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.

There are 39 grammar schools in Kent and Medway. There are 164 grammar schools in England. Kent does not have most of the grammar schools in England.

It's entirely anecdotal, but I have friends over there and the general opinion seems to be why would you look at a private school when the state ones here are so good? I am sure that there are parts of Hampshire that are exceptions to this, though.

How about grammar schools per head of population, then, GentlyBenevolent?

Kent would also be a good county to look at in terms of value added for less well off pupils, as it has pockets of quite high deprivation with grammar schools in them, as well as extremely wealthy areas, so the comparisons would be very interesting.

A lot of counties have one or two grammar schools still in the mix (where I come from in Stratford on Avon, they still exist because no one dares to change Shakespeare's old school into a comp...).

But you could try Somerset. As far as I know there are no grammar schools anywhere in the county, and the secondaries run the gamut from outstanding to underperforming.

According to the DfE website in 2015 for the Bucks LEA 71.1% of pupils got 5 GCSEs A-C. 60% of pupils got 5 GCSEs A-C in Hampshire.

But that's all schools, including private ones.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. But doesn't Bucks have a slew of grammar schools too?

Samson according to the DfE website, in 2015 Somerset had 56.2% on 5 GCSEs at A*-C. kids from Somerset can access grammar schools in neighbouring counties though.

Saomson - yes, Bucks is an 1+ county. I thought you were suggesting comparing bucks to Hampshire instead of comparing Kent to Hampshire. I thinkit's probably a better comparison too since Bucks and Hampshire have swathes of very well heeled areas, unlike Kent which has fewer affluent and more deprived areas (AFAIA but I stand to be corrected there).

11+. I think testing at 1 might be a bit much.

GentlyBenevolent - Kent is chock a block full of rich commuters. There are loads of expensive private schools.

Here is an interactive map of the results by county

And - speaking from experience here - Somerset is huge and there aren't that many grammars near enough to make much of a difference. We're almost in Wiltshire and still wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of getting to the Salisbury grammars.

I believe GCSE results can be linked to parental wealth, but can't find the data.

Kent does not have most of the uk's grammar schools, but it has more grammars than any other county- but Kent is a big county,
especially if you include Medway.

West Kent has rich commuters. Parts of East Kent (notably Thanet) are definitely deprived.

Bonsoir - I know (I have relatives and colleagues who live there). But it has a lot of deprivation too. Extreme deprivation. Which I don't believe is as prevalent in either Bucks or Hants.

I'd be very interested to see answers to any of those questions about Kent,
rabbit.

I think Kent makes a useful example as it has the most grammar schools by county, a fully selective system, and is a large geographical area as well as one with a diverse mix of areas. Unlike Bucks, it doesn't have that second bite of the cherry after 11, and certainly for lots I know in Bucks, is not bordered and catchmented in such a way with surrounding counties that comprehensive education is available. ( Please correct me Bucks if I'm wrong here ).

I agree that Hampshire wouldn't make for the most average comprehensive comparison.

That map is from 2013. But I suppose the results aren't that different. Interestingly in 2013 Lincolnshire (fully selective) and Hampshire (fully comp or as near as makes no difference) had almost identical results.

Sorry should say are bordered and catchmented.

Bucks bordered by Herts, Beds, Oxon, Berks, Middx ( & Surrey? )

Devon might be a good comparison with Kent - lots of deprivation as well as affluent bits, transport issues (transport is shite basically) - only 1 grammar school so no real impact, and the problem of the sea. Devon does have a significant private school problem though. In 2015 Kent got 61% achieving 5 GCSEs A*-C, Devon got 58%. So - selective looks better from that comparision though only just. If we look at Cornwall which has much more sea, much more deprivation and fewer private schools than Devon (and no grammars) - 58.3%. Medway had 62%. So again - selective looking a bit better. On the other hand, Lincolnshire (also on the coast) which is fully(?) selective did worse than Devon or Cornwall.

Some data from NI (68 out of 206 schools are grammar schools): trinitymirrordataresources.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/northern-ireland-schools-gadget.html.

76.6% in NI get 5+ GCSEs A* to C.

NI is a very different envirnoment though. One of my closest friends from school lives there and has had 3 kids go through the system - she says it really is VERY different (she knows what things are like now in various places in England because 2 of her sisters are teachers and all 3 of her sisters have many kids).

The ratio of GS:NGS for NI is v. similar to Kent's. I have long suspected that the Independent schools in Kent are the main reason that the state schools don't do better. No Independent schools (well, one or 2) in NI.

There are a whopping 21 Independent senior schools in Kent!

Different how Gently? I know the NI system v. well, likewise the situation in England.

It's been done for you and done well by Chris Cook ex Ft, now bbc. He created a new county 'selectivia' made up of all 11+ counties and compared to non selective areas, taking account of relative deprivation.