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.

PettsWood:

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

yes, this. I suspect on some level a number of parents know this, and hence the bunfight over grammar schools. But it cannot be said out loud, and interesting that you find that with politicians.

Someone on here linked to research on streaming and setting the other day, which said that it didn't make much difference one way or the other, except for the bright children, who all did a lot better.

P.s I didn't pass the eleven plus but was never deemed a failure, far from it! I went to a good Uni and have a good job with my husband the SAHD. Trying and failing gave me reason to prove everyone else wrong!

Also - and I'm sure I've said this on here before - the Sutton Trust research has another corollary, which is that students from state comprehensives are not achieving as well as they might have done had they attended grammar or private schools. It's not a pleasant conclusion, but it is the logical deduction.

If all students on a course are asked for AAB, and the ones from comprehensives end up with better degrees, then they are more academically able than their counterparts on the degree course. So why were their A Level results not better?

Museumum, yes indeed. My parents and Mil and so many of their friends were from the working class and feel that grammar schools were crucial in giving them opportunities so I find it very hard to read the flat denials that they have ever served social mobility (I'm not convinced they do now, having been to one myself that was certainly not as socially mixed as theirs been.) And I know a good comprehensive is a better option for more people but dad's and MIL's haven't been replaced by good comprehensives, they have turned into sink schools that mean no options at all for a good education for bright but deprived children in those areas.

Grammar schools are a topic of heated debate in my house.

Both DH and I are both university lecturers.

I went to a grammar school. My parents were not at all well off, both came to this country with nothing and had low paid jobs. I flourished academically at that school, went to a good university, studied through to PhD. Grammar school was certainly an engine of mobility for me to a decent professional career.

DH also studied to PhD level, but though a very different route. His family were actually rather better off than mine, but moved around a lot which had a disruptive effect on his education. He was one of those who was "written off" at 11, sent to a secondary modern where he was then told that he was not clever enough to do an O-level in the subject he now lectures and has a PhD in. He ended up leaving school at 16, getting a job which he hated (and did for another 16 years) and was only able to go to university in his 30s, against all the odds. Understandably, he really resents those wasted years, and this also raises the question of how many other written off, but actually perfectly academically capable (excellent, even), children never manage to escape from that pigeon hole that the system put them in aged 11.

In addition to that, there were a number of pupils at my grammar school who were rigorously tutored to pass the exam, and who really struggled to cope with the academic pressure once they were there. Eating disorders were rife, and even the odd breakdown. I spoke to someone recently who is a psychologist working with school children recently, and she confirmed that this particular school is still a "ticking time bomb" in terms on mental health issues amongst its pupils. Even though I did not struggle with the academic side of things at that school, and even though it benefitted me in many ways, I do feel that it gave me a very singular kind of education and that I am still dealing with the consequences of my self-esteem and identity being entirely tied up with academic achievement. That environment was very unhealthy for many of us who were "lucky" enough to get into that school.

"Lots of other things do not deliver social equality - like private schools"

I think you'll find that this is and issue hotly discussed in arguments about how education should be delivered.

"Now, for this argument to be valid, we would have to assume that IQ is spread absolutely evenly throughout the population.*"

More important is that £6bn a year is spent on tutoring in the UK, a good cut of which of which is spent on 11+ tutoring. Probably a vanishingly small share of this 6bn is spent by parents who are on means tested benefits. There is simply such an awful lot of inequality in the way children are prepared for the 11+ that it probably renders minor IQ differences between income groups at population level irrelevant.

From an entirely personal perspective, they are great for children that pass the 11+. The problem is the other 75%.

Of those 75%, it would be worthwhile investigating:

• who had an off day and should have gone to grammar
• how many achieved their "potential" in a secondary modern setting
• as above, how peer pressure impacted them
• how many got their academic mojo on at 13-14, too late for the 11+
• for those who want it, how they were affected by their secondary modern school not offering additional languages, separate sciences etc

I have one child about to start super selective. I have one child I'm not entertaining even entering the 11+ as she's not in the top 50% academically. On one hand, I can see the SS is the "right" choice for one, and the secondary modern is the "right" choice for the other. But what if she's a slow burn and everything clicks at 13-14? What if she falls in with a disaffected bunch and is influenced by them? (I appreciate this can happen in many settings). What if, like my DH, she has a chip on her shoulder for the rest of her life as she was "written off" at 11?

Selection at 11 only works if all primary schools are on board to ensure all pupils can make a reasonable stab at an 11+ exam. Otherwise, only children whose parents are sufficiently interested and wealthy enough to pay for tutoring have a chance.

Primary schools in Kent (one of the biggest LEAs in the selective rump) are specifically prohibited from offering 11+ preparation. Some do- but risk having their results declared null.

I don't think that grammar schools were engines of social mobility. Mine wasn't - it had very few daughters of factory hands, but mainly daughters of bank managers, accountants, local solicitors, doctors.

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.

You need to look at the pre 1944 and post 1944 Education Act schools here. Pre 1944 they were fee paying schools which took some scholarship pupils - e.g. like Mrs Thatcher. As a daughter of a man who owned shops and employed staff, it would be debatable whether she would be regarded as a modest background. I would almost bet on it that they considered themselves 'a bit better' and probably, in so far as they thought of it, considered themselves middle class. Post 1944 - John Major - I think you could argue that he was a success despite his grammar school education, not because of it.

I meant to make one other point. I went to two junior schools, which were both rigidly streamed. I think that was typical of its time. If you got into the B stream then your chances of passing the 11+ were slender to non-existent, usually the latter. So far from being selected at 11, in practice you were being selected out at 7.

In my DCs schools, they are streamed academically from Y1.

This year, not one child in the lower stream passed the 11+. This is fairly usual each year.

I don't think grammar school helped John Major much-even though he is often used as a example. His relationship with that woman whose name escapes me- the Brixton Conservative party agent - was what put him on the road to fame and fortune.............

I still wonder why UKIP so wanted a Secondary Modern school in every town

It helped my my dad.He was from a very poor family,newspaper in shoes, family given second hand clothes from the big house etc ended up a high ranking officer in the forces,New Years honors list decorated by the queen.

Not done me much good though.He ended up paying for his grandchildren's tutoring.

Frankly the rich hoovering up the best comp places is a far bigger issue,effects far more children.There are hardly any grammar schools.

The thing I look at is politicians. In the 60's-80's most senior MP's, in both parties were grammer schooled, now it is mainly private schools.

Because UKIP are talking to people who already have a couple or more Secondary Moderns in their town.

Politicians were grammar schooled maybe in the 60s-80s, but as I said, the pre 1944 grammar schools took large percentages of fee-payers. I was reading about Mrs Thatchers school recently; although it was supported by the Local Authority it only had 25% of free places.

Others were independent schools for which the Local Authority bought places for those who passed the 11+ - DH went to one of these (Post the 1944 act.)

So maybe it was all private schools really?

To TalkinPeace the article the 'eleven grammar school facts', says that the Tories probably lost in 1964 over this very issue. I didn't know that myself, but I remember how deeply unpopular they were, even where there were good Secondary Moderns.

"The thing I look at is politicians. In the 60's-80's most senior MP's, in both parties were grammer schooled, now it is mainly private schools."

I'm pretty sure that's not true............

Actually- not to put to fine a point on it- I know that's not true!

Which bit Hakluyt? Fifties and sixties being grammar school educated, or them now being privately educated?

Sorry- the grammar school bit. The private school bit is sadly true.........

The trouble is, if you went to a crap comp in the 80s, as many of us did, the kind of place where being remotely academic was miserable, it's hard to resist the lure of a grammar. And although some comps are great, it would seem that many don't seem to meet the needs of the most able.

PMs schooling:

ukcommentators.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/what-school-prime-minister.html

tanaqui
Comps in the 70's and 80's bear no relation to anything that goes on today
because of data transparency for a start

bullying the bright kids is never acceptable nowadays
teachers are qualified
all pupils are tracked and monitored
attendance is recorded

so much has changed
we HAVE to not use our experience to overly colour the choices we give our children

Harold Wilson, Roy Jenkins, Callaghan, Heath, Thatcher were all 'grammar' educated, but as I say above, they are not quite the same grammar schools as post 1944.

Who else?

David Owen - Privately educated
Paddy Ashdown - Privately educated
Michael Portillo - Sounds like a state school boy, can't tell exactly
Willie Whitelaw - Winchester
Nigel Lawson - Westminster

Yes, a good crop of private schools there.

(Scratching my head to think of others.)