http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/13/grammar-pupils-progressing-faster-than-their-peers-in-non-select/

[sandyholme]

I am pleased that finally there is a piece of evidence highlighting that grammar schools do improve performance for middle ability pupils.

All the evidence given on these threads has been to continually state the case for Comprehensive education.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/13/grammar-pupils-progressing-faster-than-their-peers-in-non-select/

Technically speaking its a bit more complicated than that. There are huge limitations to using the data they have to make that conclusion.

There's no way we can draw definite conclusions about grammars being better for high and middle ability students than comprehensive.

Eh? So average progress 8 for all comprehensive schools is lower than average progress 8 for all grammar schools? That's comparing apples with pears!

To be any sort of meaningful it would have to compare the results of children who would likely have gone to grammar school had they been in a grammar area; with children who did go to grammar in a grammar area. Not even sure how you would do this. Even using the previous "high achievers" measure wouldn't give you right group as in general this group would include more children than would get a grammar place.

It's no surprise to me that children with parents who are motivated enough to get their children through the 11+ and who often pay for tutoring will progress pretty well later on.

I can't find this official analysis referred to in the article. I've had a look on the government publications website and can't find it. Plenty on how progress 8 is calculated and overall comparisons from year to year in GCSEs but nothing else. The author here hasn't quoted the source of this either. The official data isn't usually out until January either so I would be cautious using this article as any sort of evidence as the chances are it could be based on incomplete data.
If someone can point me in the direction of the official analysis mentioned in the article, then I'd like to take a proper look.

Still horribly socially divisive.

Education still comes down to the area you live in though.
My local comprehensive (according to the figures released yesterday) has done better than all but one of the eight local super-selective grammar schools.
They also usually do very well for middle-band ability pupils.
The comprehensive 400 yards further down the road is an entirely different picture, mind you.
You really can only obtain a better education in England by paying for it (mortgage/rent I mean). That should not be the case.

Sorry- may I say the comp has done better for progress than the SSGS, not absolute attainment, obviously! The SSGS get 100-99% GCSE.

Sandyholme - if you exclude almost all the disruptive and low ability children from a school, and leave behind only those children with a work ethic and parents supportive of the school (who form pretty much the entire student/parent body of a grammar) then pound for pound, you're likely to get a better outcome.

It's called 'selection bias'.

It's very hard to control for in education research because it involves subtler aspects of family life, not just parental education and social class.

Of course those disruptive children who slow down the pace of learning for others have to go somewhere don't they? They go in disproportionate numbers into the classrooms of children like mine, in non-selective schools.

But as long as grammar school kids are protected from the disruption it's all good...

Sandyholme - if you exclude almost all the disruptive and low ability children from a school, and leave behind only those children with a work ethic and parents supportive of the school (who form pretty much the entire student/parent body of a grammar) then pound for pound, you're likely to get a better outcome.

It's called 'selection bias'.

It's very hard to control for in education research because it involves subtler aspects of family life, not just parental education and social class.

Of course those disruptive children who slow down the pace of learning for others have to go somewhere don't they? They go in disproportionate numbers into the classrooms of children like mine, in non-selective schools.

But as long as grammar school kids are protected from the disruption it's all good...

"You really can only obtain a better education in England by paying for it (mortgage/rent I mean). That should not be the case."

Not true.

More and more highly successful comps are using lottery systems and fair banding admissions procedures to get around the problem of postcode selection.

sandy

I am pleased that finally there is a piece of evidence highlighting that grammar schools do improve performance for middle ability pupils

Why, on earth, are you pleased? Do we not need the children at a non-selective school to progress well? Are you feeling smug your children might do better if they are at a Grammar? Or are you just feeling vindicated that there is one little bit of evidence, apparently, supporting what you want to be true?

None of these positions, IMO, are conducive to finding the best system for educating our children.

I love how the article mentions that +1 is regarded as exceptional progress, but fails to mention that only 7 schools in the country made that level of progress.

Minifingers- there's no schools near me operating a lottery system. The only LA I know of that does is Brighton, and it's hardly known for its affordability!
There probably are some, but it's very hit and miss rather than universal.

A lottery system would only be necessary in a very highly populated area with tiny catchments in wealthy areas wouldn't it? Outside these areas catchments are often very large and include all types of housing. Social housing, million pound houses.

Surely middle ability students shouldn't be in a grammar school Are they admitting that the 11+ doesn't accurately select out high ability children? Or are they admitting that even middle ability children benefit from a highly academic curriculum so this shouldn't be reserved for the high attainers?

Either of these seem like the evidence is providing arguments against grammar schools,

I seem to remember Education Datalab doing an analysis last year that showed high attainers make more progress at a grammar but that the data wasn't sufficient to be able to attribute it to the efficacy of the school and it could be due to other factors.

11+ is supposed to capture potential not achievement, from what I recall.
So hard working middle-low ability kids don't get to go there unless they do well on the IQ test.
Underachieving clever kids do get to go.
Isn't it great we take away the opportunities for the mediocre kids to aim high?
And tell the high potential kids that they wouldn't be happier as car mechanics or hairdressers. Nope, they should do what they're told they should do.

Since ?48% of kids start at university, maybe the grammars should aim to take the top 48%.

I know of no comps at all with lottery system admissions.

Just posted this on another thread

just looking at the provisional Dept of Education results for 2016 !

Broadoak School in Trafford (Partington) the part Trafford forgot has achieved miracles this year 5 GCSE A*-C inc Maths/English '65%' up from 33% last year and every other year since year dot !

This is a fantastic result when you consider that 61.8% of its pupils have been eligible for FSM over the last 6 years !

This is more evidence that selective education does not have to destroy the non selective schools.

In-fact i am amazed at 'Broadoak' achieving just 7% less than much applauded Wellington!

Selective areas can work for all schools...

Wouldn't it be good to remove the cleverer kids from all the disruption that a comprehensive has. I dont get why we hold back the brightest. If we let them fly they will make achievements that benefit the whole of society, even the less able children. A grammar in my area would definitely be welcomed, its so unfair that only leafy conservative area are allowed good schools.

Already debunked:

educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/10/provisional-ks4-data-2016-grammar-schools-reporting-fantastic-progress-8-scores-not-so-fast/

Anon- the comprehensive I mentioned is in a staunch labour area, the kind that always has been, always will be.
And FWIW, the grammar are packed with middle ability but tutored to the hilt children, not the brightest at all.

Grammars are successful because a dedicated work ethic and family ethos to education does increase a child's chances of passing the 11+. However, I really dislike the idea that assumes only the clever children want to work. A grade C in maths and English may be just as important to a child with say the ambition of becoming a firefighter as 11 A*s are to a student wanting to become a barrister.
Watching the fly on the wall documentaries about comprehensives, the emphasis seems to be on how to help disruptive children, while the quiet ones who want to succeed command little attention.

"Wouldn't it be good to remove the cleverer kids from all the disruption that a comprehensive has." What about all the other hardworking kids? Why should they have to suffer from any disruption? For them, the disruption could be affecting the chances of getting the all important Grade Cs. Why is it OK for them but not the very bright ones? It could be argued that the C/D borderline kids are the ones who would benefit most from removed from all disruption. The brighter ones will be in top sets anyway.

How did the top end of the sec mod kids fare? Were their results improved by having the top sets removed? You cannot have one system without the other.

I genuinely do not "get" the disruption stuff.
Both my kids went to a comp.
DD is now doing a pure science degree at a "Top200Worldwide" Uni
DS is doing maths / science A levels

but among his team mates are lads doing Brickwork apprenticeships, yacht building BTEC and art A Level
none of the other lads has had the faintest effect on the fact that he finds Further Maths easy.

One of the moans of employers is that kids are not resilient
well that is because push parents fight tooth and nail (but not in this county) so send their kids to schools that preclude resilience

There is no surprise that kids at grammar schools do better, that's why we try and get them into grammar schools. How successful are the former old grammar schools that have since become comps?