Secondary moderns

[CookieDoughKid]

There's a lot of talk about new grammar schools 'destroying' the existing comp schools or creating terrible secondary moderns.

I would like some help to understand this better. I would also prefer that people didn't relay their experiences on what happened 50 years ago as the education systems have changed a whole lot since then.

Remove the friendship issues of kids being separated at 11.

How is it we have to rely on the top 25% of students to think we are creating terrible non-grammar schools? And if the wealthier students are getting in to grammar per se, surely that means better funding for the non-grammar schools?

I think I'm missing something entirely. If we have dedicated resourcing and teaching for the non-grammar kids -how is that a bad thing? I believe in selective education not necessarily in different buildings. However if comprehensive schools insist on whole ability classes for all their subjects then I'm against that. Not all comps are the same. I just don't understand this issue about bad schools being created if we remove top 25% of kids.

CookieDoughKid said "How is it we have to rely on the top 25% of students to think we are creating terrible non-grammar schools? "

Only the top 5% get into the grammars and a further 10% of mixed ability get into private schools. So only, small percentages not attends comps.

"Only the top 5% get into the grammars"

Not in the biggest selective LEA in the country, they don't.

Portico - mini just said that there is no evidence that top achieving kids don't achieve as well at comp - they do.

Maybe they need to look at the evidence on this from the Sutton Trust, which suggests that attending a GS only makes a very small (if any) difference to GCSE grades.

Minifingerz I've been trying to read some research to get a more objective view, and what I've found says that overall attending a grammar school improves GCSE results by 4 grades - so definitely not a small effect, according to that study.

www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2006/abstract150.html

Can you point me to the Sutton Trust research, so I can compare? Thanks.

One thing to note us that parents do not look at drill down stats, beyond the performance stars if a particular school. I do myself. That is why I opted for the super selective grammar school my children attend. I know grammar have a great reputation for scholastic achievement and so I went with my gut in choosing said schools.

I also had a plan B in case children did not get a place, and would attend the local comp. I was prepared to support them with supplementary work at home.

Not sure you willing that many parents beyond a small niche who are overly concerned about the bigger picture of education. They just, rightly, worry about giving their own children the best educati possible.

Must proof read before posting. Reprinted below is my last post:

One thing to note is that parents do not look at drill down stats, beyond the performance stats of a particular school. I do it myself. That is why I opted for the super selective grammar school my children attend. I know grammars have a great reputation for scholastic achievement and so I went with my gut in choosing said school.

I also had a plan B in case my children did not attain a place, and would have to attend the local comp instead. I was prepared to support them with supplementary work at home.

Not sure that many parents, beyond a small niche, are overly concerned about the bigger picture of education. They just, rightly, worry about giving their own children the best education possible.

"They just, rightly, worry about giving their own children the best education possible."

Really? So no responsibility towards other people at all?

kesstrel 4 grade points not 4 grades!

BertandRussell said ""Really? So no responsibility towards other people at all?"

If they did/do how would this responsibility to other people manifest itself????

From the abstract of the paper you linked to Kesstrel

Overall there is little or no impact on attainment, but those educated in grammar schools do substantially better (around four grade points more than pupils with the same Key Stage 2 (KS2) points in similar, but non-selective, areas). This is equivalent to raising four GCSEs from a grade 'C' to a 'B' . Other children within selective areas who do not gain a place in a grammar school are disadvantaged by a little under one grade point. In part these effects stem from the substantive under representation of poorer and special needs children in grammar schools

Only 32% of high ability children eligible for free school meals (FSM) attend grammar schools compared with 60% of non-FSM pupils. So whilst the net effect of selection is not substantive it does result in gains for those attending the grammar schools and a slight disadvantage for the rest. The paradox is that grammar schools bestow greater advantages to poor children than more affluent children, but very few make the cut .

"If they did/do how would this responsibility to other people manifest itself????"

They wouldn't push for a system that only marginally benefits high ability children and disbenefits middle and lower ability ones..........

portico presumably this responsibility to other people would manifest itself in not saying "I'm alright Jack, I'll happily walk by on the other side and take a little extra advantage for my already privileged children even though they don't even actually need it, despite knowing full well it will disadvantage others"

I thought this was an amusing take on the proposals .

www.newsbiscuit.com/2016/09/07/tories-welcome-return-to-secondary-moderns/

5moreminutes, believe me if people could afford good private schools they would apply to go there, if all comps were good people would send their children there. It is absurd to think that only the offspring of the privileged attend grammar school. A fourteen year old car and 11 year old car, both bought second hand, does not make me affluent. A house 35 miles away from children's grammar school does not make me affluent, no holidays in 7 years does not make me affluent. Seeking out the best schools, and preparing my children to gain entry to legally available superb state schooling, just shows how much I value the best education. Last three cohorts of entrants to the school for last three cohorts are 20% PP, and get in with much lesser entry scores. Do you spare a thought for this with higher entry scores who are not PP.

Sorry, previous post not proof-read. Guess, you get my gist.

believe me if people could afford good private schools they would apply to go there

My parents sent my brother to a private school because the state alternative offered was awful. My parents weren't "rich", father was a shop worker, mother was a teacher. They paid for the private school by driving an ancient car that was forever breaking down, not having any holidays, having a run-down house, etc. It's not a matter of wealth, it's a matter of priorities. Hell would have to freeze over before they'd send my brother to the awful state school that had been allocated by the LA - my mother had worked there and knew what went on behind closed doors!

"Privileged" and "affluent" are not synonyms.

Interesting that PP children get into your school with "much lower scores"
My understanding was that some grammar schools have started to automatically give places to a % of PP children who meet the qualifying score- but they still have to get that score. Fantastic that there are grammar schools with 20% PP children, though! It might do something to balance out the many others who have 0%.

If there was proper investment in state schools there wouldn't be the situation where the privileged (that does not necessarily mean wealthy - though it means not on the poverty line it also encompasses parental educational level and cultural capital and access to non financial resources) look for ways to opt out while the less privileged sink.

Nobody has said you are wealthy in any kind of "top 10% of earners" or inherited wealth way if you send your child to a grammar, but you are very likely to be privileged - it is not a purely financial concept - and is is absolutely 100% certain your children have a privileged background (regardless of how old your car is and whether you go on holiday) if you send your child to a private school.

5moreminutes

kesstrel 4 grade points not 4 grades!

raising four GCSEs from a grade 'C' to a 'B' .

Sorry, it's not at all clear what you are trying to say here???

5moreminutes said :If there was proper investment in state schools there wouldn't be the situation where the privileged (that does not necessarily mean wealthy - though it means not on the poverty line it also encompasses parental educational level and cultural capital and access to non financial resources) look for ways to opt out while the less privileged sink."

Oooh!!!,I can feel the contempt towards grammar schools from you....ouch!!!

"Oooh!!!,I can feel the contempt towards grammar schools from you....ouch!!!"

Eh? Who has "contempt" for grammar schools?

kesstrel

In was replying to this post of yours:

^kesstrel Tue 20-Sep-16 08:08:13

Maybe they need to look at the evidence on this from the Sutton Trust, which suggests that attending a GS only makes a very small (if any) difference to GCSE grades.

Minifingerz I've been trying to read some research to get a more objective view, and what I've found says that overall attending a grammar school improves GCSE results by 4 grades - so definitely not a small effect, according to that study.

www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2006/abstract150.html

Can you point me to the Sutton Trust research, so I can compare? Thanks.^

Your post makes it sound as if results are raised by 4 grades - from a D to an A for example, when in fact the study suggests 4 GCSEs might be raised by one grade (whilst the losers see one GCSE result fall by one grade).

If the grammar school children are all assumed to be A/B grade candidates by virtue of the selection process they might see some Bs raised to As, which is all very jolly but not very important compared to the medium ability children who see a C grade fall to a D grade.

*"Oooh!!!,I can feel the contempt towards grammar schools from you....ouch!!!"

Eh? Who has "contempt" for grammar schools? hmm*

Those who resent anyone who aims for grammar school for their offspring. Those who freely bandy the words, privilege, cultural capital, access to financial education. What utter tosh! How about getting to the point, and highlighting that it is actually about those parents who give a shit about their children's education will prioritize and make sacrifices to get them into the best school they can, be it private, grammar or comprehensive.

kesstrel Tue 20-Sep-16 09:40:38 Sorry, it's not at all clear what you are trying to say here???

They aren't saying anything, the report is. They were correcting your mistake when you claimed:

"grammar school improves GCSE results by 4 grades"

I don't think it would be possible for a DC expected to gain a B, A or A* to improve GCSE results by 4 grades. 4 grade points, yes or 4 levels, yes but four GCSE grades, no.

portico it as absolutely not "utter tosh" - you are saying that children who already have everything going for them deserve more and more opportunities and better education precisely because they are already at an advantage over their peers!