People who are in favour of grammar schools....

[BertrandRussell]

....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?

Yeah but the average pass rate for the areas will be evened out by those who went to the non selective schools in the grammar areas, hence why you can compare GCSE results .

Unless you are saying that 'non selective' kids in a selective area are fundamentally different from the the group who are from the 25/30% band downwards!

Anyway in the 'real world' the only thing that counts is the percentage of GCSE passes from an area in comparison with another !

"Nor does being in favour of an expanded grammar school model mean that someone doesn't care about the least able."

It does if there is evidence (there is) that the expansion of the grammar school model would result in poorer outcomes for the majority of children who are not selected, and you are still advocating for it!

Re: the issue of FSM and the work of the Sutton Trust, I come from an area with high levels of deprivation and large numbers of new immigrants. The very tiny number of dc's at my dc's inner city primary who got into a grammar (super selective) came from one of two backgrounds: they were from hard up by highly intelligent and super motivated new immigrant families, and from very ambitious professional m/c families. All the children were tutored by parents and had paid for tutoring from very early on.

In short, the very successful FSM children in the UK who are gaining entrance to grammars are overwhelmingly coming from ethnic backgrounds and most have highly educated parents, regardless of family income. Two grammars in one part of London have an intake of over 50% Asian children in an area where they make up only 13% of the primary school intake.

The children who are hugely, massively under represented in grammar school intake are poor white children, and poor Caribbean children, who are as rare as hens teeth in grammars.

The push to increase the numbers of children from poor families in grammar is massively wrongheaded because it will always and forever only ever pick up those children who are already succeeding highly because of massive parental input, and these children are already thriving in the non-selective state sector. It can never address the real issue the UK system has with helping poor children achieve their potential which is all about the children who are currently failing in education because of cultural issues and a lack of parental input.

"Anyway in the 'real world' the only thing that counts is the percentage of GCSE passes from an area in comparison with another !"

Not if you're a government select committee advising on new education policy.

goodbye I think several aspect needs to be looked at if we do go down the selective route. Teaching and school performance need to be measured in a different way instead of simple league tables of exam data which will be interpreted in simplistic way leading to further prejudice. More resources should be given to non selectives per student because grammar kids are much easier to teach and the middle class parents in them will donate. There should be more high quality opportunities specifically available to non selectives, not Latin classes but more like internships at high profile businesses or art gallery whatever suitable. The less academically able may not make the professors or doctors but they can be fantastic entrepreneurs or successful creatives so let them have exposure from school instead of making them struggle through extra physics GCSE. Just some ideas......

I think the point I'm making is that that grammars only take children who are already succeeding highly in education.

There are many, many intelligent children who perform poorly at primary for a huge number of reasons: undiagnosed special needs, a lack of properly trained support for children with SN in primary, parental physical or mental ill health, bereavement, lack of parental support.

There will always be extremely intelligent children in comprehensives who haven't sat or passed the 11+. If comprehensives are expected to meet the needs of these children then they need to have the resources to do so. And if they have the resources and the provision for extremely clever children then why the need for separate schools?

I'm on the fence about grammars because I think 10 is a very tender age for selection, but if the selection is fluid e.g. lower performers from the grammar are sent to the 2nd mod and high performers from the 2nd mod are sent to the grammar every year then I think it's on balance a good thing.

I disagree that in the case of finite resources, we must prioritise those having lower ability. We must nurture talent.

We don't have a lot of grammar schools in the UK at the moment. A lot of these statistics currently indict the GS system as the preserve of the MCs will shift as they grow in numbers.

I went to a grammar school myself so I don't have a problem with them. The area we live in doesn't have grammar schools and we didn't want to pay the inflated house prices to move to the catchment areas for the nearest grammar schools.
Where I grew up there are still Grammar schools but far fewer children from my home town are getting in because the catchment is now any child in Essex that takes the exam. The other non selective secondary schools are missed some a very good and some are poor. One of the schools had a bad reputation when I was at school but now parents are falling over themselves to get their children in.
My problem with grammar school is that rich parents are sending their child to private primary schools or having them tutored from an early age to pass the exam. It needs to be a more level playing field.

"We don't have a lot of grammar schools in the UK at the moment. A lot of these statistics currently indict the GS system as the preserve of the MCs will shift as they grow in numbers."

What do you base this on?

Supply and demand?

Sorry- that makes no sense.

If there's a grammar school in every town, they become more accessible to those currently shut out, less of a lottery ticket, less hysteria surrounding the entire enterprise.

"I disagree that in the case of finite resources, we must prioritise those having lower ability. We must nurture talent. "

1. The children selected for grammar schools are ALREADY succeeding more highly in education than their peers.
2. These children continue to perform more highly than their peers regardless of which schools they attend.
3. The difference in outcomes achieved by grammars for children who are deemed 'high achieving' at KS2 is minimal according to the Sutton Trust.

"12. Regression and multilevel analyses were conducted on the national pupil data (section 8.3, p209). Propensity Score Matching was also applied (section 8.5, p222). Most of these analyses suggest that pupils in grammar schools do a little better than similar pupils in other schools, with the difference somewhere between zero and three-quarters of a GCSE grade per subject. "

This result of this analysis is predicated on pupils who achieve level 5 at the end of KS2. However, we all know that within the 'high ability' band there are very big differences in attainment and ability. In my son's class at primary the single child who got into the super selective grammar achieved a 6A in his maths SATS (after years of parental and professional tutoring). My ds got a 6C after no tutoring of any kind (or indeed any maths practice of any kind at home). He didn't get a place at the super selective.




Just imagining the parental angst, not to mention the real upset for kids, of a system of relegation and promotion between grammar and sec mod every year.

Mc families will tutor EVERY year under that system.

Some children could be alternating schools at the end of every year.

At least with moving sets it's just for the subjects in question and you stay in the same school and uniform.

Really, if the introduction of NuGrammar requires SO much engineering to make it fair (looking for tutor proof tests, prioritizing PP students which is a crude way to engineer and ignores the 'wrong sort of disadvantaged ' kids, building in kids swapping and changing schools etc etc) doesn't it suggest that it is the wrong solution?

"If there's a grammar school in every town, they become more accessible to those currently shut out, less of a lottery ticket, less hysteria surrounding the entire enterprise."

They will never be accessible to children who come from families who are not interested in education, regardless of how clever the child is. There are plenty of very bright children in primary who are currently underachieving because of a lack of parental involvement and support. These children will not pass the 11+ or even be entered for it.

On the basis of current evidence having rich parents, going to a private prep school, having plenty of tutoring, or coming from a family which hugely values education, has more impact on whether a clever child passes the 11+ than their actual IQ. How do you propose governments should control for this?

P.S I meant to say both fair and effective in harnessing all our potential from all kids...

I was very academically bright at 11. My mother wanted me to sit the grammar exam for newsted woods, however I refused!!
Saying that, now that I have children, I would want them to attend a grammar if it was at all possible. All the grammar schools here are independents.
On another note it would be fantastic to have a vocational route, comp and grammar system.
Mine currently attend indie prep schools on heavy bursaries as we cant afford the fees, they are bloody lucky as far as im concerned. I also wont be persuading them to go to uni, unless they NEED to. More so an apprenticeship or something along that line.

Bertrand, the fact that you're not aware of travel assistance doesn't surprise me, since there appear to be a number of things you're not aware of about the way grammars are going, and what they're doing. Travel assistance is nothing to do with the LEAs which are busy reeling in all travel assistance that they can possibly get away with at the moment. LEAs are currently required by law to provide free transport to those living more than three miles away to their nearest school.

I'm glad we've finally managed to convince you that there are schools around the country making marked progress, because that was something you held out strongly over until I made the point last month on a previous thread. The Birmingham schools are an example of what's happening, but not an isolated example although the best example so far.

It's a very, very poor approach to say that grammars needn't be equally funded with non selective schools because the middle class parents will contribute! Kind of missing the point or what! All schools should be equally funded, except special schools.

I should add that LEAs are only required to provide free transport to those meeting the distance criteria up to the end of Y11.

I understand that the Sutton trust has conducted substanstial research into social mobility and Grammar schools and the results for children considered high ability at primary school.

However, does anyone know of a study that has gone further and delved into A level outcomes?

The area of sixth form admission results and outcomes seems to be lost in this debate. I will freely admit that my children had a choice between a good comprehensive and a good grammar both produced steller results at the GCSE phase, both provided good extra curricular activities, both had good pastoral care and both had a strong ethos and a well managed behaviour policy. What swung it for me was the sixth forms. Hands down the grammar school sixth form out performed on results and as the expectation is that children remain within eduation/training up to 18. I chose the more established sixth form.

The problem with this debate and it has been debated quite intently over the past couple of weeks is that when it comes to the education system what is best for all children is not necessarily what is best for your child.

My children were lucky that they had a working class parent with asperations. They were also lucky that they were not stuck having to go their local comprehensive school, which just about failed every ability of pupil. They were lucky that there was a choice of other state schools both comprehensive and selective with admission polices not based on distance.

Should we return to the old Grammar school system. Definitely not. There are some outstanding comprehensives out there and these should continue to be supported and developed. But for areas were the comprehesives are not good and money has been spent but there is little change, do i have an issue with creating super selective grammar schools. No.

They will never be accessible to children who come from families who are not interested in education, regardless of how clever the child is.

Let the primary school teachers identify these children and be their advocates in the 11+.

On the basis of current evidence having rich parents, going to a private prep school, having plenty of tutoring, or coming from a family which hugely values education, has more impact on whether a clever child passes the 11+ than their actual IQ. How do you propose governments should control for this?

Easy. Raise the pass mark for children from preps.

"Really, if the introduction of NuGrammar requires SO much engineering to make it fair"

It cannot be made fair.

How could you control for parental input?

Tutoring? (By parents, schools, tutors)

Special needs? (A large percentage of dc's with SN go undiagnosed/supported at primary)

Cultural factors? (poor white - including non-free school meals) and Caribbean children very under represented.

Previous attendance at a private prep?

It simply CAN'T be fair. Non selective schools will always have a cohort of extremely clever children who need stretching, and therefore must organise resources to take this into account. And if they have the resources to meet the needs of extremely bright dc's in non selective schools then why do we need to open new selective ones?

"Bertrand, the fact that you're not aware of travel assistance doesn't surprise me, since there appear to be a number of things you're not aware of about the way grammars are going, and what they're doing. Travel assistance is nothing to do with the LEAs"

Why not just tell everyone about it then? I'm certainly very interested.

Mini you're focused like a laser beam on poor, apathetic parents. What about poor, involved parents? Don't they deserve something better?

I feel very, very badly for the children of the former but honestly I can't agree with framing the entire system around them.

I don't think an education system should be framed around any one group.

That is one of my main objections to grammar schools.

Bertrand

Here's a link. My local grammars are offering 20 per cent - some 25 - to FSM children. This has been implemented for thi year's 11 plus exam.

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/parents-spend-5000-private-tutors-10038117