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.

Are the primary schools you use 'Outstanding' boys? I worried that I couldn't find any that were when we looked at houses and schools nearby.

pickled all DCs left primary now, but both we used were just "good". It was more the feel of them when we looked round. DS3 went to a different one to his DBs simply because it was a lot more convenient.

but both we used were just "good"

just checked Ofsted and one has recently slipped to requires improvement recently Marked down on the very area that was a real strength when elder DCs were there

rabbit from my perspective London and the Home Counties look mad. It didn't seem that mad when I lived there as a child (perhaps that's the caveat though). My immediate neighbour's sister lives in London (affluent London - Hampstead) and says London is mad. Her DC are at the two St Pauls'. She says you have to be on the treadmill at four. Another family in the village had children at Eton and had friends down regularly who spoke about little other than schools and education even though they were all massively well off and could have bought into any school they liked, unless it was incredibly selective. But still, no terror of the local comp for them. A third family, with both parents very early QCs, have just downshifted permanently, which may be a reflection of how clever they are. Of course being self-employed facilitates that, but even so.

Maybe everything is just more pleasant and uncompetitive generally, schoolwise, outside the Home Counties

quite possibly rabbit although on a far more serious note tractor theft is a growing local problem :)

Oh no I think almost certainly boys3. Lots of other indigenous problems round here, just not education based. Far more diverse and refreshing.

I see I missed an earlier post rabbitstew.

The leafy thing was referring to the post where you said I was naïve to think I could get the Kent angst because we had choice in a our area which was fully comp. That's when I looked up the official reports on each potential choice, which I hadn't previously done.

I've seen that report about Bucks too. These tests have been extensively researched for years; I expect they simply need to bed down. The theory behind the tests certainly makes sense. They're also extremely expensive to administer, so schools have been deterred for a while by the cost, not the concept. I doubt the HTs are collectively such a bunch of dimwits that they're going to plough big money into tests which don't work for the purpose intended - but we'll see :)

It is opt in and co-ed yes. I wouldn't have wanted single sex, not for the girls at least and almost certainly not for the boys. Co-ed seems normal. And yes, a lot of energy is spent on trying to bring in less privileged children - that message comes across very clearly at every Open Day I've been to over the past fifteen years where the HT addresses the frenzy of anxiety about tutoring and the genius thing square on. MN is spectacular at typifying that stuff - it's very extreme. And for at least that amount of time the HT has also been going out to all the 'catchment' schools that will let him to try to deliver that same message - but not all primary heads will open their doors, and the groups who attend are of course self-selecting. There's no doubt that there still remains a 'won't fit in' thing for some parents and it's a hard one to crack. As I said earlier, these are all the same issues as for university entry - identical problems. He also addresses the myth about homework overload which just doesn't happen. Mine seem to get less than they would at the comp and word gets around. And I don't think I see the fear of failure deterring especially, nor the idea that there are more MH problems than elsewhere (those have exploded everywhere, not especially in grammars), and not anything about dull, old fashioned teaching either. I think the only thing the school does which is old fashioned is to explode lots of stuff in chemistry lessons but that's far from dull

No, mine have all gone or go to the grammar. The results are extremely different; not even close. I'd be wary of criticizing the local comp in terms of ambition and ethos because I haven't been there or done that but it is very clear that outcomes are different for the groups as a whole.

My DD isn't in the top quartile academically. I live in a grammar area, the only option for her is a secondary modern.

This is what fuels my angst. I want the best possible education for her, like any parent would.

I don't think the Ofsted reports you mentioned sounded particularly damning, though, Molio. Although I guess the devil is in the detail! Clearly, if your grammar school has to work hard to persuade people to apply, plenty of people think their local non-selective comprehensives are good enough.

I find other peoples' perceptions fascinating. There is no doubt that the grammar school I went to suited me - I enjoyed the work, felt the teaching was good, sometimes truly excellent (with the exception of a couple of teachers) and I was incredibly happy there. You would almost swear that some of my friends had gone to a different school when they spoke about it, their perceptions of it were so different! One friend moved into the area from another grammar school area and she was very negative about what she felt was a lack of effort to make lessons inspiring and a not particularly nurturing environment, in comparison to the smaller grammar school she had come from. Others commented that only the high flyers got any real attention and that the school provided no help or support for people who did not want to go on to read academic subjects at university. All this passed me by (or, I guess, being one of the "high flyers," I didn't notice the lack of attention to others...). In retrospect, though, I don't think the school was particularly well set up for those girls who were dealing with background difficulties in their lives and certainly wasn't well set up for those bright girls who wanted to tread a different path in life from the traditional, academic one. It was there to provide an academic education and to encourage its pupils to get actively involved in extra-curricular hobbies and community work, not to help them through inconvenient teenage crises that were affecting the quality of their schoolwork. So I guess I was lucky I managed to sail through it all happily. My dbs' grammar school was even less nurturing! It is probably that which made me wonder whether entirely separate schools at such a young age are such a great thing, if you end up trapped on the wrong side of the divide for you for one reason or another, which quite a few people do.

Although obviously that's all very Kent!

I would say the old 'Satisfactory' grade would rattle a few nerves rabbit even if you yourself are made of sterner stuff.

Also, I didn't say the school has to work hard to get people, as in enough people, to apply. On the one hand it actively discourages those who are unlikely to get high L5s, so that children aren't set up for a fall, and on the other it works hard to encourage those who should apply but might not be thinking of it, or are deterred for some reason, to do so. It's a bit of a push to use the term undersubscribed as Bertie did, but it doesn't have ten applicants per place coming forward for the exam, that's for sure. It has about three per place and that's been steady since DD1 took the test in 2000. That's to do with sparsity of population compared to the London schools rather than unpopularity or poor reputation.

I think it's a case of most people making do with whichever is their local school; I'm unconvinced it's a positive vote for any of those school, but I don't really know. In theory children could travel to another undersubscribed comp but the oversubscribed one which is most popular isn't an option for those out of catchment.

In other words, the other options are a bit meh!

rabbitstew - interesting to read your opinion of the pastoral side of things at your GS. I went to a Kent GS briefly (for five terms) before moving away but two of my cousins attended the same GS right through and didn't like it at all, even though they met academics expectations (both went on to Cambridge) and one of them more than met all the sporting/musical/leadership expectations.

"Also, I didn't say the school has to work hard to get people, as in enough people, to apply. On the one hand it actively discourages those who are unlikely to get high L5s, so that children aren't set up for a fall, and on the other it works hard to encourage those who should apply but might not be thinking of it, or are deterred for some reason, to do so. It's a bit of a push to use the term undersubscribed as Bertie did, but it doesn't have ten applicants per place coming forward for the exam, that's for sure. It has about three per place and that's been steady since DD1 took the test in 2000. That's to do with sparsity of population compared to the London schools rather than unpopularity or poor reputation.

So what makes it a superselective? Because my understanding was that there are usually about 3/4 applicants per place for the hit the pass mark and you're in grammar schools-am I wrong about that?

It's very definitely a superselective because it has no legal catchment area. You can apply from anywhere and no preference is given for nearness to school (except for last tied place, which is niche). I think you must be using the term superselective in the sense of hugely selective, rather than in the sense I've just given. Inevitably, the cost of transport limits the ability of many parents to send their children to the school and the travelling time will deter others even if they can afford transport. Some students do travel for an hour and a bit, but they aren't the majority. I don't really understand your last sentence but the guidance given is that a prediction of good L5s is the sensible benchmark for those considering applying. The school gets pretty much the number of what it considers to be qualified students from the test process. Obviously that will assess something rather different to the SATs since the tests are supposed to test potential not knowledge. I think the general idea is that Tiffin etc has lots of completely suitable children left without a place, but that's not the case at my DCs' school - the number of those considered the right ability almost exactly matches the numbers offered places. It could be argued that the bar is higher I suppose or it could be down to the sparsity of population - that there's a pretty good balance in the area between those who would benefit and those offered places.