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 grew up in a grammar school area and I am very pleased that I now live somewhere with a good comprehensive school system.

I have a friend who is head of KS3 at a grammar school. She says that in general private school kids know more, but in general state school kids are better at finding stuff out.

You cannot be evangelical about state education and think education is a driver of social mobility and think that selective state education is a good idea............

amsonagonistes Wed 13-May-15 18:35:10

Also - and I'm sure I've said this on here before - the Sutton Trust research has another corollary, which is that students from state comprehensives are not achieving as well as they might have done had they attended grammar or private schools. It's not a pleasant conclusion, but it is the logical deduction.

If all students on a course are asked for AAB, and the ones from comprehensives end up with better degrees, then they are more academically able than their counterparts on the degree course. So why were their A Level results not better?

I guess different skills are needed to pass A Levels and a degree course. it's possible (probable) that A level students are taught mainly how to pass A level exams and may struggle with the more self-directed style of learning at degree level.

sorry confusing layout - Ill try again with quote marks...

"amsonagonistes Wed 13-May-15 18:35:10

Also - and I'm sure I've said this on here before - the Sutton Trust research has another corollary, which is that students from state comprehensives are not achieving as well as they might have done had they attended grammar or private schools. It's not a pleasant conclusion, but it is the logical deduction.

If all students on a course are asked for AAB, and the ones from comprehensives end up with better degrees, then they are more academically able than their counterparts on the degree course. So why were their A Level results not better?"

I guess different skills are needed to pass A Levels and a degree course. it's possible (probable) that A level students are taught mainly how to pass A level exams and may struggle with the more self-directed style of learning at degree level.

What is wrong is that the state / local authorities has decided some parts of the country like the NE where I am from originally could not have grammar schools from about 1970 whereas other part of the country the children get them. What is special about the genes of children in Bucks which means they get grammar schools and the geordies that they don't? If we pay the same tax in Newcastle as Bucks why should the local schools be so different?

(Anyway I only went to private schools and my children go to them too and they are selective in their case and that seems to work well. In our case being musical - 3 children won music scholarships music matters too in the school and thirdly I wanted single sex education so another filter too).

I thought the Sutton Trust had found that children from areas with no grammars got just as many children into good universities as areas of the country with grammar schools.

You are right about what your KS3 head told you. Though it pains me to agree with you

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.

That is the central part of most people who object's argument against them

Hakyult - there's loads of evidence that background affects results more than anything else , that wasn't what I was on about.

Basically with grammar schools - the very very clever pupils were mixed , but the rest , who are the majority weren't.

If IQ (though actually I'm not sure IQ is the right term at all) was the only factor either the top few percent of pupils would be the same as the rest or there'd be a more representative mix in the rest of the school.

As in, it backed up the idea that lie results are caused by factors other than intelligence apart from the exceptionally intelligent children who can come from any background.

11 grammar school myths
The comments on the article are mainly from people who went to grammar school and did well out of it. I don't think they cared about the 75% who didn't go. They were also talking about their youth- it is very different today where tutoring is a necessity- it would be risky not to prepare even the very bright child because competition is so intense.
Times have moved on and in 21st century we shouldn't be taking 10yr olds and testing them to decide their whole future.
When the children of those in government reflect the population and have 75% of their children in secondary modern schools I will begin to think there might be some merit in the system. I think you will find it is 'for other people's children' and they will use grammar schools and if they don't pass they would pay for a school.

Sorry no time now to read TFT and I'm sure it's been mentioned already, but my perspective on grammars is a bit like the old NHS vs private medical care argument.

It's GREAT for those who are fortunate enough to be able to get in. It leaves the rest of us with whatever is left, as well as a sense of injustice.

Some kids do fine in the non selective schools but it often isn't easy, or comfortable.

Streaming within a school is a far more equitable option. Far more.

Grammar schools are derisive and I also disagree with them. However I'll be honest and say if it were best for my children I would send them to one.

Today 07:48 Mehitabel6*

Excellent link - thank you.

I went to a grammar in the area we live in now. It was a good school, I didn't like it but it was bloody Heaven compared to the other schools. I had no idea how privileged I was at the time.

My son is 11. His IQ is very high; his CAT scores indicate 99th, 97th and 78th percentiles (scored three weeks ago in an entrance test).

He has dyslexia. There was no way on earth he would have passed the 11 plus due to writing issues, processing issues and so on.

The system is nothing to due with IQ in our situation. The school has the pick of the children and can take the most able, without flinching, without even considering dyslexia or other issues.

Fair system encouraging social mobility, my arse.

So many will be failed by the system, Pispcine, dyslexia is one. The child who is way ahead in Maths will fail if poor in English and vice versa. It favours all rounders.
It takes the child who has 'cracked it' by 10yrs- the late developers miss their chance ( or will get an extremely limited chance later on).

I don't disagree with quite a lot of what has been written against grammar schools - I'm trying to sort out what I really think which was one of the reasons for starting this post - in particular that 75% who don't get in are disadvantaged.

The problem is - and this goes back to why I think parents like them - is that currently bright children, particularly those from disadvantaged families - are not well served by the comprehensive system. There was a recent Ofsted report which concluded:

‘National data show that too many of the most able students are still being let down and are failing to reach their full potential.’
‘Nationally, too many of our most able students fail to achieve the grades they need to get into top universities.’
‘Schools visited were rarely meeting the distinct needs of students who are most able and disadvantaged.’

That comes from this blog here which is quite good at picking apart research and statistics on this kind of stuff (to the extent that I can't follow it sometimes).

Sutton trust did not find big differences between grammars and comps
www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf

By the way 43% of new Tory cabinet went to comps.

If the concern is about outcomes and social mobility then schools are the wrong place to look. They are a side show distracting from the main point - household wealth.

Imagine a system where all selection is gone, i.e. no grammars, no faith, no gender selection, no private schools - a truely comprehensive system. To get rid of the postcode house price selection, you also get rid of catchment areas and do it Korean style - by lottery. There would also be no "choices". You don't get to choose a "better" school.

Notwithstanding all the objections we'd have to such a system, do you really think social mobility will be enhanced?

No it will not. The causation between lack of social mobility is about parent time, resources and household wealth along with aspiration and nepotism.

Even if David Cameron went to a comp, his family would have provided him with such advantages and privileges that the school he went to would be shown to be a trivial point.

Redistribution of wealth and better parental support is the real driver behind social mobility - selective schools are just a side show.

I don't necessarily agree with Grammars but as a bright child from a poorer background I would have benefitted from a selective school. I was "bullied" for knowing stuff and in general it was difficult to learn in classes where there was high levels of disruption. That could have been more about discipline at the school though and quality of teaching.

mn1974 hear hear.

mn1974

Went a bit Citizen Smith there didn't I ..... although that wasn't aired until 1977 .... like a sort of clarion call just before Thatcher was elected ....

"If the concern is about outcomes and social mobility then schools are the wrong place to look. They are a side show distracting from the main point - household wealth."

But you don't want a state education that entrenches and makes a virtue of existing inequalities. Yes,nif course selective education is not the main cause of social inequality- but by God it underlines it where it exists........

LotusLight

Excellent link to Sutton Trust. I think they have also made the point in the past that educational attainment differences can be demonstrated as early as 22 months! Parents that have time, resource, inclination and aspiration can make a difference to their children's outcomes in life well before primary school.

The Sutton Trust say, in the report you linked to:

"Although these analyses indicate that grammar school pupils appear to make greater progress from KS2 to KS4 than other pupils, we also find that these same pupils were already making more progress from KS1 to KS2 (ie in their primary school). This suggests that there may be important but unmeasured differences between grammar and non-grammar school pupils and somewhat undermines our confidence in these estimates of a ‘grammar school effect’ (section 8.4, p220)."

This all supports my "theory" that the type of school is a sideshow, what really matters is parental support and household wealth.

Hak

If you "level the playing field" at school all it will do is emphasis what a difference parenting and household wealth makes. The inequalities will shine through.

Along the way, the small percentage of kids that do get an advantage from free schools won't.

So nothing would change for the pre-existing elite and you'd knock away the few get a shot at positive discriminatory policies.

I think parental support probably trumps household wealth by a country mile if everything else is equal. But of course it rarely is. Because in the system you describe, MN164, wealthy parents would still pay for tutors to give their kids an advantage. Still, there is no doubt in that sort of system the children of wealthy and supportive parents being in the classroom would hopefully help to bring up the standards of all. Certainly it would avoid the situation existing in grammar areas now where the brightest and/or most supported/wealthiest children get siphoned into grammar or private schools and often only the more disadvantaged children are in the comprehensives in those areas (or at least.that is the perception which tends.to create the reality). That results in those schools having so many more problems to deal with before a decent education can even be considered.