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.

Portico- you seem to be reading a completely different thread to me.

Instead of divide and rule, better education for the privileged, and sod the rest, perhaps the UK should look at countries like Finland:

from this article

"Imagine a country where children do nothing but play until they start compulsory schooling at age seven. Then, without exception, they attend comprehensives until the age of 16. Charging school fees is illegal, and so is sorting pupils into ability groups by streaming or setting. There are no inspectors, no exams until the age of 18, no school league tables, no private tuition industry, no school uniforms. Children address teachers by their first names. Even 15-year-olds do no more than 30 minutes' homework a night.

The national curriculum is confined to broad outlines. All teachers take five-year degree courses (there are no fast tracks) and, if they intend to work in primary schools, are thoroughly immersed in educational theory. They teach only four lessons daily, and their professional autonomy is sacrosanct. So attractive (some might say cushy) is a teacher's life that there are 10 applicants for every place on a primary education course, and only 10-15% drop out of a teaching career.

It sounds like Michael Gove's worst nightmare, a country where some combination of teachers' union leaders and trendy academics, "valuing Marxism, revering jargon and fighting excellence" (to use the education secretary's words), have taken over the asylum.

Yet since 2000, this same country, Finland, has consistently featured at or near the top of international league tables for educational performance, whether children are tested on literacy, numeracy or science. More than 60% of its young people enrol in higher education, roughly evenly divided between universities and polytechnics.

Surely no one would imagine that anyone would claim that, on average, grammar schools could raise every child's overall grades from all Ds to all As???????!!!!!

I would have thought that what I meant was obvious. But I apologise that my post was poorly phrased.

The fact remains, Minifingerz claimed that

attending a GS only makes a very small (if any) difference to GCSE grades.

I don't think that "very small if any" would equate to 4 Bs moving to As in most parents' view - it certainly wouldn't in mine, which is why I asked for a pointer to the research. But those who disagree are of course entitled to their views.

*5moreminutes"

The Finnish system is admirable in many ways. However, if we wanted to adopt it, we would need to adopt all of it. Teaching in Finland has for years been quite traditional: textbook-led, plenty of teacher talk, whole class discussions led by the teacher, children working quietly on their own, desks facing the front from age 7, very little "group work". This kind of thing is anathema to the dominant educational philosophy in this country. For the last 40 years it's been rubbished by teacher trainers and the educational establishment generally, and would (until very recently) have been likely to get a “fail” from Ofsted.

This is one of the reasons why low-achieving comprehensives struggle to improve. Cognitive psychologists such as Dan Willingham have been arguing that progressive teaching methods increase the disparity between advantaged and disadvantaged children. According to this view, it is likely that a big reason Finland's mixed ability classes work as well as they do is that they use more traditional, explicit teaching methods.

portico

Do you think that pretty much the entire education establishment is against the expansion of grammar schools because of jealousy and resentment towards people whose high achieving children succeed in these schools?

Come on, be reasonable. You must see that the primary concerns raised about the proposed expansion of the grammar system is because overall it won't lead to higher educational standards in the UK, and because there are clearly proven problems regarding access to this type of education that result in it increasing and entrenching inequality?

I'd also say Portico - that it's totally understandable that people arrive at conclusions about this issue based on their own selfish family reasons.

But the government makes education policy on the basis of what is best for the country.

I'll just add that there has been a lot of misleading information about Finland's education system published in the popular press. I believe this is due to Pasi Sahlberg, mentioned in the article you linked to, who wrote andheavily promoted a 200 page book on why Finland is such a success, without ever once even mentioning teaching methods. Since he himself is a supporter of progressive methods, you can be pretty sure he would have referred to them if he had any evidence they were being used. If you read academic books and papers, and accounts from those who have visited a number of schools (rather than just a single carefully-chosen one), the picture is rather different. I would add that Finnish children don't "just play" up to age 8; pre-school education, especially the mandatory pre-school year, have been often quite heavily structured and organised, so that while they are play-based, they are certainly not 'just play'.

kesstrel Tue 20-Sep-16 10:05:54 I don't think that "very small if any" would equate to 4 Bs moving to As in most parents' view - it certainly wouldn't in mine

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Are you suggesting that children who achieve a 4b in SATs achieve an A in Grammar schools?

If so do you actually have access to data that suggests that this is, in fact, true.

Not to suggest that this never happens, of course, but do you really think this is the norm. for DCs in Grammar schools?

Mum

I'm just talking about what the research paper I linked earlier (at 8:08) says:

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.

Oh, I just realised why you thought I was talking about 4bs. No, i meant four B grades at GCSE - I think my post did mention GCSEs, but I apologise that I wasn't clearer!

Teaching methods might need reviewing (though not by politicians ideally) - perhaps current methods do disadvantage those who don't come from the kind of family that has already come to school already equipped them with the myriad "soft skills" needed to participate effectively in group work and learn independently etc. etc. Perhaps we should be open to a Finnish style whole sale re-vamp...

The constant half arsed tinkering with the system and adding on and changing bits here and there pretty much every single year is probably why a lot of it is currently so mediocre. Academies are obviously symbolic of this - try one thing in one place, another in another place, anything goes, no national blueprint and constantly changing standards and expectations and national curriculum, no real feeling of security or continuity for children or teachers...

A properly qualified task force engaging in in depth research into the most successful education systems and then a one off ground up re-vamp of the entire system, making it all work together and giving everyone (not just a certain demographic) the best possible chance would be an idea - and then leaving the education system alone for a few decades with no more political fiddling and interfering to give things a chance to bed in and work properly!

from the kind of family that has already come to school already equipped them with the myriad "soft skills" needed to participate effectively in group work and learn independently

It's not so much "soft skills" that are an issue, according to Willingham and others working in this area, but having the kind of family that equip them with (and continue to keep building up) a much wider vocabulary and greater general knowledge (the things that will be necesssary for them to understand what they read, and what they are taught later). The point of explicit teaching methods, such as those used in Finland (as opposed to group work and "independent learning") is that it is used to make up for this gap in what comes from the family. Explicit teaching, done well, is seen as a much more time-efficient method of improving pupils' vocabulary and background knowledge, particularly if using a well-sequenced curriculum which includes textbooks. This gives the lower attainers a chance to catch up. Also, ''Social loafing' is a well-recognised problem with group work, as is dominance by the more advanced; whole-class teaching prevents this. And finally, a whole class mastery approach ensures that slower students get the extra practice, and if necessary intervention, at the point where they need it.

I really recommend Willingham's book, Why Don't Students Like School? It's a real eye-opener.

Kesstrel Cultural Capital you mean? The concept Portico thinks is "utter tosh"? :o

Maybe there is indeed a strong argument for being open minded about a whole different approach using more explicit teaching methods.

Arguing for grammar schools is the polar opposite though - its an argument for testing who falls on which side if the divide, embracing the divide legitimising, confirming and enlarging it, instead of trying to close it!

Cultural capital is a bit different: "The term cultural capital refers to non-financial social assets that promote social mobility beyond economic means. Examples can include education, intellect, style of speech, dress, or physical appearance."

And I'm not arguing for grammar schools, by the way. I've simply been doing a little reading, trying to inform myself on the subject, and I asked Mini for a pointer to the source of information I could compare with the paper I found. The rest has all been me responding to other people's comments. My main interest (as you can probably tell) is in teaching methods. If I'm 'on the fence' about grammar schools, it's mainly out of despair at the entrenched resistance to any attempt to improve schools by using evidence-based teaching methods.

Kestrel - just look at the Sutton Trust website.

Mini- I did. Couldn't find it.

Sorry, been offline most of the day. I am a huge advocate of grammar schools, and so my poisition is that as someone who wholly advocates them. Not sure they offer social mobility for working class, but they certainly provide opportunities for upward mobility for its existing cohorts.

Btw, Cultural capital = parents who give a shit about their kid's education,and then some more. Those who don't give a shit sadly will have kids who have similar expectations. I think these have parents who a Cultural Capital Negative Equity situation.

I do have to admit that gaining a grammar school place is akin to striving for and finally getting that elusive Willy Wonka Golden Ticket.

I also have to admit, that whilst the state still offers grammar school places, parents like me will move heaven and earth to get our kids into grammar schools; even then superselectives top catchment grammars. Why, because we know they are better than even the best comps. But I also warmed by recent moves to provide 20% of grammar entry to PP pupils, who can get in on lower scores. Goodnight!

Proof reading issues, it's the iPad, not me!

Sorry, been offline most of the day. I am a huge advocate of grammar schools, and so my position is that of someone who wholly advocates them. Not sure they offer social mobility for working class, but they certainly provide opportunities for upward mobility for its existing cohorts.

Btw, Cultural capital = parents who give a shit about their kid's education, and then some! Those parents who don't give a shit will, sadly, have kids who have similar expectations. I think these kids have parents who are in a Negative Equity position as far as Cultural Capital is concerned.

I do have to admit that gaining a grammar school place is akin to striving for and finally getting that elusive Willy Wonka Golden Ticket.

I also have to admit, that whilst the state still offers grammar school places, parents like me will move heaven and earth to get our kids into grammar schools; even then please note that superselectives will always top catchment grammars. Why, because we know that both are better than even the best comps. But I am also warmed by recent moves to provide 20% of grammar entry to PP pupils, who can gain much coveted grammar school places, on lower entrance scores. Goodnight!

"I also have to admit, that whilst the state still offers grammar school places, parents like me will move heaven and earth to get our kids into grammar schools; even then superselectives top catchment grammars. "

The best argument I've heard for getting rid of grammars.

If the main determiner of a grammar school place is having a pushy parent....

I suspect you would prefer this........

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/20/failing-schools-grammars-choice-brightest-pupils

If I was a schools minister and there was evidence that this type of policy might have a very positive effect on education outcomes of the majority of children, then I'd be a prat not to consider it wouldn't I?

Or do you think that education policy should be entirely shaped around the needs of your children Portico and children very similar to yours?

Actually the way these arguments go - the epic selfishness of the grammar lobby as evidenced by the comments on half a dozen threads on mumsnet, it wouldn't surprise me if you did.

portico Wed 21-Sep-16 05:38:07 I suspect you would prefer this........

Why would you have a problem with this if the end result was that the top ability children were getting the educaiton they need/want/their parents think they should have?

Portico- why would you not like the "modest proposal" put forward in that article?

Was this the thread where people were discussing the Finnish system?

Some interesting articles here:

www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/insights/finish-fairy-stories-tim-oates/

Is anyone else completely lost now amongst the grammar school threads?

Mini I don't think anyone, including the government has tried to argue that the "new" secondary moderns will be better for the majority of children. At best they're arguing they will be no worse than existing comprehensives (although research evidence does not support them). I'm really puzzled by the number of people on Mumsnet who live near terrible schools? In 25 years of seeing young people go through many of the local schools in our county and meeting them through work and community activities I can't think of any of the really bright ones who have not done well at their various schools. Admittedly I don't live in the inner city but is this really so untypical?

That's a good idea send the bright kids to the same schools as the 'ner do wells' who terrorized BexleyHeath !

St Catherine's hopefully will 'EXPEL' their 'stupid' school girls, who no doubt went to watch the fight. St Catherine's achieves outstanding numbers 82% GCSE . Unfortunately the school has been dragged though the 'mud' by a few girls who get turned on by a 17 year old wearing a 'hoodie' and carrying a blade!

All non selective schools will have a small no of 'Scummy' kids that can not be removed and make the lives of teachers and the majority of pupils lives hell.