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.

mn1964 I used to love Citizen Smith
I love the system you describe: no selection and complete equality. If such a system was supported my massive investment we would have an education system and then society to be really proud of. Never going to happen though is it.

I'm watching my sons' year at present (GCSE). Some boys are leaving their fee paying school for state schools for sixth form. It is by no means a one way street although some seems to be for financial reasons. Some going to quasi or actual grammars I think for sixth form.

Also inequality exists in our genes - some of us are ill all the time or never ill or high IQ or IQ of 85 or not good looking or parents don't feed the children properly or beat them or whatever.

My view is that there is a moral imperative on every parent to do what is best for their child rather than neglect them whilst out helping children of other families for example. Most of us think it's fine to read our toddlers a story rather than leaving them alone whilst we read toddlers stories every night in a disadvantaged home.

As one of the 75% (rare on here i know)! who failed my 11+ abysmally in the early 1980s .However I have two girls getting a fantastic education at a girls grammar so it cuts both ways between excellent and awful.

It has been stated a 1000 times on here how bad 1980s Secondary Modern schools were , little hope basically a 'detention' centre just to keep children of the streets until 16. However, we actively choose the Upper School for my year 7 son despite having the option of a grammar school. this is because the school is the correct one for him and he is really enjoying the environment there and achieving in a less competitive environment.

Despite suffering from the ills of selective education personally , I would be loathed to give up the opportunities and education they are providing my daughters in year9/10.

"Despite suffering from the ills of selective education personally , I would be loathed to give up the opportunities and education they are providing my daughters in year9/10"

What are they getting that thye would not get in the top set of a comprehensive? And why do they have any more right to whatever it is than the other 75%?

your post makes me uncomfortable thankgod

I've kept pretty quiet on this one for obvious (bias) reasons! However, I will just say that we do have students with dyslexia, dyspraxia, ASD and EAL here at my grammar school. In fact, one of our problems is that parents here don't want the 'label' despite the opportunities of support that come with those labels. Of course, I am well aware that those we get are clearly, by definition 'high functioning' but it doesn't mean they don't need help/support.
Also, if you qualify for extra time for exams normally for these reasons you can get extra time for the 11+.
I would say one of the issues locally is that people think grammar schools are for 'posh' people and don't bother even applying. The lack of diversity can be seen on entrance exam day.
What should be done about the whole thing? I'm not entirely sure.

"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."

But the inequalities shine through anyway with grammar schools...the children who would do well anywhere are the ones who get to go, even if they're among the few from a disadvantaged background, because in any school some children do well and buck statistics.

Oh do you think it's identifying? I will ask for deletion if so.

Or the existence of such wildly different life chances? It makes me v sad and yet at the same time I still do all these things to advantage my own child.

Did get it removed as was too revealing. I'm so sad though about the differing life chances I see in my children's v mixed central London primary. Same school, utterly different outcomes - ones that seem almost preordained.

Thankgod I think it's because it sounds so smug, and so mired in middle class values of what 'advantage' is.
Perhaps the other boy will discover his own interests and hobbies which will expand his horizons and enable him to make his own way in the world.

Sorry wasn't supposed to sound smug (though of course I am and have very embedded values that aren't objective).

But in terms of outcome, it's hard to argue that in today's competitive global world, failing to learn to read and write to a good standard is not going to be compromising. I want to believe he'll find his own interests but he won't if he's not exposed to them.

If comprehensive schools setted in all subjects, and from Yr 7, then I think that grammar schools would be less of an attraction. But many of them don't. My DD is bored and frustrated with the teaching she gets at primary, where the teacher doesn't bother to differentiate between the different abilities, and has fairly low expectations. I don't want her to suffer the same fate at secondary. But, having looked round the local comp, I think that that is what would happen there. So I'm home tutoring for grammar. I think of it as her earning her place at a good school. It's hard work, but also a fun project for us to do together.

If you live in a wholly selective area, you can look round a Reception class and be pretty sure which ones will pass the 11+ and which ones won't.

I'm not so sure about that. My children have developed in bursts - eg DC1 was really behind in Reception, but is now doing extremely well at secondary.

My reply was a bit harsh too thankgod so sorry for that.

I guess though that there have always been people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have done well for themselves, not by going to grammar school, but by learning later in life, or discovering a love of family history, music, craftsmanship and turning into a business.

I have a book about the 'The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes which is fascinating.

I actually have a day off from work today to write an essay so have to butt off the thread now, will see where we all are with this at the end of the day.

And as the Sutton T report I mention above says 4% of children are in grammar schools (even fewer than the 8% in fee paying schools). So it is not a huge issue for many. In the NE where I am from it was about 1970 when grammar schools were abolished entirely.

"I'm not so sure about that. My children have developed in bursts - eg DC1 was really behind in Reception, but is now doing extremely well at secondary."

It's nothing to do with where they are academically.

What do you look for, Hakluyt?

It's a great shame that back in the day (I'm thinking 1920s era?) there was so much provision for workers to "improve" themselves - lots of night school - whereas now there is so little. I looked into doing evening classes recently, and there is almost no provision at all for adult education around here. A bit of language tuition, provided privately at high cost, and almost nothing else.

I am a supply teacher so work in lots of schools of all types.
One thing I have noticed is that there can be a complacency both by staff and pupils in schools in non-selective schools because there is a wide range of ability even in the top sets. So DC can get an inflated sense of their ability, and not have to work very hard to be the top achiever. On the other hand, if you are in a school where everyone is a high achiever, then you understand the need to work hard, and it is hard work rather than being 'bright' ( ugh - hate that word!) that will help them to be successful in whatever they want to do in the future. The few top achievers in a comp do often assume because they are always top of the class that they will walk into Oxbridge etc and get a sense of injustice if they don't - because they are unaware of how competitive it is.
My own DC go to a very academic indie. DS2 often tells me is isn't good at something, and has to work hard to keep up. In fact, in the comps I work in, he would be top in everything (not bragging) and would have few others to relate to academically, which would be a bad thing. As it is, he is looking at all kinds of unis, and not making an assumption he will/could or should be Oxbridge material, or at least not without working extremely hard, which is how I think it should be.

I also don't like this often conveyed issue of "creaming" (yes, even the Sutton Trust call is that!).

There is an assumption that for a comprehensive school to do its best for each pupil there "must" be a "top set". That is clearly nonsense. The school needs to be "adding value" and getting the best out of each individual. The fact that the local grammar school has "nicked" the top set is irrelevant to the job of the comp in getting their lowest attainers to perform best.

On top of that this idea that students improve other students by some kind of magic "osmosis" of intellect or ability is rubbish too.

I do think that hard work for results is exactly the right way to frame it. Simply wanting a bright kid in your child's class because it might "rub off" is nonsense.

That's interesting. Ds was briefly at a 'high school' (for a term) and was placed into the top or accelerated group. We thought he was doing really well. I don't think though that his level of attainment was anywhere NEAR grammar level, for example, his writing is level four.

It may be that he was top of the bunch in his school, but it gave a very peculiar sense of where he was at in regard to the top achievers in his wider age group.

Hakluyt Thu 14-May-15 11:36:27
If you live in a wholly selective area, you can look round a Reception class and be pretty sure which ones will pass the 11+ and which ones won't.

Totally agree.

MrsUltra - that definitely rings a bell with me. It took very little effort for me to be one of the high achievers at my school, and university came as a bit of a shock. I don't think I ever quite got the hang of really putting my all into something, as opposed to getting something done to an acceptable level in the shortest time possible.

Regardless of the school my kids go to, I hope I can instil some of that work ethic into them that I never really developed for myself

Things do rub off though. My sons (selective independent boys' school) are with boys from cultures where hard work is absolutely fundamental, many second generation Indian, Pakistani, Tamil or whatever.... and that is absolutely brilliant. The children are not off every night getting drunk or having sex. They are revising. In a sense you buy or procure a peer group for teenagers who pay much more attention to their friends than their parents by that age.