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.

As I pointed out, you don't actually have to come across as different to be super bright... And if Tapasfairy wants to insist that you have to be in the top 3% to get into her children's ss, I'm fine with that - I don't think having an IQ in the top 3% means you will remotely stand out from the crowd... It doesn't mean she isn't entitled to interpret that sort of IQ as super bright if she so desires. In my view, being academic and being bright are two different concepts, anyway. There were plenty of extremely able people at my grammar school who hated their education, because they were not interested in training their brains in that way.

I think the interest is definitely an issue rabbit.

Neither of mine stand out in the usual MN ways (grade whatever on piano, reading Harry Potter at three). But they do want to train their brains (and other bits of them actually).

Neither would have stood out as the brightest in their class, but they are te most thirsty if that makes sense.

Makes perfect sense, TheWordFactory.

You cannot judge IQ by talking to people. We know a genius academic who is really quite dull to talk to - and, interestingly, one of his DC is very similar. Their interests/genius is quite specific and has nothing to do with story telling ability or amazing observation skills which are apparent in conversation.

Grammar schools make me think of people like my ex BIL. At primary he was seen as slow. If he had been part of a Grammar system he would not have went to Grammar school. And yet as soon as he started doing more complex maths and physics at his comprehensive, he excelled. He went to Uni, got a first class degree, and has a high paying job.

Writing kids off at 11 fails many kids

Where is the kid going who is top 99.9% IQ in one area (verbal or maths) but average or even below average in other area?

rotary they're rare.

And perhaps school of any complexion will be wrong for a genius (be they one field genius or polymath)? Or parents may chose school for other reasons (like my friend did for her polymath genius).

There are very few mathmos at Cambridge, for example, who can't string together a half decent essay on Of Mice and Men for their GCSE .

But super selective schools are not set up to teach genius children, anyway.

They offer an all round education for the most able, serving those children who won't find a sizable peer group in comprehensive, by grouping them together. They can choose their curriculum accordingly and use their resources accordingly.

And those who think a school like this sounds like awful don't have to send their DC, whatever their ability.

It's more on an escorted wee thing Word just before bed. The dog has form (lots of form) for weeing in the kitchen overnight or putting his paw under the kitchen door and rattling it until someone comes down unless he has a late night turn around the garden or a quick outing along behind the cottages. I'm ok with it actually - the alternative is significantly worse.... But thank you for asking!

Bonsoir it's extremely easy to tell which kids are and which aren't 'super bright' when you know them well enough, and part of that knowing is through conversation. But of course there's all the other contextual info too, much of which emerges in conversation. It becomes increasingly apparent as they move through their school years, certainly sufficiently for me to say emphatically that not all kids at our superselective are 'super bright'. So I'd doubt they were at other superselectives either - it's a myth.

Is any thirst for academic stuff required at 11+ level? I wouldn't have thought so, certainly not in the state sector where they don't interview. It's just potential ability being measured there and that requires a quick brain, an ability to reason rather than regurgitate knowledge and a parent willing to put a DC forward for the test. The other stuff may be useful later, but isn't really part of the picture at 11.

Sorry who can string a decent essay together.

No Word, it's probably cant. Well couldn't actually :)

The testing at 11 (or often 10) worries people because it seems so very young.
Some children are very immature at that age. My two were.

The chances of getting it wrong I suppose are greater, the younger you test? Perhaps there should be another bite of the cherry at 13? Though, of course, you'd get some parents forcing another application on their DC, unable to accept their DC's actual ability level.

The thing is though, I don't think you should stop those children that do demonstrate an aptitude at 10/11 from accessing an appropriate education, just because others don't.

Not offering something that has proved both its efficacy and its excellence, because not everyone can have it, is daft.

Yes couldn't. Past tense. Not many mathmos at university sitting their GCSEs .

I hsve them on the brain at the moment, as mine are taking them. I don't know how you've done so many rounds of this molio!!! I'm knackered. And, actually, my two are no bother, really...but living in this constant state of expectation and then relief, is exhausting.

Exam season gets easier for parents, Word. DSS2 is doing his bac and our household is far less disrupted by the experience than it was for DSS1 two years ago. Part of that is DSS2's more laid back personality but a large part is also it being a second-run for me and DP.

I imagine Molio barely notices it's exam season!

Molio - that's precisely my point about the 11 plus. At 11 you just don't know who will be academic and who won't, and measuring your reasoning ability, which is really a crude, quick way of assessing overall IQ, is not really the same thing as measuring academic potential. It discards some people who would have benefited hugely from an academic education (which is what grammar schools specialise in), and selects some who are hugely turned off by it. That is why some people argue that testing at age 10-11 is just unfair.

I admit I was very concerned about DD2's 11+ because she was so young - late August birth - and the test is now earlier than it used to be. But I suppose that's why they have the adjustment for age, to take account of that.

word Not offering something that has proved both its efficacy and its excellence, because not everyone can have it, is daft. This is spot on

I have dc at a superselective (but not a super super selective if that makes sense!). Mine are bright, but not thirsty. A couple of their friends are super bright (and I agree with molio it becomes clear through what your children tell you, school events and general conversation!) and a couple are super thirsty- aiming for 10 A*s and doing lots of extras in a drive to become a dr/ vet. I wish mine were more academically interested but I don't know how you give that to a child- perhaps it is innate.

I do think that sometimes my dc would have been given more confidence at a comp, as at their school they are average. But I live in a grammar area, and therefore that wasn't an option.

In this area there is also movement into and out of grammar schools during key stage 3, so the 11+ isn't the be all and end all.

I do think that some of the dc who will get the fab grades at the grammar would be v v miserable at a comp, (not socially shaped for that environment) and I don't know how you solve that.

Do a higher proportion of state educated children from Kent get into Russell Group universities than, say, children from Hampshire?

And does Kent get a higher proportion of the highest GCSE and A-level grades from its state schools than non-selective counties?

And do children on free school meals do better, academically, in grammar school counties than non-grammar counties?

Isn't Hampshire a bit of an unfair benchmark, in that it has the best state secondaries in England? Or is that the comparison you're after?

And Rabbit, this blog may have some of the answers you are after. He's very good at interrogating the stats, and not necessarily pro grammars if they are not performing, I think.

Every thread about grammar schools deteriroates into a discussion of Kent. It's very tiresome. Kent is one county. Most people agree that the system in Kent is not optimal and most people wouldn't want to live there. Kent does not have all the grammar schools in England.

samson - what makes you say that Hampshire has the best state schools in England (I suppose you mean the best comps)? Are there stats to support that? I'm not disputing this, I'm just interested...

I suspect Kent has most of the grammar schools in England! It's also where I grew up. How about Buckinghamshire and Hampshire, then? They both have good schools.

ps for the avoidance of doubt, when counting grammar schools, Medway is also Kent...

Kent definitely has the most grammar schools as a county, by a long way. Followed by Lincolnshire, by the looks of things, then Bucks.