Why are there no grammar schools in Wales? They seem like a good idea?

[Peppaismyhomegirl]

I've done a little bit of research, I don't know a lot about the subject but I think I like the idea of grammer schools. I've been having a look locally and discovered there are none in Wales! Is this right? Why?!

[CookieDoughKid]

In any case, we are seeing 'grammar' characteristics in schools just by their house prices alone. It's no coincidence that my dd's Primary school (the top Primary school in SATS results) abd who's Outstanding State Secondary school is in Top10 UK. So happens to be in the wealthiest villages who's 3bed houses are typically in the £600k+ price range

There are a number of kids in my dd's class who live in 6bed £1.5million+ homes and we are not in London (we are home counties).

I think free school meals is less than 1% at our school.

My point is, is that Grammar schools may not exist but we know parents (and I am one of them) are actively seeking schools based on postcode and by that very nature, the school results in a selective intake even if they claim to be 'comprehensive'. And no matter what one says, these parents can throw a lot of money and tuition for their dcs and I think it can make a significant difference on the level of education achieved.

[Blu]

"In any case, we are seeing 'grammar' characteristics in schools just by their house prices alone. It's no coincidence that my dd's Primary school (the top Primary school in SATS results) abd who's Outstanding State Secondary school is in Top10 UK. So happens to be in the wealthiest villages who's 3bed houses are typically in the £600k+ price range"

So: are you saying that the SATS results are high because of the demography, which is children who live in expensive houses, probably with educated, aspirational parents (and the results simply represent the intake) , OR that the school is genuinely a marvel educationally and children are pushed beyond what is usual in other schools, so parents pay a premium to go there?

I realise of course that people do pay a premium to go to a school with 'top' results. IF the demography suits them.

However there are schools in Lambeth, in inner-inner-city areas where the FSM in primary is sky high (30-43%), the children enter with low base-line scores, and come out with averages above the national average and with very high VA scores. A school that does that is probably a very good school, with very good teaching. But those schools don't attract higher house prices (being in Zone 2 and near the tube does that all by itself).

My two closest comps in a 'less expensive' part of s London, with a v mixed demography, secondaries with mid-20s% FSM, are good comps. They get good results across all attainment bands.

I will say again I know London is different. I know there are huge areas where rural deprivation bites hard and whole LAs are declared not good enough by Ofsted (Norfolk, for example, I think), but my own belief is that it is better to address teaching and investment for every child in those areas rather than rescuing a tiny minority to a different building miles away and leaving the rest to rot.

London schools, on average, have higher stats that the rest of the country. The money per head in London schools is much higher that for outer London schools. I simply don't know how the spend per pupil pans out in Grammar schools, either in comparison to London schools, say, or other schools in their local neighbourhood. I have just had a whizz through the stats available on the DoEdn website and could only find the spend per head for Whitstable Community College - which has ...not good results... but not for any grammars in Kent.

Whitstable Community has roughly the same % of pupils with FSM as my DC's school, so presumably the same % of Pupil Premium income. The average teacher salary in my DC high performing comp is over £10k pa higher though. Even though I know the school uses a lot of NQTs.

So: maybe it I a matter of money. Put the money into schools where students need (and deserve) more support.

[CookieDoughKid]

Can't really say Blu to answer your question definitely. I personally don't think our primary school is anything very special. It's a very nice school but they don't implement anything extraordinary in terms of teaching programs.

In terms of funding, our school has the lowest level per pupil in our borough. What I do know is that the parents at my school pay very close attention to what's happening in the school and in their child's education. They aren't afraid to give the teachers a hard time to submit their analysis and input. It really does keep the school on their toes. Our parent governors are really well qualified in their industry and businesses.

I am more politically slanted to every pupil should deserve the same access to educational opportunities but I don't know if that equates to funding. Having said that, I know I am a hypocrite as I actively sought to move into an exclusive postcode.

I grew up in Lambeth and went to school near Lewisham so I know both boroughs very well. And I was a FSM child. I went to an inner city state and did quite well. My school was about 60%FSM. If there is a large contingent of asian and south-east asian pupils you'll not fail to notice they do achieve academically above average. (I'm asian huh! ;) That's because of their parents. Pushy parents.

My take is that a large factor of a student's success boils down to what's going on at home.

[Blu]

Cookie - indeed, I suspect that stats mean different things in different areas, and the children on FSM / Pupil Premium in 'my' school include significant numbers of refugee and EAL students (who traditionally do very well in our area, being extremely appreciative / aware of what an education can give them, and having the cognitive advantages of being bilingual respectively). My brother teaches in a rural, coastal area where very few parents have any form of post-16 education and very few local jobs (which are in any case scarce) are 'knowledge based' so academic achievement is not recognised as important.

[travellinglighter]

While I understand that they seem like a good idea, they are very socially divisive. The fairest way it to chuck all the kids into one pot, stream them as they age and then chuck the appropriate resource in at every level.

Given that intellectual ability has been found to be equal across all social strata then how come the Russell Group of universities are chock full of private and grammar school kids?? It’s because the kids of the privileged middle classes are intensively coached to get in.

Private schools are equally divisive and in return for their tax breaks should be forced to take 1 in 3 children from a less privileged background regardless of ability. Sending Kieran from the local council estate to Eton will have benefits for the privileged and the less privileged. Kieron will get a better education than he would normally get and Tarquin will get a black eye and a taste of reality if he calls Kieron a pleb. There is something similar locally but essentially, all they do is take the absolute brightest kids, leaving the ones that need the intensive coaching more at the mercy of the state system.

Grammar schools too. If we have to have them, instead of cherry picking the intellectual elite of the local ten year olds by virtue of the 11+, make them pick the kids that would benefit best from the type education they offer. This may mean kids with an artistic bent or a particular gift for a subject but could also mean the slightly slower kid who would get mercilessly bullied in the less privileged school.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a huge fan of the comprehensive system but given that I have very little in common with our political elite and they are almost exclusively from the private/grammar school background, I see these institutions as a the gate barring ordinary people from power. I’d love to see the majority of our politicians having coming from backgrounds where they can relate to people like me. I like politicians who’ve done a bit, got their hands dirty, made something. I detest politicians who studied politics at Oxbridge, worked at a political think tank until they were elected and only step out of the Westminster bubble once every five years.

So I’m glad they don’t have any in God’s country. You can shove the Tory New School policy too.

[GiddyOnZackHunt]

There aren't many places where there are grammar schools. Where they do exist there is ridiculous competition to get into one. Intensive tutoring etc.
The two tier system of labelling a child at 11 was rejected. Ideally a comprehensive education would cater for the middle and the extremes of ability.
Funding dictates otherwise and competition, ranking and league tables mean that most resource is focussed on bringing the lower ability closer to the norm and letting the top ability founder. The comprehensive system is fine for 80% (I guess) of pupils. Because of targets.
Fund schools and reward them for stretching ability, allow freedom to enrich and you work for the forgotten able.

[RudeElf]

There are very few grammar schools in the UK now. Hooray!

NI. Fucking loads of them.

[HelpfulChap]

Mine went to grammar and I am extremely happy that they did.

It suited both of them for different reasons.

Neither my wife or me did. Neither of us went to uni but both kids did.

Horses for courses.

[Toraleistripe]

Ugh. Be grateful. Unless you like the idea of elitism in education.

Where I live there is a grammar. Massively oversubscribed. To pass the exam you pretty much have to hire a tutor as the kids aren't tested on what they learn at school. So if you can't afford one then your kid is already at a disadvantage.

The whole system stinks. Me and DH went to comprehensive school, we have 4 degrees and a masters between us. Didn't stop us succeeding academically.

[OddBoots]

If you don't have grammar schools then you don't have secondary modern schools either (or schools they call comprehensives but which comprise of children who didn't pass the 11+), that isn't a bad thing.

[Lurkedforever1]

traveling and why assume Kieron from the council estate will be more likely to punch someone? Stereotyping much. And if you want social mobility, it won't be low achieving Kieron receiving a private education who helps that cause. It will be the brightest kids. I'm also unsure why Kieron deserves that good education more than high achieving Jack from the same background. Surely they both are equally deserving?

odd don't fool yourself. Fully comprehensive areas have secondary moderns too. The only difference is the name, and the fact unlike a true sm, there is less of a social mix.

[Blu]

Admission by lottery can address buying-into-catchment.

Fair banding had been used to attract a critical mass of all abilities.

I agree that there is an issue where educational aspiration is low (regardless of ability and potential) across a wide area, but this is something that also needs addressing in it's own way. The unskilled trad jobs where my brother teaches (rural, coastal,) are disappearing. The relationship with education for all abilities needs addressing as part of other regeneration initiatives. There is another thread about a parent stuck in an anti-intellectual culture sending her child to grammar, and on that thread I am, of course, saying 'send him/ her to the grammar'. But the issue as a whole needs tackling.

[Badbadbunny]

AFAIK the only remaining ones escaped conversion because they were in conservative boroughs?

Not quite the case. As is often found, they want to keep the benefits for themselves and impose their ideals on others. Ours are in a strong Labour county but a strong Conservative city, so a bit of an anomaly. The only way the grammars were allowed was if their catchment area was opened wider into the nearby major city (Labour) where the County Council offices were and where the County Council staff and most Councillors lived. So we have a crazy scenario of kids being bused in from the next nearest city (with comps) to our city (with grammars). Exactly the same in the opposite direction too, with another town retaining it's grammars and busing in kids from the main city too. So the Labour county councillors can say they're against grammars and got rid of the grammars in the major city, good for political posturing, only for them and their colleagues to bus their kids to nearby grammars. You really couldn't make it up!

[Badbadbunny]

There aren't many places where there are grammar schools. Where they do exist there is ridiculous competition to get into one. Intensive tutoring etc.

There are 164 state funded selective grammar schools spread all over England, so far more than people think.

As to admittance, it depends on the location. Some are massively oversubscribed (mostly London and S/E) and are said to have pass marks of 90%+, needing to pass an interview to get in, I've seen reports of 10 applicants per place. Yes, in those, extensive tutoring is probably essential.

That's not the case for all.

Our local grammars are "normal". Pass marks of around 70%, no interviews, only 2/3 applicants per place. You certainly don't need tutoring. Our primary school sent 9 out of my son's class of 30 pupils to the local grammars, most of whom weren't tutored, and we're not in a rich/posh leafy surburb - in fact we're in an officially deprived area with higher than average unemployment, lower than average household earnings, and with a Labour MP and Labour local council!

[disquisitiones]

State grammars are not allowed to interview.

And the admissions statistics for London are very misleading as children often take a large number of entrance exams, i.e. it is the same group of children applying for places in many different schools. If 1000 children apply for 100 places in one school then indeed the ratio is 10 applications for 1 place. If the same 1000 children apply to five different schools the ratio is then 10 applications for every 5 places.

[CookieDoughKid]

The fact that parents are actively seeking grammars means that the comprehensive system just isn't meeting their needs and it's not their first choice. When something like 10 applications to 1 place for Grammars (at least where I live), we don't have a system that works and caters for the bright adequately IMO. We could easily open two or three grammar schools and they'd be filled up before the application deadline is over. There is a want (and a perceived need). It's just not the done thing politically these days to say 'I prefer Grammar school as I believe it's the right choice for my child'.

[Owllady]

Rubbish, we live in an area with no grammar schools. My son is at a perfectly good upper school doing 3 sciences, maths and upper maths, both English and 2 languages. Plus other. It's a much fairer system than the one that was open to us in a high grammar area. What I also like about his school is they cater and strive for all the children there academically and holistically, including those with special needs (even severe)

[Lurkedforever1]

Comprehensives suit people's needs when they can access good ones. And let's be honest, the majority of mumsnetters don't live in council houses/ less affluent private areas. So taking parts of London out, and the odd person with lucky catchment, secondary education based on parental wealth suits the majority on here. Just don't dress it up as the fairer method, or be so uninformed you believe everyone can access the good ones. They can't.

[Owllady]

As if the children living in council houses in Thanet have the same opportunity to go to grammar school as those being tutored from infant age in middle class families or those in private school in Canterbury being geared towards the 11+. Those bright children from less privileged backgrounds have less of a chance to reach their full potential as the comprehensive are so poor because of the grammar system. What is fair about children in families having the money to tutor and take the place of a naturally brighter child that hasn't been tutored?

[ErgonomicallyUnsound]

As if the children living in council houses in Thanet have the same opportunity to go to grammar school as those being tutored from infant age in middle class families or those in private school in Canterbury being geared towards the 11+. Those bright children from less privileged backgrounds have less of a chance to reach their full potential as the comprehensive are so poor because of the grammar system. What is fair about children in families having the money to tutor and take the place of a naturally brighter child that hasn't been tutored?

^^ this.

People want grammars, but not secondary moderns.

[Lurkedforever1]

I think that's unfair too owl. Just not as unfair as selecting by house price which is exactly what happens in some fully comprehensive areas. Lots of areas have no grammars in traveling distance, so don't pretend that grammars are responsible for crap comps in every area. If we're going to have sms, let's at least call them that and allocate them on the 11+, rather than calling it a comprehensive and allocating it because your parents can't afford to live in catchment of a good comprehensive.

[Owllady]

Lots of areas have good comprehensives. My mum lives in the catchment of the one I went to and houses sell for less than 100k. My nephew attended a school that always appears in the Times top schools guide in the same area (hes studying medicine)There are no grammar schools, actually I think there might be one or two but nowhere near her house and very little in the way of private schools. Or are we just talking about the south east and London?

[Owllady]

I do agree with you too though about areas near to London and catchment areas. I'm just not so sure it's so prevalent outside of those pockets.

I'm conflicted as I don't feel the grammar system is at all fair.