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.

Hak - Word has just explained it succintly. Middle attainers do roughly the same in both systems. High ability students do better in selective systems. Your whole thing seems to be to disadvantage the higher attainers for the sake of it, given that the middle attainers do equally well under both systems.

Hak - Word has just explained it succintly. Middle attainers do roughly the same in both systems. High ability students do better in selective systems. Your whole thing seems to be to disadvantage the higher attainers for the sake of it, given that the middle attainers do equally well under both systems.

What about the lower attainers? What about the middle band children that have been educated in secondary moderns? Are they now classed as low attainers? Are there a fair chunk more low attainers in selective counties?

Also, as everyone is very keen to point out, it's not all about grades. The psychological impact of being told you're thick and second class at 11 isn't measured by GSCE grades.

GCSE even.

Well I think if hak is correct and selective schools are causing societal breakdown in places like Kent then we have to ask the question...

Though we might also ask why it always seems such a nice place to visit. But hey ho.

So we need to find other ways of ensuring our high ability students achieve their potential within the comprehensive system.

And one thing's for sure, saying that it's already happening and this aint a problem will do nowt to help. Soem tough decisions, which will still not please the majoirty, will have to be taken.

And in the meantime the high ability DC (and quite a few middling ability DC) in the private sector will keep cleaning up. And we can't look to the universites or employers to bridge this gap more than they are doiung, because I have a sense that we have reached tolerance level here!

theoretical the outcomes for low ability children seem to be far more connected to their LEA's polices on funding and SEN provision than selection etc.

Not surprisingly they are far less affected by what happens to the high achievers, than what their LEA are prepared to pay for.

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

And also Molio querying why 10 is too young to select a child.

Do you really not see the problem with a child being told [by their peers] that they are thick and failures at 10? you really don't think this has an impact on their aspirations?

Please.

The data that says state school pupils get a better class of degree than Independent/Grammar school pupils (with similar or slightly higher A level grades) is a testament to how hard a bright kid has to 'fight' to do well at a comp. All that grit/determination/resilience that they develop (needs must and all that) stand them in good stead it seems.

Word - it's actually in the government's interests to have less well educated kids anyway, within certain parameters. They prefer most people to be wage slave drones, so burdened by student (and other) debt that they daren't rock the boat or question things, and suited only for mid level jobs - which mean they never escape wage-slave status. Essentially it's a new form of serfdom.

Though we might also ask why it always seems such a nice place to visit. But hey ho.

What?!

theoretical the outcomes for low ability children seem to be far more connected to their LEA's polices on funding and SEN provision than selection etc

Where do you get that from? How can you prove the outcomes of low attainers ( are these low attainers the middle band children from primary who have been stamped on and the fight gone out of them? ) are not affected by selection at 10?

Though we might also ask why it always seems such a nice place to visit. But hey ho.

I find this comment really offensive. Kent is a big county. Which parts of it have you visited?

A joke theoretical .

If generations of Kentistas have been damaged beyond repair why is Canterbury so darn lovely?

I'm not sure how someone calling a place nice is offensive. If it helps I don't think Kent is that nice...

It's not funny. At all.

Try Thamesmead, try Dartford, try Swanley. What a facile joke.

It belittles the issue.

Do you really not see the problem with a child being told [by their peers] that they are thick and failures at 10? you really don't think this has an impact on their aspirations?

Grammar schools are for those kids that present themselves as bright and quick at age 11. If your kid is bright and quick but misses out, that's bad luck. If they are bright but slow, it's not the right place for them and if they are late developers, they've missed the boat. Them's the rules, it's not fair, but it shouldn't be damaging.

Do as I've done and tell them they've a better chance of getting a decent degree provided they work hard to get decent A level results (see previous post).

Oh lighten up theoretical it was a response to Kent being portrayed as A Vale of Tears.

Yes, Kent has deprived areas. So do virtually all fully comprehensive areas. The kids in the later are not all dancing through the streets high on the lack of the 11+.

I think it's a good point that Gently makes about the government wanting to keep the underclass in their place. Upthread someone was asking why the referendum didn't go ahead many years ago.

I wonder how many parents of children that have failed the 11+ are aware enough and articulate and brave enough to stand up for what theI know is wrong?

All those lovely towns - Cambridge, Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks. Where the vast majority of children of educated middle class parents get into grammar. So they have no reason to rock the boat, criticise the system as it works for them.

Fully comprehensive areas aren't stuffed with 75% of kids who have been told they are a failure at 10 or 11.

Cambridge doesn't have grammars.

Should say Canterbury. Word's example given.

Word- I'm actually quite shocked that you said that. I am seriously wondering if you've been hacked.

But just in case it is you and you're having an off day, might I suggest the next time you visit Canterbury, you venture out of the city centre?

Oh for the love of God.

Get A grip. Humour is allowed.

Or has that been outlawed in Kent ? .

Pickled - re the data showing that state school students get better degrees for the same A Level offer. You can interpret it that way, or you can argue from the data that these students are badly served by their schools and would have got better A levels had they studied elsewhere. Or - most likely - a mixture of both.

Yep. Humour definitely allowed. Positively encouraged in fact.