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

[BertrandRussell]

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

[noblegiraffe]

I think I've just been indirectly accused of being Gove

pique the thing with the handful of new schools is that the government has to find a way to make them scalable. All new schools have to be free schools/academies and we are facing a severe shortage of secondary places in the next few years.

[Ta1kinpeece]

2stripedsocks
Which bit of the link I posted was personal anecdote?
And how do you plan to ignore it?

[kesstrel]

I think I've just been indirectly accused of being Gove

Huh? Have I missed something?

Noble I absolutely agree with your post about the changes bearing fruit, in that is what I hope will happen. But I have to confess I am not feeling optimistic about it. There are a lot of people who are heavily emotionally invested in progressive methods, and many who have staked their careers on them, in the business of Teacher Education especially.

Having watched the resistance to phonics over the last 20 years, and knowing that so many schools still aren't teaching phonics properly, and are clinging to methods that have no evidence base and can be damaging, I have been astounded by how entrenched it is. There have been individual schools for a long time with excellent reading results via a phonics approach, but they've just been ignored. Maybe things will be different in the secondary sector, because of the greater pressure from getting good GCSE results...but on the other hand, SATS results exert pressure in primary, but instead of adopting evidence-based teaching methods, schools are just pushing teachers to work harder using the same old limited methods. I fear that even superb results from schools like Michaela won't have any influence on the vast majority of comprehensives. I have no idea what the answer is, but I fear that change will take a very long time....

[BoffinMum]

I work in the same field as Becky Allen. I will try to explain in a straightforward way why I decided to send my younger kids to comprehensive schools based on the research (the eldest one went private for most of her education, which was before I started researching this area).

The research on intelligence is more complex than an 11+, 13+ or even a 16+ selection system really allows for. It basically says we don't know until after adolescence the true nature of someone's potential, although we start to get clues earlier on in some cases. However environment is a greater factor on whether someone is going to achieve potential. For a summary, look at this blog post:

A guide to intelligence and heritability for beginners

So if you factor in this research, it makes much more sense to think about environment when selecting suitable schools for your children. Research would say a 'good' environment for educational development is one that:

• unlocks good nutrition,
  
• allows for timely and effective healthcare,
  
• encourages high quality sleep,
  
• provides for stable and competent parenting and care,
  
• ensures regular school/learning attendance,
  
• provides trained teachers with good subject knowledge and a genuine interest in children and young people,
  
• provides resources to pursue hobbies and interests, and
  
• ensures supportive interaction with a range of like-minded peers from different backgrounds.
  

More of each of these does not necessarily mean children do better. Hence data suggest there is no need to spend every evening dragging kids around different extra-curricular activities, or adopt a weird macrobiotic diet as a route to educational success. Similarly over-tired children do not perform well, so long journeys to school should be approached with caution. Stressed parents worrying about how to pay school fees might be another barrier. The secret is to hit a sweet spot where they are getting enough of each of them. Having this formula out of balance can mean that children become stressed and this starts to impact on their achievement negatively, hence girls in UK and US independent schools with eating disorders, or high suicide rates amongst adolescent boys in Japan who attend cram schools every day, to give two examples.

So from this we understand that at a family level, it is all about working towards an equilibrium of the different factors that make up a child's life, to create a good learning environment. What about at a macro level?

That's surprisingly clear. Statistically, where selection takes place it is children from more affluent backgrounds who are successful in gaining - and keeping - places in selective schools. We know this from the London Families of Schools documents that New Labour instigated and a version of which you can now access here: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/attainment-gap/families-of-schools-database/. And in the regions where there are selective schools, the average results for that area tend to be worse than those with a fully comprehensive system. The reasons behind this are complex (like with intelligence) but a lot of people think that is because where you start playing favourites with children at this level, resources tend to follow the favoured group at the expense of the non-selected group, who just have to put up with second-class teachers and facilities unless they are very lucky. This was explained in a Government report called 'Half Our Future' (Newsom report) in 1963 which pretty much did for the grammar system. You can read that report here.

Half Our Future

And what about the children who have been selected? That is a really knotty issue, and one that is only just starting to be unpacked in the light of increased funding for research into this area. Firstly we know that bright, middle class kids tend to cluster in comprehensive schools anyway, and not always mix across the social groups a great deal, so they are effectively with the same peer group that they would have been with at grammar schools anyway. Secondly, and this is less researched because it's hard to get access, the harsh fact of the matter is that there are a number of selective schools where the teaching is actually not all that good, yet they get good results through parents paying for additional tutoring and the fact the intake enjoys a good educational environment at home. So it may be that some of the children attending selective schools are underperforming for them even though the school league tables look healthy. (I've had to pick up the pieces of some of this when they arrive at university, by the way).

This is basically why a rare and wonderful thing has happened in the field of education, with the left, centre and right pretty much uniting to howl in protest at what is essentially a fringe idea created by Nick Timothy, ex-grammar school boy and Chief of Staff to the PM. Because it's basically nuts and can't work. What would work is steadily carrying on ameliorating disadvantage through attention to the hygiene factors for educational environments I listed above (which don't just apply to the economically deprived, by the way, but also to children of divorced parents, children who have experienced stressful life events, children who have health problems or who are late developers, and so on). Things like Educational Maintenance Allowances for deprived pupils in Years 12-13, balanced breakfasts at special clubs and good quality school meals with encouragement for people to apply for free ones, good and cheap school transport in all areas and not just London, school leadership training, local area collaboration amongst schools and extended services and effective teacher CPD all feed into improvements, whereas evidence on selection success is purely anecdotal - it has been labelled the 'Uncle Steve defence' - see here:

Uncle Steve defence

Some personal views now. There are some areas which suffer so badly from teacher recruitment problems, for example coastal areas far from transport links, that no amount of nice home life or idealism is going to work at the moment in helping all children achieve their potential. I personally wish the Government would give that more thought rather than gerrymandering education. Secondly, education is a completely different place from what it was a generation or two ago, and a lot more accountable, so it's a much safer bet to send children to their local school rather than shelling out (which is why so many independent schools are closing down or filling themselves with overseas students; parents have wised up to this).

And finally, I would say Becky is not out of line or biased in criticising this policy - as I said, there's an unusual consensus. Parents should take more note of the fact there is such a consensus in a normally very divided sector, and make their choices accordingly.

[Peregrina]

A good thoughtful posting BoffinMum.

Reading the Uncle Steve Defence made me think of how for every Steve there would be a few in the position of Uncle Jack and Auntie Mary. Both bright enough to pass the 11+ but Jack's parents couldn't afford the uniform so he couldn't go, and needed him to go to work asap to help the family budget, so no staying on until 16 to take exams, and Mary's parents thought that education was wasted on a girl because she would get married anyway.

[HPFA]

Boffin What an excellent post, it almost makes further comment redundant! I suspect the sleep issue is much more important than we suspect. Whenever I watch those "Educating..." programmes I always think a few of the kids look like me when I've had a few bad nights - I don't look or feel sleepy, I get jittery and unable to concentrate.
As to the social mix, totally agree. DD's large all-girls comp is actually quite mixed socio-economically but because of its good reputation attracts quite a lot of high-achieving girls from long distances. As far as I can tell these girls simply never mix with those from more deprived backgrounds or those in lower sets. i'm torn as to whether this is good or bad to be honest. DD is able but not super-bright and is absolutely benefitting from measuring herself against the top girls in her best subjects. Is she getting a broad social experience and learning to mix with others unlike herself? No.

I hope you will be filling in the consultation - I think this is exactly the sort of response that will help.

[HPFA]

kesstrel Another very good post. What might be a sensible way of proceeding would be to trial out the ideas in the Green Paper in the selective areas and put a lot of emphasis on improving the performance of the High Attainers in the poorer performing comps, effectively giving them a chance to improve before being forced into becoming secondary moderns. Perhaps the £50 million proposed spending on new grammars could go towards this instead.

I suppose this wouldn't have the required result of grabbing UKIP votes though.

[HPFA]

This news from Northern Ireland:
www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2016/09/28/news/leading-omagh-grammar-schools-to-end-11-plus-tests-711429/

[BoffinMum]

Thank you for the nice comments on my post. I appreciate that.

I was reflecting on things a bit more, and I wonder if what has happened since the introduction of the National Curriculum in the early 1990s is that we have effectively turned pretty much all our secondary schools into (non-selective) grammar schools with a largely academic curriculum.

Perhaps our attention now needs to be directed towards having selective technical colleges, given what employers are demanding at the moment? If we had kids competing for places at 14 in things like Computer Science, Engineering, Mechanics, Music Technology, Graphic Design, Banking and Finance, and so on, we might be onto something really worthwhile, especially if there was a clear route to graduate apprenticeships sponsored by industry (like Cap Gemini do for CompSci at the moment, in conjunction with Aston University, for example). We could still develop a broad curriculum in those schools, but there would be more focused access to staff with industry expertise, and a better career structure after attending such schools.

The problem is, of course, that we rarely have anyone in Government who has studied anything applied. Theresa May was pushing the envelope with Geography - normally it's always English, History or PPE. So they are frequently terrible intellectual snobs and don't realise it's the applied subjects that really matter to a lot of people outside Westminster and the M4 corridor. They don't understand science and technology a lot of the time, and they don't understand maths and economics much either - it's painfully obvious in a lot of what they say (Michael Gove and his silly comment to the Education Select Committee about all children needing to be above average being a case in point).

I think we need to start broadening out and privileging things that represent the economic activities (actual and desired) of the nation rather than focusing on a curriculum that is indistinguishable from 1916, and rewarding children for the same kind of plodding compliance that the Edwardians celebrated.

[noblegiraffe]

The technical colleges (UTCs) project is seen as a bit of a failure, with them closing down left, right and centre. Rather than being selective, they tend to be where kids who don't like their current school or who aren't doing very well at academic subjects go.

Kids who are bright, academic and doing well don't generally want to leave their school at 14 and go somewhere else. Why would they when they can work hard, get a string of top grades in their GCSEs and specialise at 16?

[noblegiraffe]

I thought your post was great too, btw Boffin, good to have the views of someone who has not only thought about the issues in an academic way, but then applied the conclusions to their own life. The point about thinking very carefully before bussing your kids off to a school far away is a good one, as is pointing out the need for sleep, decent food and hobbies to maximise school outcomes. So much is pinned on the school where actually parenting and home environment holds quite a few of the keys.

[sandyholme]

Well UTCs should be allowed to select pupils on the basis of aptitude in Maths/Sciences. If they had Direct access to either top Universities or a guaranteed high quality job for high achievers to the Company linked to the UTC ! Parents and pupils would queue for miles for the chance of admission.

[noblegiraffe]

If you want to select on aptitude in maths and sciences then it would make more sense to do it at 16 when they have their GCSE results.

[Out2pasture]

Excellent post BoffinMum

[HPFA]

This is what Gold Standard vocational education looks like:

www.ncee.org/swiss-vet/

Not a chance in hell of any government introducing something like this.

[a7mints]

I think the biggest predictor of success in a subject is having a genuine interest in it.

[BoffinMum]

That Swiss thing is absolutely spot on.

Look at the excellent Cap Gemini Degree Apprenticeships here:

www.uk.capgemini.com/careers/your-career-path/apprentices

[a7mints]

those who are against grammar schools either failed the 11+ themselves or have one or more children who failed or they expect to fail.
It is the politics of envy and they just want to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator IMO

[portico]

BoffinMum.

My kids are up at 6 am, and out the house at 6.45am, to get to the station for a train at7am. They get to their school ca 8.20am. Lack of sleep is a concern. They do like to get to bed at 9pm, but will play on iPhones and iPads till 11am. Given up trying to stop them. Lack of sleep is not always the problem. For me the issue that they go to school hungry, and how this impacts learning. They are well fed with a nutritious breakfast, as lunch is at 1pm. Elder son used to east toast or a chocolate croissant. Now it's two weetabix, and two slices of toast. Younger one just eats wwetabixweetabix. I send sandwiches which they eat at 10am. It has a great effect on them till lunchtime, as they benefit from slow release of energy, no hunger pangs and can concentrate on learning. At the weekends I let them eat what they want. Lack of sleep is not an issue, as they tend to wake up early and go to bed late at the weekends.

[ClaireBlunderwood]

I think Boffinmum's post should be cut and pasted on every education thread ever. I might laminate it myself.

Lack of sleep may not seem an issue but the science is pretty clear on this. Plentiful sleep is up there with good nutrition and parental support.

And a break from screens from early evening too (easier said than done I know but there's always the nuclear option of turning off the wifi).

[HPFA]

I now have the complete list of people who are not allowed to oppose grammar schools:

1)People who went to them because they're hypocrites
2)People who didn't go to them because they're just jealous
3)People whose own children go to good comprehensives -umm, I have no idea why experiencing a good comprehensive means you're not allowed to support them,
4)People whose parents went to grammars
5) People whose own children would fail the test because really, why should these people be concerned about their children's education?

Anyone think of a category I've missed?

[HPFA]

Claire Totally agree about BoffinMum - just hope she cuts and pastes into the consultation

[Ta1kinpeece]

a7mints
those who are against grammar schools either failed the 11+ themselves or have one or more children who failed or they expect to fail.
I got a scholarship to SPGS that for family reasons I did not take up.
I got decent O Levels and A levels and then met DH at Southampton University.

DD got great GCSEs and A Levels and is now at York University.
DS got great GCSEs and is now studying Sciences and Maths at A Level.

I am against Grammar Schools because they are a waste of scarce resources.

[sandyholme]

Perhaps people should stop denigrating people for wanting a selective education for their children.

Anyway if the sole reason for a parent wanting grammar schools is 'self protectionism' so what !

Why are parents castigated for solely being interested in the own families well being .

Incidentally i don't want grammar schools for purely selfish reasons, however if i did why is it a crime for looking out for your children's best interests!

Clearly Betrand et.al are social warriors that think if you can't save everybody i.e (offer a superlative education to everyone) No child should therefore have that chance !.

[Crocodillian]

I come from a grammar school town; there were 2 grammar schools (single sex) and a handfull of failing comps. It was very much pass your 11 plus or dont even bother with education anymore. So much emphasis had been put on these amazing grammar schools that it was generally accepted within the community that bright kids went to the grammar, wasters didnt. Nothing in between and if you really couldnt get your kid into the grammar there was a private school.
Looking back it was odd but until I went to uni I didnt realise that it was okay not to go to a grammar or private school. I thought I was a complete failure. I still have a friend who refers to my not going to grammar all the time. She's mildly impressed by my career (which isnt a stealth boast, long hours/low pay) but she genuinely says "And to think you didn't go to grammar school"
I sailed through the English and failed the maths in 11 plus and still remember where I was when I was told. My parents were devastated. All of my friends went to the grammar. My comp was on David Blunketts list of schools to be shut down as it was failing. It only offered foundation paper maths and science gcses and had no 6th form. After one term the school suggested that I be transferred to grammar at 13.
When I finally went to the grammar school it was awful, me and another girl had been transferred at the same time. We were both new and shy and some of the teachers were openly disparaging about our old school and the lack of standards, which isn't something a child knows how to respond to or understand. I just felt embarassed and ashamed. Looking back one particular teacher was a complete snob and really unprofessional. I didn't stay but the other girl did.
I'm certain that there are much better situations and that not every town with grammars is like mine was, but in my town back then it really created this system of secondary school education at the grammars and well we better open something to keep all the riff raff off the streets until 3.15 for the rest. Our teachers said that we couldnt afford books because the budget was 50p per student per year for everything. We had no funding, no respect, no expectations. It was just a building to scoop up 11 plus rejects.