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.

Wasn't the range from A* to B at A level? Which would be narrower than at gcse?

Okay what I mean is this - when people hear which school my dd's go to they think it's stuffed full with little geniuses who are on the cusp of finding a cure for cancer, who can do trigonometry in their sleep, who pick up languages at the drop of a hat...
But they're just ordinary kids, they talk about youtubers, football, whatever, they sometimes do worse and sometimes better in exams etc there are a couple who really do win national maths competitions etc, but they are the exception even there.

Still, that doesn't actually mean they don't have IQs in the top 3% - your IQ doesn't have to be THAT high to be in the top 3%. Besides which, IQ is made up of various attributes and you can have a high IQ whilst actually, within that score, having various weaknesses... Being capable of talking about football does not mean you have an average IQ. You can't really be too intelligent to like football, or to want to fit in with others, it doesn't work like that!...

rabbitstew I've already said the term is subjective but blimey yes, I do know a lot about the various recent cohorts at my DCs' school. I'm bound to with eight DC at the school. That's a school record and given that the school was founded four hundred and fifty years ago it's a reasonable record don't you think? It may be a national record, not sure, never checked, too trivial and too time consuming. Each had plenty of friends and I also know plenty of other DC in our area who aren't the DCs' friends, but live nearby, or are the DC of parents I know. So you can be as sniffy as you like, but the answer is a resounding yes - I know an awful lot, personally, and enough to judge, including eight of my own. Given that five of mine have gone to your own uni and the sixth has an offer and that I don't consider all of them 'super bright', I'm probably in a reasonable place to cast aspersions especially since I have an interest in encouraging applications to these schools, not deterring them. Got that off my chest then .

It's a bit hard to identify whether or not other people are superbright if you are superbright yourself and don't THINK you're any different from anyone else.

Oh that's easy then! In the clear! Not all superbright - confirmed .

"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."

But Molio do you not remember posting the above? Maybe your argument is weaker than you think!

I suspect with so many children going off to Oxford, most people would think you're a very bright family. One or two getting in could be a lucky fluke, but six is looking somewhat unusual for a dull-witted set of genes.

I would imagine if you're talking about the 4% of children at grammar schools (not all of which grammars are super selective by the way) that is going to be a bit like say North London Collegiate where my daughter went (private day school often in top 3 in the country of all schools for results).

in that respect I agree with Molio - even there you STILL get a range of abilities. Everyone is quite bright but you get the occasional genius type child. My other daughter was in the bottom of 5 sets of maths at Haberdashers an still got an A but that lowest set was just right for her.

Of course. But what can be very weak on these threads is when someone is told (say) that they should listen to views of people on Desert Island Discs who actually grew up in the system and then the person responds to say that they did too and that ok they're not a hugely famous artiste but were alive at the time and got the picture. Then there's a silence. Or possibly a Jesus Fucking Wept. Or an Oh Please.

So when you (in effect) ask how come I could possibly know so many kids at these places at least I respond and show you why I might well know so many. I don't just go Jesus Fucking Wept. That isn't excluding the views of others, it's merely establishing the credibility of mine. The comment you've reposted was intended to mean that one can have experience beyond the home which is valid, not that experience close to home is invalid - just that it isn't exclusive.

rabbit I don't think it's safe for me to say how many I think were a lucky flute because I'm getting older and I might be clobbered when they all come back in the summer.

I know, Molio, but sometimes it's fun to stir! All the talk of super brightness was getting rather silly! Although I have to say that I don't really have a clue about my friends' IQs! I never looked through their schoolbooks or asked them how hard they worked at school.

I haven't a clue about my own IQ at any stage in my life, or my DCs' IQ. Do people really get their DCs' IQ tested?! How does that help? Hard work has nothing to do with it. I'd judge it by conversation, provided one had had enough conversations to judge.

I wouldn't think to judge in the first place, Molio.

Mind you, 11 plus entrance exams try to judge...

Molio - old style dyslexia and dyspraxia evaluations used to include IQ testing as standard. I'm not sure about the tests for extra time in exams which are evaluating against an average rather than in the context of the individual. But the full diagnosis ones used to, for sure. So as a result I know all my kids' IQs and my own (which I knew before, as it happens, because I was a subject in some whacky research project when I was at school or at least I was until my parents rescinded their permission when they realised how whacky it was). What I find mildly interesting (at best) is that all 3 of my kids have roughly the same IQ (all in the same percentile) and yet the three of them are really quite different in many ways and one if them is decidedly less academic than the other two. Certainly less hard working (although as he points out just reading something is hard work for him so he's always doing heavier lifting than the girls). I think it's probably 6 parts useful and half a dozen parts bobbins.

Ok, quite right. Of course I don't judge in the loaded MN sense of judging, or indeed in the competition sense of judging. Maybe for 'I'd judge it by' substitute 'It's bleeding obvious to tell it by'. Some kids are light years ahead, but only a few.

Conversation with someone just assesses their verbal abilities, not their overall brightness. You get your IQ tested as part of an assessment for ASDs as well, and ADHD and pretty much any other learning/developmental disorder. One thing most eleven plus exams do not test is your ability to have an interesting conversation.

Gentlybenevolent, a reason two people might have the same IQ, but one be less "academic" could be down to tastes, interests and personality, don't you think?

rabbit you're being a bit draggy. Basically, it's incredibly obvious year after year after year which kids are seriously, seriously bright and after a number of years one builds up a picture. I'm not going to be caught out, because the pattern is so clear. Those kids are super bright and they're a small minority. Obviously there are also a different set of kids who have the characteristics you mention who are super able too. They are very few in number as well but very special too. Not better, but special. Together the groups are still in a minority by some long way. Which is why I said what I did and still stick with it, since it's true.

Kesstrel there's all sorts of possible reasons why people might have the same IQ and have different levels of 'academic' achievement. And one if those possible reasons is that IQ is a bit useless in determining possible academic achievement. :) That's certainly more likely to be the answer in the case of my kids since they all have virtually identical tastes and interests. And their personalities aren't hugely different either (except as rekates to graft).

The whole thing of how bright DC are at super selective schools is interesting.

It's very difficult to get inside people's head, especially when they're children. I was part of the last selection process at one of the university's where I work and found it very interesting. We're not searching for or expecting genius status actually (contrary to some reports). We're looking for, I dunno, an open mindedness? A curiosity? A thirst? A willingness?

What I do know about my DS who is, on paper, rather clever, is that he's very ordinary in many many ways. He is an avid football fan and player (Sunday league with local team). He messes about with his mates.

And DD who is joining his super selective in September is equally ordinary over all.

By th end of school, their intellect will be finely tuned, because that;s what the school does, but they will still be completely average kids in every other way that matters.

Yes Word and actually, which was my initial point, the myths about just how brilliant you need to be in the first place compound the myths about tutoring and posh kids to act as an extra deterrence to those who might otherwise - and should - apply. The access stuff at this level is very, very closely replicated at university level.

Anyhow, the dog is demanding his evening walk, so I'll leave you to it!

I suppose what I'm saying is that neither of mine is super bright.

Not in the league of my friend's son who did part school and part university from year 8.

And I thank the lord for that, because it has not been an easy run for my lovely mate.

That said, my DS has definitely benefited from a selective school. A mixed ability school wouldn't have got the best out of him academically, or, more importantly, allowed him to be just ordinary.

On the other hand DD has thrived beautifully in a mixed ability school. I think the selective schools where she had a place would have been a mistake (though I didn't think so at the time).

But I think she outgrew mixed ability in year 10 if I'm honest.

Cross posts molio dog walking at this time? In the pitch dark? Blimey!