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.

Theoretical - do you have a chid who passed the 11+ who is at a superselective?

I have one child going to a SS. I also have another who won't. Why? Am I not allowed to comment on the detrimental effect of the grammar system if I have one of my children at a superselective?

I am querying pickleds comment as she is asking me to "do as I do". Which, if she is sending her children to comprehensive not secondary moderns, I can't really.

Molio - obviously if the age of selection is moved, it disrupts the entire education system - you would need to adapt the curriculum to account for it. Existing infrastructure is also very constricting. I doubt the UK is going to move away from primary until 11 and secondary thereafter.

10 is nevertheless quite young.

Pascaline Dupas has conducted exhaustive and conclusive research on the effects of teaching in ability groups versus not doing so.

Maryso. I was trying to make two main points really.

One is that the state education system can and does fail really bright children, and we have personal experience of just how difficult the situation can be. Which does have a bearing on the existence or otherwise of selective schools. Comprehensive education has to offer a suitable education for all levels of children, and at the moment this is a very hit and miss affair (I can link to research supporting this if you wish). All of which makes me ask questions about the benefits or otherwise of selective schools and to try and find out the answers.

And no, we're not looking for added value from paying fees. Ideologically, I am entirely on your side and would prefer state education for all the reasons you suggest. However, the other local schools agreed that they could not offer DD a proper education for more than another year (this in part due to the odd way that schools are structured round here) so we didn't have a choice really.

"Well hak has a kid who failed the 11+ and she's pretty happy with his school and the differentiation he gets."

However, Word, you have pointed out how crap it is. You can't have it both ways.

Bonsoir, the DofE did a review of the literature a few years ago which mrz linked to on another thread. The upshot is - and I precis wildly here - that setting and streaming are bad for low achievers, make no difference to the majority of children, and are good for high achievers, most specifically the very top end of that group. Much like grammar schools, oddly enough.

I will try and find the link if you want.

That is not Pascaline Dupas' conclusion and I would have a great deal more faith in the impartiality of her research than that of the DofE!

I do wish we could break away from this assumption that comprehensive =mixed ability teaching.

But many comps DO deliver mixed ability teaching. My DS's comp has mixed ability teaching in several subjects. This is one of the reasons I'm very glad that my DDs don't go there.

The school my ds was offered initially ( which is comprehensive) was only going to set for maths in yr , it was all talk of consolidatING the .My ds was prepared for the 11+ from the start of yr5 he sat it in September. He has already spent a year going over things he has already covered to prepare the rest of the cohort for SATS,.He is so bored and I think at risk of becoming disillusioned, I couldn't subject him to another term or so of treading water academically. He is going to a superselective in September.

Which still leaves the question: is it really impossible to teach all these children in the same school? After all, comprehensive schools do not HAVE to teach all their lessons in mixed ability classes. And if people weren't busy sending their children off to faith schools, grammar schools and private schools, there should be a fair number of high ability children in most schools. So - why is that so difficult? Is it impossible for most teachers to change their teaching techniques sufficiently to fit the different needs of the different ability groups? Is the 11 plus a more fair and impartial way of working out ability than using tests and assessments within schools? Do separate schools mean that children with academic potential don't get as distracted by the joys of un-academic pursuits?...

Sorry my phone swallowed my post. They were only setting for maths in yr 7 and even then they talked of consolidating the basics.

Can I ask- do people really think that high ability children are more important that middle or low ability? Because that's certainly the impression you get from threads like this.

I actively choose a Upper school (secondary modern in Hak speak) though nothing like she thinks for DS despite him passing his 11+.

I wish Hak would stop putting out the idea that non selective schools in grammar areas are not the correct schools for bright children or any children who may thrive in a less intense environment.

I don't know all the answers to that one, rabbit, but I think at least part of that is that resources are scarce and schools are not 'rewarded' (in OFSTED and league tables terms) for taking the brightest kids furthest. So it is the thing that falls by the wayside when budgets are cut.

As for the testing, I think any test which tests achievement rather than aptitude is unfair.

Why do you get that impression Hayk ?

Hak - no I certainly don't. What I want is equality of opportunity for all. And when I read a report that shows that setting disadvantages the low achievers, but is good for the high, I really don't know what the right answer is.

"wish Hak would stop putting out the idea that non selective schools in grammar areas are not the correct schools for bright children or any children who may thrive in a less intense enviromental"

I'm not. Although if you want your bright child to have an academic peer group then secondary modern/high school (I stopped saying high school because someone old me it was confusing) is probably not the place for them. My point is that a selective system is not good for anyone- but particulary not good for low and middle ability children.

Hak. I do believe that High ability pupils are more important than other groups yes !. This also includes pupils who are autistic (Dyspraxia Dyslexia and Aspergers ). It is vital these pupils as well as normal bright pupils get a highly developed and academically stimulating challenging and rewarding education that allows them to show their intelligence.

However, it still does not mean that in all cases a "Modern" school with a specific strength linked to a pupils interest or strength can not be a better fix for even a child who passed the 11+.

I think part of the answer is I believe (maybe wrongly) that my ds will be more disadvantaged by going to that school, than the remaining pupils will be by him not going. It would make him miserable and he has already had a pretty tough time in yRs 5 and 6 . Whereas I don't think him not being there will make the other pupils unhappy.

samsonagonistes - but is that correct, now that the pressure is on for schools to show progress amongst all groups of children, not just reasonable attainment? It seems to me it would be very bad for a school not to be able to show it was catering well for its most able.

"It is vital these pupils as well as normal bright pupils get a highly developed and academically stimulating challenging and rewarding education that allows them to show their intelligence."

Why is this more important for high ability children to get this than for middle or low ability children?

I think that' a terrible piece of extension work for the outlier!

See I would be very cross if either of my DC got palmed off with crap like that.

Completely agree- crap 'teaching'. (I am a teacher)

"Why do you get that impression Hayk?"

Because if you support grammar schools, you are, by definition supporting a system which tells middle and low ability children that they have less "worth" than high ability ones. That they have failed, or not even taken a test which decides the path their lives will take. No chance for late development, no chance for a change of mind or heart. And, however people try to deny it, judgements are made about you based on your school uniform for the rest of your school career.