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?!

I think the problem with the idea of grammars is the belief that all children can be ranked by performance at 11 and that you can draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the ranking (according to the how many grammar school places you have) and say - 'these children are academic and need educating separately' and 'these children are not academic and need a different type of schooling'. What happens to children like mine in a system like that? My ds is a natural at maths (got level 6 with no practice at home or tutoring or any input from DH and I) and plays two instruments at grade 5 at the age of 11, yet has the writing skills of a not very bright 7 year old? He wouldn't pass the 11+, but he's bright and creative and needs a school with an academically challenging curriculum. Personally I don't think ability is easily categorised, and I don't believe it's fixed at 11.

"Sutton believes the top 500 state schools teach half the national average of children on free school meals."

If you are simply looking at results then it's completely obvious that schools which take more children from professional families will be higher up in the league tables. It's got everything to do with intake and nothing to do with the quality of the teaching.

In any case, that's still about 1000 times better than the top 500 private schools!

I'm not just looking at results, but as you mention it yes, why should it be assumed dc from poorer backgrounds don't need to be in genuine mixed ability comps? Rather than low ability because of their parents jobs? You'll also find it's not the comps in wealthy areas that have a lack of high achievers, a lack of academic subjects, a lack of good teachers etc.

I wouldn't tell everyone the grammar system is fair because my dd would have access to a good school that met her needs. So don't pretend the comp system is because you can access the good schools that meet your childs needs.

Its not a question of grammar system versus true comprehensive system. It's grammar versus parental situation.

"As I recall Mini your secondary does select via music exams. How is it fair that kids without parents able to pay a fortune on lessons( which would add up to a whole lot more than a few 11+ sessions) don't get places "

No - not so. They select 15% evenly divided between sport and music.

The music auditions are designed to look for musicality. There are children on full scholarships who have had no formal tuition and other children who play 2 instruments at grade 4 or 5 who get awarded half scholarships.

I assure you - disadvantaged children are not massively under represented at my dc's school.

"Somebody with the writing ability of a 7 year old would really struggle at grammar and be miserable so why would you even want a place?"

I agree.

But in a system where 25% of the brightest children are 'skimmed off', along with a similar 7% at private - well it would change the character of the other schools in the area wouldn't it?

Sorry - the point was I want him to go to a school where there are children of all abilities.

Lurked and WashedIris: why is the answer to not enough good comps , or not enough good comps in affordable areas to create new schools for 25% of the children rather than to make more of the comps better?

Do you think it impossible to have a good school, or a good education in a school which is in an area of economic disadvantage?

About 15% Music places. These are tested on aptitude, not any experience of playing an instrument. As far as I can see these scholarships have been used as a way to attract aspirational parents to schools they would not otherwise have considered , and in 2 schools I know of in S London they have been instrumental in widening the intake and, because any form of selection seems to have this affect , pushing up successful stats and therefore attracting yet more aspirational parents ...

This could actually be part of a solution , Lurker, to one of the issues I think you were describing earlier in the thread .

I haven't said the answer is to build more grammars and make every area fully selective. I'm responding to people saying the comprehensive system is fairer, when it's absolutely not.

I've said given a choice between selection on ability, and selection by house price, the former is less unfair. That doesn't mean I think the 11+ is fair in itself, or that its the best or only solution. Just that at present it's the least of two evils.

Grammar school kids are under represented at Oxbridge too in comparison to privately educated children. There was a study not so long ago.

Clearly not a very good study. Try looking at the actual published figures. Here's the most recent one for Cambridge. Final column of table 1.1 Success rate from Indies and Grammar applications identical - which in itself is of course a whole other problem in terms of wider access.

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2014_cycle.pdf

Application numbers obviously differ. However given 7% of DC at Indies, and around 4.5% at grammars (overall estimates suggest % at indies a bit higher at 6th form, so could also be the case for grammars) that should not come as a surprise.

I'm responding to people saying the comprehensive system is fairer, when it's absolutely not.

good point.

Another rather surprising set out stats came out just at the weekend from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-index

The linked page provides access to a full listing for every English local authority area. I thought the worst areas would be dominated by grammar areas, the reality is very different. Not that they populate the top (best) areas either - top 20 almost all London Boroughs and probably reflecting the higher levels of spending per child in London. Investment makes a difference, who could have imagined

washe 'I also like the fact everybody has a strong work ethic,I'm done with my DC sitting in classes with those who don't want to learn and I make zero apologies for that.'

Totally agree.

Nobody wants their kids sat alongside badly behaved kids who don't want to learn. But when people know full well it won't be their kids in that situation, they are hypocritical enough to judge anyone actually in that situation for objecting.

I think there are fewer families/teenagers about who see no value in education because (1) there are very few good quality traditional working class jobs (2) there are now immigrants who want to achieve in poor areas so there are more role models about. However if the immigrants go to Muslim schools then the local children won't mix with them. (3) Young people like new technology which is a nerdy thing so being clever is not such a problem. Thus the comprehensive model becomes more and more justified and grammar, religious and private schooling becomes ever more reprehensible.

If you are in the position of making a choice, right now, in your own circumstance, and a grammar is the best option amidst failing schools or out-of-reach housing, then who wouldn't take it? Any parent would, me included. If I lived in a fully selective area I would be hoping that my 'high attainer' DC dud as expected on the day and got a grammar place.

That is different to discussing whether in principle, strategically, grammar schools are a 'good idea' and should be introduced in Wales.

There is no doubt that in general grammars work for the young people who get in. But education for a society, a C21 country, needs to be able to get the best of these and all other young people. We need a system that allows children to develop the best of themselves at the right pace at the right stage in their lives. Pick up the maths genius, even as they have only average literacy, recognise the boost of a summer born boy as he matures academically at yr 9, give specialist supports dyslexic children , support children from chaotic homes to reach their potential . Supporting vocational education that matches the modern opportunities, inspiring a curiosity in learning and confidence in their abilities amongst the disaffected .

Ultimately an education which serves every child will benefit the world that the grammar cohort find themselves living and working in.

I realise I'm going off an a bit of a tangent here but I've been following this thread and I'm beginning to wonder what 'intensive tutoring' actually looks like in practice. Is it a tutor once a week or every day? Is it just teaching of the curriculum one-to-one or is it teaching things that the curriculum doesn't cover ? Genuinely intrigued and if anyone has any experience please do share!

As you were, everyone

I grew up in a grammar school area and am very glad that my children get the chance to attend an excellent comprehensive. The grammar system is full of errors. In the system I grew up in, parents could pay for their children to attend a grammar school if they failed the 11+. Two of the most successful children in my year were 11+ failures. It made me wonder how many other children were just as bright but unable to access a curriculum that would get them into medical school etc because their parents couldn't fork out the money to give them the education they needed.

I also notice that people tend to talk about grammars being a good idea. I rarely see people saying that they are unhappy with the local comprehensive and think that the government should introduce more secondary moderns.

That's because I have access to secondary moderns with the problems you state. I just don't have access to the grammars. Because in this area they're all called comprehensives and are allocated based on where you live.

Cracks me up that people use the logic a sm is writing kids off at 11, but fail to see it happens just the same in fully comprehensive areas. But minus the chance of an exam.

househunting - I guess the correct answer is that intensive tutoring means different things to different people. The way I see it, it's a spectrum, with letting a DC see none or one practice paper before the test at one end, ranging up through a few tests,a few Bond books at home, or a one off tutor session or two, through a weekly 1 hour session with a tutor with homework in between (this being the norm for a year in the 11+ area I live in), to DIY at home which can be very intensive daily work (don't assume DIY is a laid back option, often its way more intense than paying a tutor...) right up to what I would call an extreme which might look like intensive week long tutor sessions in the holidays supplemented with 2 years 2 or 3 times pw tutor sessions at home, with time with parents each day as well, to the point where child has little time for downtime.

erg - while some of that sounds manageable (for example, tutor one hour in a week), other parts of that sound absolutely crazy isn't there such a thing as peaking too early?

I remember the way my literacy teacher guided us through our AS/A2 years, and the amount of work she held back on in AS as she always talked about 'peaking early'. Overall, I got an A for my English Literature A Level. While I understand the need for tutoring of state school children in order to have a fighting chance against prep schoolers, I think there's much to be said about my former teacher's methods.