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.

Agree talkin, but it is very hard not to let your life experiences colour your decisions.

Like several pp I live in a grammar area, so no choice really- most of our high schools are not set up for academic high achievers (with some excellent exceptions).

Portillo was absolutely grammar - he featured on a documentary about grammar schools a year or two back.

Michael Heseltine - Shrewsbury (private)
Chris Patten - private
Kenneth Baker - private
David Waddington - private
Peter Brooke - private
Patrick Mayhew - private

Tanaqi
the vast bulk of the country does not have to put up with grammar schools

and the vast bulk of parents know that they cannot afford the tutoring and extra travel

only on MN and in the Westminster bubble are Grammars still an issue

it would be much better if the effort was put into making ALL schools

• well governed
• fully accountable
• transparent in entry requirements
• every house was within the "catchment" for at least one school
• all schools cater for all abilities and allow for late developers

its much simpler that way : the energy goes into working WITH the school not artificial choices BETWEEN schoools

only on MN and in the Westminster bubble are Grammars still an issue

Errr.... How about the 16,667 children in Kent that were offered grammar or secondary school places in say 2014?

Theoretical
Kent is the one county that insists on fully segregating its children : for political not educational reasons

The rest of the country is thankfully clear of such poison.
Parents fight for a place at the grammar to escape the alternative.

Round here we just fill in the form and have no stress about tutoring or 11+ or any of the bilge
same as most of the rest of the country

Yes aware of that. Kents a pretty big county though, so it's not really a non issue as you make it out to be.

And Farage and other loons think it would be good if the "poison" spread.

Kent is the 5th largest county in the UK by population

Kent is not the only county surely? Bucks? Excluding Milton Keynes, which is a separate authority?

Put an end to private schools, this way everyone will have access to the same quality of education.

Grammar school areas

So Kent, Bucks and Lincs are wholly Grammar School areas, and other areas have remnants which may or may not be a great influence on the education locally.

I've got some relatives in Cumbria - the fact that there is a grammar in Kendal (by the looks of it), is neither here nor there for them, not least because transport to it daily would be nearly impossible. Their choices of comprehensive seem good, the current generation of cousins seem to be doing well in them. They certainly seem to be doing better than the generations who were there during the Grammar Sec Mod days.

My figures may be off and this is totally paraphrased because this is from a uni course I did a couple of years ago and I no longer have access to any research...

But, this is what I remember reading from several sources.

Looking at areas with grammar schools, they take the top 25 percent of pupils...the top 5 percent of those came from just about every socio-economic background, the rest were all middle class or higher.

Which suggests that something other than IQ dictates entry to grammar schools for the remaining 95 percent of pupils.

There was no clear consensus over exactly what it was, cultural currency, tutoring or preparation or bias on the part of the selectors, but if the children scoring in the top 5% were mixed throughout classes, why would IQ not be in the rest of the population?

tabula It is very easy to hypothosyse why IQ is not spred evenly. We generally mix with people of our own experience, more wome in the workplace means that couples doing similar jobs are more likely to get married etc.
Assuming a genuine meritocracy and some genetic component to 'high money earning' skills (intelligence or otherwise) would mean that well-off people marry each other and have children who are more likely to be 'money earning'.
Therefore a genuine meritocracy with some genetic element will lead to a permenant rich and poor divide. Lack of social mobility could be evidence of a meritocracy and genuine 'opportunity blind' system.

I live in an area without grammar schools. However, there are grammar schools within a car or bus ride so some children from here do normally go to grammars. I actually think they can help social mobility in an ideal world where kids aren't tutored for them and where they actually take kids from all backgrounds who would benefit from them. But, judging by what I've observed in this area, parents who can afford it do get their kids tutored which I think is unfair on a bright child who can't afford tutoring and also on a child who was tutored but wouldn't have passed without it (surely they must struggle to keep up at grammar school). I know a family whose kids all managed to pass the 11+. Are they all just very bright? It's possible but unlikely (especially as I know them). Quite a few kids from my daughter's maths set are going to various grammar schools next year. It's a shame since they'll be so far from their friends (old & new). I didn't encourage any of my kids to apply since I feel being near their mates is important and also wouldn't want them to have to wake up ridiculously early to get a bus that winds all over the place picking kids up for over an hour ( and then the same again at the end of the day). I did ask if they were interested though and none were for the same reasons. So far, I think DS would have done far better in his GCSEs at a grammar school since the high school wasn't great but he would have been unhappy relying on lifts for his social life. So, on balance, I think he made the right choice.

That certainly doesn't reflect my experience, tabula- although obvioulsy that's only anecdotal. Every year 6 class I have ever had anything to do with divides depressingy down class lines on results day. Occasionally a middle class child will end up on the "wrong" side of the divide, but I can only ever remember one the other way round...............

There is no mass appetite for the introduction of new grammar schools. The Tories will not repeal the 1998 ban, set by Labour's David Blunkett. My ds1 is in Y7 at a superselective and enjoying the pace and challenge. Ds2 is not as bright but will be heavily tutored to get in. Such schools are no longer motors of social mobility, as there are so few of them. Like the best state comprehensives there is a selective intake. Grammars select by test. Best comprehensives select by money; parents buying houses and inflating house prices in sought after catchments. Why did I choose superselective grammars? The local comprehensives aren't great for GCSE and A Level scores and my kids will not realise their potential and my expectations. It also saves me £15k a year, per child, in not having to go to a private school.

All mine at grammars. I'm evangelical about state ed. I do think that all education can engineer social change. I do think that they did in the past. (Look at the cult of grammar school boys etc from the 60s).

I'd ban anyone going to them who's ever used private education. Easy. Specially in years 5 and 6. And specially army types.

My kids say the private school kids do badly in year 7 as arent clever enough. (Generally). their schools do whole lessons on the tests.
Parents who choose to tutor should be raised high on our shoulders IMO. Bloody good for them for giving a toss.

(Btw lets distinguish between practising papers tutoring and teaching kids things they don't get)

"All mine at grammars. I'm evangelical about state ed. I do think that all education can engineer social change."

And you can believe 2 impossible things before breakfast...........

Mate worked at one of THE Birmingham ones. She believed it too. And saw it happen.

caroldecker - that only works as an argument if you accept that IQ affects life chances and not the other way round though.

I think grammar schools were fairer when the 11+ was not 'coachable'. The process of being able to pay to pass means that more children from wealthy families pass. There is also the argument that grammar schools cream off the more academically gifted children from an area and skew the results of other schools.
Comprehensive schools were designed to be 'grammar schools for all' but sadly at the time of their inception there was very little money to make that happen. I like the idea of community comprehensives, where children can enjoy a broad range of academic and vocational subjects under one roof. I attended a grammar back in the 80's and found the relentless focus on academic achievement incredibly stifling.

BadgersArse. I disagree you with a king those from private. Ds2 joined his prep in final term of Y4. Believe me it is crap. My partner likes the school for geographic reasons, is five minute drive from home. The school prepares for local privAte school entry. They certainly do no prep for grammar school exams. I would like to withdraw him from Y6 to local state primary so that he can hit the ground running the in Y7.