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.

Sadly funnyossity a low set in a comp would be a terrible place for your DC. These sets are to a greater extent occupied by students that have no desire what so ever to learn and insist on disrupting the learning of others.

A low set in an independent school would have most likely been better for your DC.

I have seen mixed ability done well and it is the bast case scenario for the majority. The Shanghai maths phenomenon that has gripped the Nation is entirely mixed ability. Also many of you will be familiar with Jo Boaler's work on mixed ability teaching in maths.

I'm not sure of any specific work that has been done in English but it strikes me as a subject that shouldn't be too difficult to teach well to mixed ability groups.

Our superselective has mixed ability teaching for maths in the sixth form.

This thread has been a complete marathon for those taking part.

I think we all agree that all children should be stretched and supported and nurtured to be the best they can be. We seem to be disagreeing on which setting is best for that. I say comprehensive setting where the same child can be in the top set for Maths and the bottom in French but still muck in with his neighbourhood friends in mixed ability drama classes.

Without proper funding, motivated teaching staff and a varied and wide ranging curriculum none of our schools will offer the best for our children.

Equally CamelHump grammars don't = great behaviour. These are teenagers, and full of beans.

Well, from what everyone is saying, the school ds1 will be going to in September is getting its setting as right as a comprehensive school possibly can. Obviously, however, if ds1 is not in the top set for every subject that is set (especially the subjects which are, apart from the top set and support set, mixed ability, rather than fully set), then it will be getting it all wrong.

They do set for maths and in his set (not top!) behaviour was fine.

Never be under the impression that a top set means great behaviour

Agree. Always amazes me people make that assumption. DC are not setted for behaviour but ability - and as others have said, 'top' sets are usually much larger and can be quite arrogant about their 'status'.
I prefer teaching the bottom sets, there are fewer DC ( maybe 20 rather than the 32 in the top set) and when they are shown that they can succeed in achieving the objective they are hugely motivated and proud of their success. If they were in a completely mixed ability class - not so much...
And usually in comps even though in Y& many subjects are not officially setted, the class is usually 'set' by the CAT scores.

Not sure if I have read this right, but did Hakluy's child take an entrance exam for a grammar school. Sorry, but I have dipped in and out of this thread and have seen it extend to 28 pages.

Hak did your children get into gs.

I think ss grammar schools are for the brightest / gifted children.
If you have such a child and have watched the primary school fail to stretch them you will understand.

At a ss the pace of learning is fast, everyone is super bright. It's a joy to learn when your not waiting for a big chunk of your class to catch up.

I refuse to believe mixed ability teaching works! It doesn't work in primary.

Ss also have little impact on local comps, if they are without catchment they do not affect top sets locally.

I think that they are a good thing.

Tapasfairy not everyone at a superselective is super bright, or indeed gifted in the ordinary sense of the word. They will all be clever, and some will be off the scale clever. It deters people from applying, this myth about the level of cleverness required, also (as Camel has just confirmed) the myth that all these kids are sheep like in their acquiescent behaviour. Ordinarily clever and normal kids should apply and if they get in they'll benefit, not to the detriment of others.

"Our superselective has mixed ability teaching for maths in the sixth form."

Just how wide is the ability range in a SS maths A level class?

Molio, they may not be, but they are pretty damn close to being super intelligent. The new CEM test is as close to an intelligence test as you will find. It is used to test potential to pick up stretching content at a quick pace.

This thread is stuffed with a load of people not really listening, just spouting their stuff. Maybe all of MN is like this. It's sad, lots could be learned here.

A* to B Blu.

Yes Theoretical and a few people not answering questions except with Oh Please, or Jesus fucking wept, because they've nothing cogent to say.

molio, everyone in our super selective is super bright, it has open catchment and takes only the top 3%.

There are amazing preps that can't get some children through the 11plus here. ( even with training from age 4)

It's not a myth, look at tiffin, no amount of coaching will get you in unless your super bright.

But Tapasfairy obviously with some kids no amount of 'training' will make them bright enough to pass the test. That's about the child, not the 'training'.

Obviously I don't know which superselective your superselective is, and obviously the term superselective is open to varying interpretations, but our superselective has a broad range of ability of whom only the top quartile is probably 'super bright' in the general sense of the word. It's a top superselective.

I agree with molio, at my dd's superselective (one of the top 10 schools in the country) there are some superbright pupils, but also a good range of "ordinarly" bright kids.

Blimey - does anyone know what superbright and ordinarily bright actually mean? And how you assess these qualities in someone? You seem to know an awful lot about the children at these schools.