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.

"Categorically not the case. I know some brilliant A level teachers who are crap with year 7 and vice versa."

I agree. But I would be a bit shocked at a Year 9 teacher who couldn't manage potential A* and potential C students.

I do sometimes wonder if people get just a bit over excited about their very clever children. I mean, mine are pretty bloody clever, and I am very proud of them. They are both cleverer than me or dp, and we're no slouches.. But I don't insist on hushed reverence around them.

Hakluyt I may have this wrong but didn't you tell us in a previous thread that you became a governor at your DS's school almost as soon as he joined? In which case you'll know the context - that value added is way easier at a school like that than anywhere else. If I've got that wrong about you being a governor, apologies again.

Mehitabel6 if you have a teacher with a not ancient 2.2 from a middle of the range uni and a background of dreary GCSEs and Bs and Cs at A Level then they are not going to be able to stretch and challenge students capable (with good teaching) of getting to Oxbridge. Even if they are mega teachers for the middle range kids at KS3.

Camel- it's horrible. We're pretty rural, and lots of our children have left and gone on to succeed with horticulture BTecs. We have greenhouses and enthusiastic staff- but all of a sudden, horticulture doesn't count for the school league tables. We're going to carry on doing it-because it's the right thing to do. But it will reflect badly on us- while the grammar goes from strenght to strength. And what mighty brain decided that motor mechanics woud stop "counting" for a school?

I certainly never got over excited about my children Hakluyt. I now see I underestimated them, but then I always assume the worst. Much safer by far.

Y9 as it stands is way different to Y12 or 13 and it's at that level that a child's future is determined Hakluyt. And so it's key, teacher wise.

Also (sorry for staccato posts) why is a school being driven by 'what counts' and league table points if its SLT profoundly believes that that's compromising its students' best interests? What kind of school is that?

"Also (sorry for staccato posts) why is a school being driven by 'what counts' and league table points if its SLT profoundly believes that that's compromising its students' best interests? What kind of school is that?"

Because if you plummet down the league tables ( which we will) we will get fewer pupils. And therefore less money. And will then have to compromise even more. While the grammar school never has to decide whether to keep teaching a subject that is good for the kids but doesn't "count" in the league tables. Because all grammar school subjects do count. Welcome to the real world.

CamemHump - I hope that there will be a rapid cultural shift (as is intended) and that DC will not be "devastated" by not achieving top marks.

It is perfectly possible to run a national exam system where top marks are very rare indeed - and hence are meaningful.

Ideally the top 2% of an exam would be awarded because of extra flair in writing or insights or knowledge beyond the syllabus.
However in view of the present established system of exam board marking and markers I think sadly it will be awarded to those who get 99% say rather than 95%. That will not halt the pointless drive and stress on pupils for perfection and focus on exam mark schemes.

CamelHump I completely agree about the vocational subjects. I simply disagree about a school not being brave enough to pursue the best course for its pupils, with disregard to the league tables. It would be perfectly easy to justify and might well get significant support from the students and parents so in the secondary modern type setting I wouldn't expect rolls to fall - quite the opposite. It seems to me to be a bit weak to throw up one's hands and say this or that can't be done purely because of some or other measure in the league tables. Is the EBacc so important for instance? It's not even a certificated thing, just a name for the school for a particular combination of subjects. I couldn't care less if my kids do the EBacc; I mind that they do the subjects they enjoy and which are right for them and I'd want that to be the priority for any school leadership team.

As far as KS5 is concerned, I disagree that it's 'just another level'. Of course it is in a sense and all levels of education are significant for the reason you said. But we're discussing grammars here and it's at KS5 that it becomes more obvious which teachers can challenge the most able and which can't. And those students need that challenge if they're to stand a reasonable chance of getting places at the handful of best universities. And that will shape their future, as Word has said, and will allow them to enter the work place on equal terms with the posh boys. Which really is what it's all about.

I really don't know where the 2% figure for superselectives comes from. Is it a MN thing? . It's very misleading.

Hakluyt I'm well aware of the issues about vocational subjects. I don't think they ever warranted the easy marks but I think they're essential for more practical kids and that the shoehorning is daft. But there would be no reason for a decent HT who felt strongly about the issue to carry on with the subjects in the best interests of its pupils and to go out for a bit of publicity to justify why s/he's doing that and why s/he believes that the government policy is wrong. I'm afraid it seems weak to just roll over and hide behind league tables. Isn't that what leadership is about? The policy is widely contested, so it's not as though the HT wouldn't get significant support.

How lovely to live is your simple world, molio, where secondary modern schools can cheerfully ignore government dictates and league tables and teach what's best for their cohort with no impact on reputation and funding. And where getting the best A levels for grammar school kids is somehow challenging "the posh boys"!

I don't know about the 2% for superselectives. It's certainly what their supporters say when they are assuring everyone that thy have absolutely no impact at all on other local provision...........

Hak - you are very wrong. Very very wrong. grammar schools do make decisions about what subjects 'count' (essentially the answer is 'science' and it most emphatically isn't 'music'). :(

As for comps setting - my DS's comp doesn't set for any subjects except Maths and English.

"Hak - you are very wrong. Very very wrong. grammar schools do make decisions about what subjects 'count' (essentially the answer is 'science' and it most emphatically isn't 'music'). sad"

Count in what context? As far as I am aware, an A at GCSE music "counts" towards the school's haul in the League Tables?

Maybe the 2% thing comes from the numbers going to some isolated SSs rather than their position in the ranking of all kids of a certain age by intellect? Our 'local' SS has about 10 Y7 kids from the city in which I live (it's called a city. It's not even as big as the London borough in which I grew up. But I digress). That's about (or slightly less than) 2% of the number of Y7 kids in the schools in the city. They are very clear that the exam is aimed at the top 25% academically, but obviously the school isn't big enough to house 25% of all the kids who live in range. In DD2's year though about 25% of the kids who took the test got a place.

Hak as I'm sure you know very well, music is not an EBACC subject and it probably won't figure very highly if at all in the best 8 criteria either given that it's not an 'approved' subject (in fact Nicky Philistine has specifically advised schools and pupils to eschew subjects like music in favour of science). Music A level isn't even offered at many schools, comp and grammar alike. All schools are under pressure to push science at the expense of subjects like music. Schools with greater funding pressure (which includes grammars) more so. This is an education problem not just a grammar problem but it most certainly is a problem for grammars just as it is for comps and 6th form colleges. The parity of esteem issue is a very real issue for many subjects, thus many pupils and many schools.

I think it's really patronising of you hak to say parents of bright kids are 'over excited'.

There is constant recognition that the comprehensive state system is is not consistently serving the most able.

Recognition from the universities, policy makers, parents and the pupils themselves.

When you visit a lot of schools and speak to a lot of students, you tend to hear some disappointing stuff. Or maybe these young people are just 'over excited'.

There is a bit of a difference between music not counting for the Ebacc- because kids doing EBacc subjects are usually doing another 5 or more subjects anyway - and a whole vocational subject that a school is set up and resourced to teach and which is very appropriate for the cohort overnight becoming a subject that "doesn't count" and having to be replaced by a so called "academic" subjects that manynof ours kids will have realm difficult accessing.

The term 'posh boys' was used by a previous poster when she was talking about social mobility and the domination of key positions by independently educated men Hakluyt.

My view isn't that simplistic. Not operating in the best interests of the pupils in a school because of league table position is simplistic. Very simplistic. This policy is widely deplored for less academic kids and it wouldn't be hard to make a few headlines. If the school was offering the sorts of subjects its pupils and their parents wanted, those pupils would keep on coming through the door.

Absent during the weekend so have only scanned the in between part of the thread. On Thursday I posted that DS's comp had been demoted from outstanding to special measures, and one of its key findings was that the most able students were not making the progress that they should, because they were insufficiently challenged. When I did my second teaching practice (I'm still an ancient unemployed NQT) I had some top sets with really brilliant students, and loved teaching them, but giving them the same lesson plan that worked with lower sets was tantamount to throwing oneself into a cage of hungry lions. They would ridicule lazy teaching/planning rather ruthlessly (rubs scars).

Hak you do realise that schools across the country are cutting arts provision? And therefore there are kids - at whatever sort of school they attend (except private ones obviously, different world for them) who are being forced to study other subjects at GCSE and A level for which they may have no interest or aptitude? I fail to see how this is any different to your DSs school having to drop horticulture (if indeed it is dropping horticulture). This is obviously a massive tangent to the rest of the thread but you were the one who said all grammar school subjects count. And in this brave new world in which we find ourselves - no. They don't. You may say that people who are concerned about the arts now should have been concerned about motor mechanics and/or horticulture when they first became threatened. And, you wouldn't be wrong. But then, perhaps we were and you just didn't notice...

I don't know where rabbitstew read that over half of Kent's secondary moderns are classed as failing schools - this doesn't seem to be true at all. I've just totted up the available Ofsted ratings (albeit quickly so may be slightly off) for Kent secondary schools as a whole: 4 failing schools, 12 require improvement, 57 good and 24 outstanding. It is true that the majority of outstanding schools in Kent are grammar schools (2 faith, 2 modern plus 1 special school I haven't included). In contrast, Hampshire which is fully comprehensive has 10 outstanding schools, 40 good, 15 require improvement and 6 failing. I can't see any case for the comprehensive system producing better schools based on these stats.

Hakluyt - if the outstanding grammar school in your area and the good modern were replaced with two comprehensive schools how can you be sure that you'd be in the catchment for the better school? I'm not - my nearest comprehensive schools include 2 that require improvement and a good school that doesn't have an orchestra (which is something you've lamented previously about the modern). Talkin says her dc's popular comp recently dropped Latin from the curriculum because the long standing teacher retired and they have no plans to replace her despite almost 20 pupils taking GCSE Latin every year.

TheWordFactory - but is the recognition that the comprehensive system is not consistently serving the most able because comprehensive schools can't, or that they often aren't?