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.

I think it's unfair when you get a really bright kid, in a state school, whose parents don't have much money, who fails to get into the SS, because all the places have been filled by kids whose parents have the money to lavish on giving them a leg up.

To a state place.

I see it time and again. And the wealthy argue that "they can download stuff for free and spend their own time doing it rather than paying a tutor! Of course it's fair!", making the assumption that a. The parent is sufficiently educated enough themselves to be able to tutor their child in it and b. That they have time, in most cases I know of both parents work at least FT(at least one job each).

It's social equality at its worst.

It's like, the SSs are for the wealthy, the hoi polloi bright ones can have the other grammars. Or preferably, the secondary moderns.

Or, in other words, social mobility my arse.

Theoretical what you say about the wealthy and superselectives is complete and utter rubbish. And rabbit's post which you so admired would be fine were it not based on a wholly false premise. I've no vested interest in superselectives now on a personal basis but I've seen the good they can do, which is as Word describes. It's no surprise that the Sutton Trust is in favour. FSM kids do disproportionately well at these schools - the Sutton Trust has produced a paper on it if you care to dig.

I am the first to think it is mad unfair to have a selection exam within a state system that requires preparation and yet make that preparation only available to those who can pay for it.

But that is not an argument against selective state education per se.

Word - hopefully got it right this time says upthread that we must nurture our talent in the state system. And (not sure who said this sorry ) that SS pupils are the ones that will give top private school pupils a run for their money for the top Uni places jobs etc.

Problem is - nurturing talent in SS's when 42% of intake is from private schools.

Molio - Theoretical what you say about the wealthy and superselectives is complete and utter rubbish

If I dare, I am referring to Kent, and specifically the Guardian article showing two top SSs in our county having 42% intake from private primaries.

Is it not, Bonsoir? I thought one of the points of selective state education was to improve social mobility?

It's nothing like 42% at our school Theoretical. The figure has varied over the years from (often) single figures to a spike year of roughly 20%. Never, ever anything like 40%. Please don't generalize from one rare example. The overwhelming majority of students at my DCs' school attended bog standard primaries and that's been the case for years and it continues to be the case.

Also, all these arguments completely ignore what's currently work in progress in terms of access, as though things are immutable. They aren't.

There is no legal or moral reason to shut privately educated DC out of the state education system. On the contrary: the opportunities for social mobility are going to be fantastic in that sort of environment.

As another poster has said, there's life beyond Kent. This Kentcentricity is not only dull but misleading. More kids attend grammars outside of Kent than within it.

In Kent it is definitely true that a large proportion of children ending up in the super-selectives and grammars are privately educated. That is the raison d'etre for many of the private preps in the county - you pay for your child's primary education in hope of avoiding paying for their secondary education. Loads of people I know have done that (although many of them still also seem to be paying for tutors on top).

And yes it does seem crazy that state primaries are banned from helping children to get into those state provided selective secondaries. I can understand possibly Bromley schools, say, not helping with the Kent or Bexley tests, as Bromley doesn't have grammar schools itself, but why they can't assist with helping children to go to Newstead or St Olave's, which are super selectives in Bromley borough, (if that is the case) I don't know.

Molio - as a matter of interest, what is the proportion of children on FSM at your local super selective? And how does that compare with the proportions in the other nearby schools? Also, are there particular primaries and areas that tend to get more children into the super selective than others, or do you get a random selection of children each year from a variety of distances away and from a totally mixed bunch of primary schools (and do those living further away get any help with transport costs from the Council)? And do the other, non-selective, schools in the area ever get anywhere remotely approaching 20% of their intake from private schools? And are the nearby private schools expensive, or, as private schools go, comparatively affordable? What sort of demographic does your area have?

Have just been looking for information on the % eligibility for FSM in Devon, which has about 1100 Y7 places in grammar schools, including one super- selective, and can only find the phrase "a very small number of pupils". The Plymouth Grammar Schools don't make the information obvious, but Plymouth is not a high wage city, and I would expect the comprehensives to have a relatively standard % of FSM. The overall catchment is extremely varied. Anecdotally, a handful of children from one nearby town's non-selective prep schools pass the 11+ each year, and these seem to be very largely the children of doctors, especially consultants! Candidates also take the 11+ from East Cornwall at one end of the county, and presumably from Dorset at the other. The head of a highly regarded, but relatively affordable, selective 3-18 private school reckons to lose some of the most able students after Y6 to the grammar schools in Torquay and Colyton. Nevertheless, that school outperforms all the grammars though not the SS, at both GCSE and A level. Does this shed any light on anything? And it doesn't mention Kent!

Gently - re you asking personal questions about my children's education, and this "going over my head".

pickled was replying to point I made, and said "do as I do" (see below). I then questioned if she has a child at a comprehensive as she asked me to do as she does. So it was a relevant question. Quite why you felt the need to step in and bully me for this, I'm not sure. Maybe it's because I'm from Kent.

Add message | Report | Message poster pickledsiblings Tue 19-May-15 13:55:10
Do you really not see the problem with a child being told [by their peers] that they are thick and failures at 10? you really don't think this has an impact on their aspirations?

Grammar schools are for those kids that present themselves as bright and quick at age 11. If your kid is bright and quick but misses out, that's bad luck. If they are bright but slow, it's not the right place for them and if they are late developers, they've missed the boat. Them's the rules, it's not fair, but it shouldn't be damaging.

Do as I've done and tell them they've a better chance of getting a decent degree provided they work hard to get decent A level results (see previous post).

I really don't care if "well heeled" children get places. If they are capable and the education is suitable for them. Fine. I don't care how they came to be capable either. If it is through extra love and nurturing, fine.

The issue is in making sure that disadvantaged children get a chance too. This situation we have where a highly academic, secondary education is rationed is artificial. Why are choosing to under-educate so many people? As long as my taxes are paying for it, I want the most efficient and effective education system possible. It does me no good to hold people back. Whatever their class.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest its because they have extra love and nurturing.

I totally agree however about your point of choosing to under educate people.

"Extra love and nurturing" was just short hand for the long discussions about the extra boost these kids are presumed to have. I didn't want to digress. I wanted to cover the gamut as quickly as possible. Not meaning to offend.

rabbit I don't know the figures on FSM in molio's SS but I suspect it may be pretty much in line with how many DC on FSM obtain the highest level in SATs.

Because that's the point, I think. Children on FSM (which I'm assuming we're using as a very blunt tool to measure poverty) tend to do badly in education full stop.

It's not because they can't access super selective, it's not because fully selective areas like Kent serve them badly. It's because state education in the UK serves them badly wherever they go to school. And that includes comprehensives.

As an aside though, I don't think the lack of children on FSM in any school means the cohort are rich and privileged. Far from it.

Molio - I take your point that I wasn't referring to nationwide SSs, only the ones I am familiar with. I wonder what percentage of children in your area are privately educated at primary vs the % of privately educated primary children at your SS?

Certainly round here the % in private primaries is < 6%, and the grammars do not reflect this percentage, at all.

I don't think lack of children on FSM means lack of poverty either, TheWordFactory. It's annoying there isn't a better way of measuring the impact of relative wealth on life chances, as it's just looking at one end of a massive spectrum. However, my point is that whilst children on FSM are served badly everywhere, it seems to me likely (and is highlighted as actually being the case in the FT article) that they will in general be even more badly served in areas where there are selective schools, despite your assertion that such schools are the best way of promoting social mobility.

It is very obvious, certainly in primary classes, and probably earlier, but more reliably in primary which are the superbright - you don't to test them. They are the ones who just make connections, who 'catch on'.
Which is why when I see people on here and elsewhere agonising about 4+ and 7+ exams - the head teachers in the competitive schools can easily spot them in the play session/interview, and no amount of coaching will generate that spark if it is not there.
I was in a primary school yesterday with Y1 children, and one little girl just had 'it'.
Luckily it is a great school, and although in a deprived area, the head is terrific, so she will do fine. Later on she would flourish in an academic setting, but I doubt she will get to one, so hope she gets a good enough comp.

A bit of jiggery pokers and can read that FT article, I've copied a graph and a paragraph that are interesting:

At the left hand side of the graph, where poor children’s results are, you can see selective areas do much worse. At the very right, you can see a few very rich children do better. This is all driven by the process of selection itself: poor children are more likely to be behind at the age of 11, and less likely to get places in grammars.

Grammar schools are a part of many people’s identities: having won admission to a selective state school plays an important role in the story of their life, especially if they came from a less privileged family. But, as a way to raise standards or to close the gaps between rich and poor, it is hard to find evidence that they are effective.