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.

" 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)"

OK- and this is the school all the grammar supporters on here think is absolutley fine for the 77% to go to. Just so long as their children go to the grammar.

That last post will make no sense to anyone joining this thread late!

The idea that people are only enfranchised to comment if they have a child who has experienced the system they're commenting on is absurd. Views and experience don't always come from around the hearth. It's almost always those with the weakest argument who resort to that line. How many on this thread experienced the grammar system directly, from their own perspective as a child rather than as a parent of a child? They might be at least as experienced to comment, if not more so. Especially since the divisions were starker then.

Apart from the idea that those not passing feel the rejection keenly, which is patently arguable for many, there's the idea that you have to mix in school with a whole range of academic abilities to become a rounded human being. I don't really get that either. Anyone who goes about life in an ordinary way encounters a wide range of intellects, why should it be essential at school? Isn't the key thing to socialize with a variety of types of people rather than types of intellect? And there's all sorts at grammars, despite the hype on MN.

Hakluyt I can't quite get whether you're a fan of your DS's school or not either. If you are, and you feel the teaching and differentiation he's getting is fine, what's the problem?

Not saying that school is fine - a teacher like that is not fine anywhere.
But it was proudly held up as an example of good extension for an 'outlier' when it is patently lazy.

Cross post Hakluyt.

I'd say that's an example of very lazy differentiation myself but it may only reflect on that teacher, or how the teacher was feeling that day. I don't see that's it's possible to extrapolate from the fact that teacher was a bit meh in your example that all teachers at the school are like that or that no teachers at comps or grammars are like that. It does seem to suggest that your own expectations are quite low, but I'm not sure what else one can extract.

Cross post Mrs Ultracrepidarian!

"
Hakluyt I can't quite get whether you're a fan of your DS's school or not either. If you are, and you feel the teaching and differentiation he's getting is fine, what's the problem?"

I think it's perfectly fine. It's not geared up for people like him, but it's perfectly fine. My argument is that it shouldn't exist. And also that it's a bit rich for people to say that the selective system is wonderful and suits everyone, then point out how utterly crap the teaching in a school designed for the 77% is!

Ok I am not in a grammar school area (ds will be crossing the border) One other child in his class took the test (and passed it FWIW). The others don't seemed too bothered. They saw how hard ds worked for it and the majority didn't much fancy the look of that. Neither do they fancy the earlier wake up time and journey he will have. However this is a superselective not a bog standard grammar, so things may be different in whole selective areas.

"It does seem to suggest that your own expectations are quite low"

Jesus fucking wept.

You should read my caveat Hakluyt. I've no idea if this teacher is representative of the school or if that class was representative of his/ her usual quality of teaching. As I said, all I can reasonably infer is that your expectations seem low. But that's fine - less annoyance for the school. Although you say you're a governor so actually I'd expect you to be aiming higher, for the whole school.

Not sure what Jfw is intended to mean. Mine is a fair deduction no? What other conclusion can I draw? At least two other posters including a teacher have commented on it negatively too. Anyhow, I'm off out.

Hak - It's not geared up for people like him

In what way?

I have 2 DC at a superselective (although not a school like Tiffins) and 1 DC at a comp. I believe all my kids are at the school which is the best fit for them but in not one case is the fit perfect.

I agree with the poster above who made the comment about presence/absecnce in a school causing distress. My DDs would both have been distressed had they been forced to go to the school their brother is at. He would hate their school (more than they would hate his I suspect). Their school is not negatively impacted by him not being there, his is definitely not negatively impacted by them not being there. I suspect both schools have got a bit of a result in terms of which of my kids go there (not, probably, in absolute terms. I'm sure that, in particular, the SS would be just fine without my girls and wouldn't notice if they weren't there).

I don't know how other supporters of selective schools feel about it but I wouldn't have a problem with a proper, rigorously controlled, fair banding system that was universally applied in conjunction with the abolition of private schools. Until that's on offer, I'm happy to support super selective grammar schools which have a minimal impact on comps in their geographical area (where I live, the private schools have far more of an impact on the comps).

Hak - the example you gave of 'good differentiation' seemed to be the opposite of that to me, too. If that is what you want all kids to be saddled with then JFW indeed. Essentially, you proved the point of those saying that it's very difficult to differentiate for the outliers in a mixed ability class. We don't know what was actually said but your precis suggested a really dumbed down lazy approach. and if you think that's good enough - well, I don't.

samsonagistes - Pascaline Dupas' research shows that low achievers make more absolute academic progress when streamed by ability. As do all other levels of ability.

However, low achievers make less relative progress than other groups when streamed by ability.

Makes sense to me!

rabbitstew. Yes in theory that's the case, but there are a couple of reasons why the practice doesn't always work.

One is that teachers under-assess children in KS1 so that they don't have to worry about showing progress later. And probably at other stages too.
The second is that schools don't tend to assess what a child is actually capable of.
And the third is that one of the definitions of being gifted is that a child learns faster, so 'expected rates' aren't much use (Anecdotal example. I did the entire O Level Maths course in 2/5 terms in the third year, and got an A. That's way above expected progress, but it was learning at my own pace -and more fun than any school work I'd done before then because of it)

Bonsoir, thanks - do you have a link?

I've only read her stuff in French and on paper but google her and you might find something in English (she works in the US).

The extension piece highlighted does sound a bit like the teacher had no ideas how to motivate or enthuse a bright student.

The teacher just basically gave up though lack of imagination or knowledge and just said "do what you like". There are two issues firstly the teacher is singling a pupil out "that they are better than the rest" and far to inteligent for this task set. The second issue is that in reality , the teacher sees the pupil as a " nuisuence" disrupting their plan for the class.

Terrible teaching in my uneducated view !.

This is a prime example of mixed abilty teaching. The school should reconignise that within its cohort , there are a few pupils that are there by "accident" and make a set for all subjects for the bright 10 pupils or so !.

Bonsoir, if it's the Kenyan study you are referring to, the outcome was that setting/tracking may benefit lower-achieving pupils indirectly by allowing teachers to teach at a level more appropriate to them.

The same result can also be achieved by good mixed ability teaching i.e.with excellent differentiation but importantly without the 'stigma' that goes along being in the bottom set (for teacher and student).

rabbitstew. And the final reason - which is related to the ones above - is that the 'best' outcome a school can report is an A* at GCSE. Which may be far less than a child could achieve. (We had teachers saying to us, what are you worrying about, she'll get As at GCSE when DD was 6. Like this was the only thing we minded about).

I have two DC at ss grammars and one SEN child Im hoping will be able to attend a special school. IMO it would be criminal to try and teach my three together, none of them would be taught according to their needs or abilities.
Grammar schools are not perfect but for very bright children I believe it's the best of a bad job.
It would be incredible if comprehensive or Secondary Moderns could teach all children to the best of their abilities, no child left behind, but this Utopia doesn't exist.

OK. I give up. The selective system is wonderful because it is best for the most able, and they are the most important. What happens to middle and low ability kids doesn't actually matter. After all, they aren't going to get into a Russell group university are they? Just so long as they are corralled off somewhere where they won't have any impact on the high achievers. I'm sure there's an ex poly somewhere that'll do for the cleverer ones and it's a shame if there's bit of collateral damage- but these things happen.

Have fun discussing how you make sure you get the best possible outcomes for your "bright" children. I'll take my oh so risible thoughts about how damaging the system can be for already disadvantaged children and my low expectations for my own and bugger off.

pickledsiblings - the research did not conclude that mixed ability teaching could offer the same absolute progress as streamed teaching.

I think that it is crucial to have clarity about the educational environment that provides the best absolute outcomes for all abilities.

I wish my child in a mixed ability English class had been given the chance of a better outcome by setting. The stigma of poor skills for the rest of his life is worse imo than the temporary one of being in a low set.

Hak the collateral damage you don't mind is the bright kids not being challenged "because you know 7 As and a B , well that's very good and they should be pleased" and never mind they could have achieved more,but there was no one to show them the way and they were top of their set so that's ok.