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.

TheWordFactory - sorry, I don't think the status quo will change in any meaningful way if you allow a few more relatively rich people to save money on school fees by offering them superselective state schools for well heeled parents. The problems of an elite are caused by huge and growing inequalities in wealth. These inequalities are growing throughout the world, regardless of the selectivity or otherwise of education systems. Letting a few fairly wealthy people become even wealthier does not do anything significant to change the fact that the elite govern everyone else and choose who will and won't join the club.

I can't speak for anyone else but my desire for more selective schools wouldn't look like Kent or NI.

I just want more of the most able children to have the most appropriate education for them which in turn might challenge the status quo.

I left London before this became a relevant issue for my children and at a recent dinner with friends we did laugh (gallows humour for them) how parents who could afford public school were boxing themselves into a corner year in year out.

If only most could come to a joint moment of clarity and send their children to the local state school, all those middle class parents and children would push up the results and mean no more huge fees. Simples

My c and p facility has died. Love your 13:43 post rabbitstew

Theoretical - you asked another poster if they had experience of the sec mod system in Kent. It was an irrelevant question since there is no 'experience' qualification to comment on a thread. So I asked you a similarly irrelevant question. To underline this point (which went completely over your head, clearly).

Word and Rabbits - I agree that NI is a special case and I made the point myself upstream that education NI has many differences to education in England in addition to the 11+ system. But its no less of a valid comparator than Kent since Kent is so different also. The solution to the issue of what to do to maximise everyone's chances doesn't lie with the NI system, doesn't lie with the Kent system and apparently doesn't lie with the comp system as exemplified by eg Cornwall or Hants either. The LEAs with the overall best results mix comps and superselectives.

As someone who has a lot of family in Kent (and much family and many friends at Judd, Tonbridge Grammar and Cranbrook) it doesn't seem at all terrible to have a market for schools where DC very often spend part of their schooling in state and another part in private. The market is flourishing and much loved

rabbit of course wealth a privilege play it's part but there is more to it than that.

In schools like Westminster ( which is the one I know best) there is a wealth of talent. And that talent is nurtured to within an inch of its life.

Small wonder that these young people the go on to hoover up so many places on the most selective university courses.

To challenge that we must nurture our talent in the state system. And currently we're just not doing that well enough.

You are a fan of belittling, Word. It's fairly close to bullying, you know. "clearly went over your head". Nice.

I guess it did. As you were "replying" for someone else.

What am I supposed to have done now? Sheesh !

As someone who has a lot of family in Kent (and much family and many friends at Judd, Tonbridge Grammar and Cranbrook) it doesn't seem at all terrible to have a market for schools where DC very often spend part of their schooling in state and another part in private. The market is flourishing and much loved

Not by the non rich majority, Bonsoir.

I suspect the elite would like more of the most able children to be highly educated, too, so that they can source more technical people to do highly complex, relatively low-paid research and development type work that might be the next big money maker for the elite (rather than the relatively low-paid researchers).

Read back your posts to me. I don't take kindly to bullying.

What posts ? I haven't mentioned anyone's fecking head !

Aww, TheoreticalOrder - I don't think TheWordFactory is normally the bullying type. Maybe you misinterpreted? She has strong opinions, but generally puts up with those of us who disagree with some of them!

I did not mention anyone's head! Nor anything going over it.

I don't just put with you rabbit I relish your compsny.

I do apologise, it was the other poster, Gently.

Apologies Word.

Gently - stop bullying me.

Flowers accepted especially on such a lovely day.

I'm the garden, supposedly working ( not on the dystopian thing. The other thing. The one I've actually received an advance for).

DS is supposed to be revising the Merchant of Venice but I can hear the Star Wars theme through his open bedroom window. I don't think he had a future as a master criminal.

As someone who has a lot of family in Kent (and much family and many friends at Judd, Tonbridge Grammar and Cranbrook) it doesn't seem at all terrible to have a market for schools where DC very often spend part of their schooling in state and another part in private. The market is flourishing and much loved

Is it fair that 42% of TGS and Judd places are offered to private school pupils? No, of course it's not. It makes a mockery of the "fairness" of grammar education.

Do you think the private prep schools make much difference to the 11plus? I mean are the kids who attend likely candidates anyway?

I recall a conversation with Head of Studies at my DCs prep ( not Kent) and he said that out of cohort of 60 in DCs year only one child was below the national average based on CAT tests.

I guess that's a whole big area on its own, Word. You could argue that smaller class sizes allow for improved teaching, thus bringing up CAT scores, this making children more likely to pass.

Certainly in Kent in some areas with an 11+ system, state schools aren't allowed to teach to test, 11plus banned in the classroom, where in private schools it is often offered. Then theres the whole big issue of tutoring etc.

I don't believe that private primary pupils are inherently brighter than state primary pupils. Certainly not IME, anyway.

But then again, my experience is probably skewed. All the children I know well in my DCs years that attend private do so because they weren't doing well at state.

Theoretical - I can assure you that there are plenty of non-rich people in Kent who are just thrilled when their DC get places at grammar schools. There is plenty of love for grammar schools.

Tonbridge is an education hub and has a very wealthy and educated catchment with vast numbers of private preps they have developed in order to get DC into selective secondaries (be they state or private). I don't understand why you think this is "unfair". The madness lies in state primaries not preparing DC for the Kent test. This is not the fault of private preps!