wish for a better education for their children and more often than not hope for at least a shot at a grammar school for their kids !.

oi who are you calling a member of the 'chattering classes'?

I care about education because it is the foundation of our society. It's the most important thing that there is surely.

Only kidding !. However it raises a point that we are very lucky to have the knowledge and where with all to discuss ideas and opinions on a forum.

Many people were left with such poor experiences of education, the last thing they would want to talk about is education policies.

Movers and shakers don't go to secondary moderns. Their children don't go to secondary moderns. So movers and shakers either think that secondary moderns are fine for "that sort of people" or don't care so long as their children go to grammar schools.

One of the teachers at ds's school had to bring in documentary evidence before a group of her form would believe that she had gone to the school. Because teachers go to the grammar. The school slogs its guts out to raise aspirations. We're starting to get kids to university. But we're still the "thickos" school. We're still the head tilt "I've heard it's very good" school. And, incidentally, we are still the school that it is practically impossible to get an OFSTED Outstanding, whatever we do because we will never get a high enough % with enough levels of progress...........

Many people were left with such poor experiences of education, the last thing they would want to talk about is education policies.

I can see this, and my clumsily articulated post I guess was trying to suggest this - also to have the confidence to discuss educational policies.

SarfEast no political party is deluded enough to promote grammars as a vote catcher. UKIP is a fan, but their main platform isn't grammars. A lot of individual Tory MPs champion grammars but their party leaders are too concerned about loss of votes to make expansion or re-introduction a policy. It's not going to happen, at least not until the whole 'free public school education' nonsense is squished, by changing tests to make them far less susceptible to tutoring and that will take quite some while. Alongside that a good deal of myth busting needs to take place, because these contemporary grammars don't actually replicate private schools even now, they're far less narrow and are doing really quite a bit of good in terms of social stuff. What's fairly ridiculous about MN is that it seems to be utterly self serving to the middle classes on the grammar front, with its protestations about tutoring being essential and the fact that you can't get in without years of it and that you have to be at L6 at least also play several instruments and also be a complete and utter nerd. How off putting is that to normal kids?

this is a very accessible book on the subject

Hakluyt it's far easier for your DS's school to get levels of progress than it is for the corresponding grammar.

I realise the conversation has moved on a bit, but re. the question about teachers not teaching able kids.

I remembered in the bath that I had two for my Eng Lit A Level (at a comprehensive school). One we were studying Tom Jones with. He refused to allow me to look at his book of essays on Tom Jones (I imagine because it was the sole source of knowledge he had on it). The other taught practical criticism and told me not to come to the classes because she could not teach me. I don't imagine that this was an unparalleled experience.

Yes, I got the A, but I wasn't taught as much as I could have been, by a long shot (and boy did that show when I met the public school crowd at university).

And to answer the question, I think they are failing the most able because you can get an A in a subject and still have missed out on a lot of learning, as per above.

But - and this is why the stats don't show the difference- I don't think that the most able who are failed are the 25% that a grammar school takes. I think it's somewhere from 5% to 2% or even less. So statistically not that significant in gross figures (and, also, interestingly the same as that 5% who are much more socially mixed in grammars).

How do the results of the top 2% of grammar school children compare with superselective results?

"Hakluyt it's far easier for your DS's school to get levels of progress than it is for the corresponding grammar."

Really? Oh, good. I must tell the Head. She's currently trying to juggle what's best for the kids (carrying on with the vocational subjects that suit our area, but which don't count in the school's "best 8") or trying to make the kids fit the DFES requirements so the school will look OK in the league tables. She will be delighted.

I went to a secondary modern- as did hoards of other people I know, who did better in many cases than those who went to grammar schools and wasted the places by leaving at 16 yrs. Proving that sorting children at 10 yrs is utterly ridiculous!
I do wish that people wouldn't insist that comprehensives = mixed ability when I don't know any that don't set. They would certainly have failed my 3 very different children if they had treated them the same.
I now follow the argument that grammars were there before anything else and got the cathedral- but that should change- things move on.
I still think that good teachers should be able to teach different children- they simply are a poor teacher if they either can't teach the most able or are unable to put it simply enough.

Just been googling to see if the Sevenoaks satellite grammar school annex is moving ahead. Come on Nicky Morgan, get your finger out and make a decision.