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.

Stillwish - surely it depends who has the equipment or the really long arms. Or who is more arsed.

Hmm. All this shows that everything depends on the child and the context. My ds2 loves getting on with lonely projects. I would really like him to learn how to get on with group projects, but concede that projects are more fun if done with people of similar ability, or complementary abilities, and all with an interest in the project, conditions you rarely find in real life, whether inside or outside of school... Mind you, my whole time at Oxford, I very seldom had to work with more than one other person in a tutorial. Being able to get on with things by yourself was very much a useful trait there, I found, personally. I didn't feel the need to discuss my ideas in front of as many peers as possible... the tutor plus one was plenty.

I have an Uncle who was accelerated through school, was younger than everyone else at university (in the days of National Service, people tended to be older before they went to university, anyway), was small and young-looking, lonely and miserable. Clearly going off young to university only really works for tall, attractive, mature-looking people.

As an example I would say in general and accepting there will be exceptions both ways. Most nurses are kinder and more sympathetic than most doctors, who in turn tend to be a bit more sympathetic than most barristers.

rabbit by the time you were at Oxford you would have been at a whole different stage of learning, which your schooling presumably (or should have) prepared you for.

Both my brother and I were accelerated through school from the age of 10, at the school's suggestion - my parents weren't overly keen. My brother was more acquiescent to begin with but then ditched exams just before A levels and became a professional sportsman so never went to university, although admittedly he's rich. I was absolutely furious at being separated from my friends, and rebelled horribly right from the start - just downed tools on Day 1.

I doubt we have the time or the space here to debate the correlation between IQ and generosity, but I'm sure we can all think of people who have challenged our thinking on something, of just made us see someone else's point of view. That's nothing to do with intelligence. My dd is pretty shy, but her bff is very socially fearless, they have both learnt from each other, even though they may sit on different reading tables.

Stillwish I like this idea of generalizing by occupation. I'm working on which occupation I'd rate as attracting/ producing the grinchiest type :)

"Samson I'd like my kids to learn through teaching and discussion, not sit in a corner doing lonely projects."

Why not both? In the lesson my dd was talking about they had done lots of work and discussion about argument and persuasion - started when they looked at the election campaign. There is quite a range of ability in his set, but it sounds as if they all had plenty to contribute to the discussion. Then they used what they had talked about to do some writing. Different students were given different things to work on- ds was told he could do whatever he wanted. I don't see why that is terrible- he is not being stuck in a corner while the lesson continues round him- they are all producing written work.

"Stillwish I like this idea of generalizing by occupation. I'm working on which occupation I'd rate as attracting/ producing the grinchiest type smile"

IT?

My DCs describe my job as 'going round the world telling people they are doing it wrong'. This is not my official job description. But it is sometimes an element of my job. I think some people think I'm pretty grinchy. Some people think I'm a sweetheart though. Both lots are right, on occasion.

StillwishIhadabs - one's perception of the kindness of others also depends on one's own IQ. The nurse you find kind and the doctor you find less kind are merely your own response to their personality and communication style.

My mother died recently, in a hospice. Her perception and mine of the personal qualities ("kindness") of the many health care professionals we encountered was quite different.

I think nurses may be more kind than doctors.

But I think it's not necessarily the case that all nurses have a lower IQ.

Many of them will be from backgrounds and have been to schools which will have utterly discounted the possibility of becoming a doctor!

Which leads up back to the thread topic.

Well done theWordFactory. You brought us all back to the point

And some may have thought they really would rather be nurses! Plenty of girls from my grammar school went off to become doctors. And, shock, horror, one or two actively chose to go into nursing. Because they wanted to.

"But I think it's not necessarily the case that all nurses have a lower IQ.

Many of them will be from backgrounds and have been to schools which will have utterly discounted the possibility of becoming a doctor!"

Or they could be like a friend's daughter who is resisting all attempts by her school to push her into trying for medicine because she wants to be a nurse!

Joking apart, low aspirations are a real issue. And one, going back to the OP, that selection at 10 really exacerbates. It's hard to aim high when you've been told at 10 that you're suitable for high school education, and all the kids you have recognised as clever in your class go off to the grammar............

At primary school both my dd's were criticized by their peers for being clever. It really wasn't the case at all that the ones not going to grammar school were sobbing about their missed opportunities.

"At primary school both my dd's were criticized by their peers for being clever. It really wasn't the case at all that the ones not going to grammar school were sobbing about their missed opportunities."

Nope. Never said they were. It's more complicated and nuanced than that. As is this discussion.

A good primary school teacher that sees a DC day in day out for hours at a time is pretty well placed to ensure individual progress across the basics. At senior school level, subject teachers see DC a few times a week for a few hours on average and progress becomes more of a comparative exercise with teachers keeping check that the smartest kid is still doing the best in tests etc. This is a gross over simplification but the point is that the 'smarter' the kids in your class are the more likely you are to reach your potential (if you're smart too that is).

By Y6 children have had half of their entire formal school education. I'm not sure why selection at that age is too early, simply because a child of 10 is young. Seven years in formal education is a fairly long while to give an indication of where a child is on the overall scale. It seems a fairly good point to judge actually, because it allows faster teaching through KS3 before the GCSE syllabuses kick in.

hak I don't think you can put the blame for low aspirtations at the door of selective schools or private schools.

The vast majority of DC in the UK attend one of their local community schools. And their aspirations are no better than in Kent .

"I don't think you can put the blame for low aspirtations at the door of selective schools or private schools."

I'm not. All I said was that the selective system (not selective schools) does nothing to help where it exists.

I don't get your argument Hak that the selective system doesn't work in Kent. If I compare the 2014 stats for progress in maths in Kent with Cambridgeshire (non selective) it doesn't look bleak.

Many of the Kent grammars show excellent progress with a few of the high schools showing above average progress. In Cambridgeshire, the village colleges come out slightly better than the high schools in Kent but nowhere near as good as the grammars and then there are some comps that fair similarly to the high schools in Kent.

Bright kids have a better chance of doing well in a grammar school and that is that. And as far as I can see, that is not at the expense of the kids that go to the high schools.

It is the bright kids in the comps and high schools that aren't making expected progress on the whole. Such a shame for those kids. Don't get me started on the grade inflation that occurs by attending an independent school - so many would have been Cs in the state sector come out as Bs or even As.

When we look at LEAs in England and Wales, we see (very generally) that selective ones don't outperform comprehensive ones when the measurement is 5 GCSEs.

Though NI which still operates a selective system does better on the whole.

So we can probably say that the middle attainers are relatively unaffected by whatever system they learn under (in terms of raw qualifications).

However, if we look at the the number of the highest grades and gaining places at the most selective universities, the LEAs with selective schools in them are the best performers. I think Sutton is the winner (but my memory aint what it was).

Now obviously, there is some movement between borders of LEA when a SS grammar school has no proper catchment. But even taking that into account, the results seem to indicate that high ability students do better (in terms of raw qualification and univeristy destinations) in LEAS with selective schools.

I'm not saying the selective system in Kent doesn't work, exactly. But if it was so much better than the comprehensive system then wholly selective areas would have significantly better results than wholly comprehensive areas, and they don't.

And if you live in it you can see how damaging and divisive it is, personally and societally. And I don't think anyone ever argues that secondary moderns are better than comprehensives for middle and low ability children. So the only children it could possibly benefit- and there is little evidence that it does (and even that evidence only indicates a slight benefit) is the high ability ones. And I would not be happy at all about perpetuating a system which benefits a small minority, to the disadvantage of the huge majority. Particularly when that potential benefit was very small