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.

It does appear that the people that are so anti grammar schools/selective are the ones who have benefitted from attending them. They believe that young people should not enjoy the same opportunity they had themselves, for some kind of bizzare equality reason . They rather conveniently forget that the reason they have achieved is down to the selective education they recieved.

A large number of anti grammar school posts , come from posters who have the logic that if we cant give a superior education to 100% , why should 25% get a superior education. This is flawed logic and exactly the reason why the privately schooled dominate in society today, mostly because they don't buy in to this logic.

An example of a successful 'selective' state girls school is Watford Girls Grammar that had the possible leader of the Labour Party Liz Kendal and Pritti Patel (Goverment Minister) in the same cohort. I believe that the chances of two pupils from the same school (never mind year) getting in to government or leadership of a party are 'nill' from a Comprehensive school.

"It does appear that the people that are so anti grammar schools/selective are the ones who have benefitted from attending them. They believe that young people should not enjoy the same opportunity they had themselves, for some kind of bizzare equality reason . They rather conveniently forget that the reason they have achieved is down to the selective education they recieved. "

Yep- that is a point of view held by some grammar supporters. Unfortunately other grammar supporters think that people are so anti grammar/selective are the ones that didn't benefit from them and believe that young people should not enjoy an opportunity they did not have themselves!

At Ds's grammar school, there are indeed not many recipients of fsm - (probably comparable to numbers of those in top stream at comp) -but it is not a m/c enclave. Ethnically it is far more diverse than any other school in the area- and I know these are w/c families- shopkeepers and nurses etc.

I don't like the grammar system particularily but I love grammar schools.

I don't actually feel like I have benefitted from my GSE, it was a very pressured environment and too academically biased for me. I wanted to go to the technical college and do woodwork . I ended up failing all of my A levels but then went to art college and my career developed from there.
None of this is why I am against grammar schools. I think the 11+ is an unfair method of testing, that there is a stigma attached to failing it, and it also relies on all children being at their peak at the same age. I would much rather that there were very well funded comprehensive schools offering all children an excellent academic education, as well as vocational subjects, in an altogether more equal environment.

Watford Grammar became comprehensive in 1975 - so Kendal and Patel were both comprehensive girls - your belief, sunshield seems 100% wrong. Indeed Watford Grammar looks to be one of the best comprehensive schools around, probably better than a lot of real grammars.

hoorah for Watford Grammprehensive

Oh, sunshield-a triple whammy of wrongness!

MN164 that's an interesting point.

My DD attends a mixed ability school (private) which is also small. There are not too many in the top set and very few real outliers.

This in no way hurst the middle or low ability pupils. In fact they do brilliantly. Punch well above their weight.

If anyone loses out, it's the highest ability students, simply because there aren't enough of them!

This is one reason why DD wants to transfer out to a more selective school for sixth form (plus she wants co-ed and a city school).

Liz Kendall is married to mr Gilbert from the inbetweeners!?!? Who knew?!?

The Labour party would get great election traction if they were prepared to back grammar schools or at least a return of the assisted places scheme!

I realise this is as about as likely as the Pope becoming a Muslim! . However, it shows just out of touch many people on the 'educated' left are on here the beliefs and wants of 'Working families '.

It is quite revealing that some posters don't like 25% grammar schools but don't mind 2% grammar schools! . I believe this is because its double jeopadary for them a shot at a 2% grammar (rather like a private school) but still the chance of being top set in an middle class Comprehensive.

This is called protectionism , it also gives people like Fiona Millier a chance to air her 'educated' left wing views . However still having her children educated in selective schools not by abilty but house price or the option of a train ride to the super selective.

I know the supposed DOE definition of Watford Girls . However, that is a technicality to get round legislation. It admits two low abilty students every year for that reason. However , getting admission to Watford Girls is far more rigorous than entry to Bucks Grammar schools.

I think that it's undeniable that the old grammar school system was an incredibly effective method of improving social mobility,
I deny it i would word your statement

I think that it's undeniable that the old grammar school system was an incredibly effective method of improving social mobility, because the other schools were rubbish and taught the girls to be home makers and the boys to be builders.

Actually comrade MN64 I think there have been studies showing that all children benefit from having the top set children in a school, I will see if I can dig them out.

The three selective "Comprehensive" schools in Herts have 72% high abilty pupils....

"It does appear that the people that are so anti grammar schools/selective are the ones who have benefitted from attending them. They believe that young people should not enjoy the same opportunity they had themselves, for some kind of bizzare equality reason . They rather conveniently forget that the reason they have achieved is down to the selective education they recieved. "

no i benefitted from a very good secondary modern school. That allowed everyone to benefit from good teaching and technical subjects dependant on their own abilities at every stage of their secondary school stay.

"The Labour party would get great election traction if they were prepared to back grammar schools" - what makes you think this?

I don't think that any system that grants privileges to 25% of the population , ostensibly on merit, but, in reality to those that are already relatively privileged, would get the support of a typical Labour voter.

"It is quite revealing that some posters don't like 25% grammar schools but don't mind 2% grammar schools! . I believe this is because its double jeopadary for them a shot at a 2% grammar (rather like a private school) but still the chance of being top set in an middle class Comprehensive. "

I don't like 2% grammar schools either. However, they do not have the socially and educational damaging effect on the rest of the community that the 25%ers do. And I have heard arguments to the effect that the very top 2% academically are better educated separately I don't agree, but I do not have a child in that category so I have to be guided by those that do.

The Hadow Report on 'The Primary School' of 1931 stated :
'The curriculum is to be thought of in terms of a activity and experience rather than of knowledge to be required and facts to be stored'.

Hello Sarf you're back. I've been dwelling on my post (and thanks for your apology, really not necessary). I didn't want to make it sound like all tutor/museum/reading stuff made us better parents, but I think it's undeniable that it probably means my child is more likely to do well in GSCEs/Sats/whatever, compared with a child of equal intelligence. Some of it may be actively damaging to children (I'm thinking of the tutor and our over emphasis on academic achievement).

There are some things parents can do, however, which undeniably do help children - good nutrition, plenty of sleep, exposure to the world and parental attention. The boy I was talking about was really starved of these things - this is the problem not that he's not middle class.

It's interesting that you mention the tradition of the self-educated working class. Was it more prevalent in the past? I'm thinking of the sort of well-read worker who might, via the unions, go on to become a Labour MP and is now very much missing in the party.

This is an interesting review of a book out in the States www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21646708-social-mobility-depends-what-happens-first-years-life-minding-nurture-gap which talks about how the amount of time being spent by parents with their children used to be the same across economic groups. Now there's an enormous gap between the richer and poorer parents. That's really depressing and I do wonder why politicians seem to expect schools to rectify it.

I've killed the thread with a whiff of progressive education - sorry!

Hello! I don't really like to be rude normally and I felt I was a bit mean. pleased we're all friends again :)

Regarding your point about the working classes, and probably being really reductive, I think that maybe the tv has ruined all of that. My reading of the time is that most children got a really good grounding in 'reading and reckoning' in the old style elementary schools, and quite often learnt a love of literature from stories they were read. If you add to that the availability of free libraries, you get a pretty well(self)educated population.

see if you can hold of the Rose book from the library, it is really impressive.

Many of The w/c kids at Ds school are learning in church, mosque or Chinese school at the wkends. much as I dislike org religion, I think the demise of the church among white wc is another way that wc kids have less learning opportunities now than they may have had in the past.

Roald Dahl seemed to blame it all on TV didn't he. And if you're watching TV/playing Xbox, you're also not outside playing football.

Agree Johnfarley - on the whole the religious/first generation British families at my kids' school are v engaged with their children. Learning Arabic or Chinese must be great brain exercise.

0X My Secondary Modern /Upper in (Bucks) was awful, but my sons Upper school is good and definitely is not a 'Modern School' despite designation .

Treats. There is a large number of Skilled/Semi Skilled workers , aspirational working families who would love the option for their children to have at least a shot at selective school (either through an Assisted place/ Grammar School). If the Labour Party backed an idea like this, i believe they would attract a large number of UKIP voters back . The ones who have not voted UKIP to leave Europe , but out of despair because nobody understands them or listens, it would signal the fact that they are listening to what people want , not what they "WANT" .

They would also put the Conservative party in quandry in much the same way that George Osborne put the labour party with his promise over inheritance tax.

The idea could look something like 35-40 new grammar schools with boarding facities (I believe Antony Seldon advocated something similar regarding boarding) The schools would/could actively look to cater for children from inner city areas who show promise. Obviously the 11+ in its traditional form would not be approriate in selecting pupils from inner city schools.

I find it all really depressing - where are all of these highly qualified studybots going to work when they all leave university with a degree. Do we have enough well paid jobs for these children that have worked 24/7 since the age of 7 to keep them happy? I forsee a lot of really pi$$ed off graduates soon.
I'm encouraging my own DD to be relaxed happy and engaged in the outside world - she wants to be an author and live on a farm - that's good enough for me!