Why not make grammar entry fairer?

[belladonna22]

My kids are still young so I have no direct experience with entry exams for grammar schools, but why is it that the exams seem to cover topics that children haven’t yet covered in most state schools?

If their (stated) purpose is to enable the best and brightest to attend, why do they make it more or less essential to obtain private tutoring, thus tilting the scales in favour of better resourced and informed families? If Labour were serious about improving access to education, wouldn’t one policy be for grammars to limit exams to topics most children will be familiar with at that point in their schooling?

How many children in their catchment don't take the exam? I'll bet over 10,000. It's high handed to say that the state should sponsor an unequal system because the small percentage of parents who think they are disproportionately likely to benefit want it.

They don't.

The exams consist of verbal and non-verbal reasoning, a lot like an IQ test, and English and maths which the average Y6 class would have covered.

Tutoring doesn't make that much difference imo.

If I was in charge it would be....
Key Stage 3 (Years 7-9) known as Lower Secondary and could be individual schools or on a campus of a bigger complex.
They would be comprehensive and everyone just goes to the local one.
They would have subject settings so the really smart ones could essentially be top set for everything so like being in a grammar school. But you could also have the maths genius in top set maths but lower sets for everything else that they are just average at.
Then Key Stage 4/5 (Years 10 - 13) known as Upper Secondary.
Divided into -
Academic Schools (aka Grammar)
Technical and Vocational Schools
Visual and Performing Arts Schools
Sports Schools
General Education Schools (aka comprehensive)
These schools could be stand alone schools (in cities/large towns) or on a combined campus (in smaller towns).
Regardless of school everyone does GCSE Maths and English Language and does non exam PE and PHSE/RS.
There....sorted.

If their (stated) purpose is to enable the best and brightest to attend, why do they make it more or less essential to obtain private tutoring, thus tilting the scales in favour of better resourced and informed families?

Because that is not their purpose.

The original purpose was to find enough working class children so that they could become middle management when they became adults.

Now they are all about middle class families keeping their little darlings away from the council house kids.

This is a really excellent point, and it highlights the main problem with grammars.

Imagine if entry to top sporting academies and music schools and performing arts etc was set entirely on the basis of a test at age 10. One test, and you’re in the top academy for your thing until you’re 18. Everyone who didn’t pass that test is in the comprehensive school.

How well do you think that test age 10 would accurately select really the best and brightest in these specialist areas? How many kids would be missed? I’d guess this test would nearly always get a sliver of total genius super skilled kids. And then there’s loads of “very talented, fairly talented” who are all going to be jumbled up and some will pass and some won’t.

People supporting grammars likely think that basically, they do pick the best kids and so therefore it’s worth it. But if we applied this thinking to other areas like sport or drama or music, it seems pretty clear that it would be flawed in a lot of places.

Supporting better comprehensive education for all, with true movement between sets, feels like a much better goal.

@Needmorelego A sort of tripartite education system with specialist schools for art and sport? We had the firmer! We don’t need the latter. The comprehensive for everyone in your suggestion is not. They are secondaries with nearly everyone else removed!

It was such a shame the Technical Schools of the tri-partite system never really succeeded.
You're right - my "comprehensive" school would essentially be seen as "the left overs" 🙁
I admit my idea is not perfect 🙂
Edit : Basically having specialist schools or streams is often a good idea but the age they start should be at 14. In my humble opinion 🙂

This!!

if everyone thinks it’s unfair for bright children to learn alongside other bright children (and often away from the disruptive ones) then we should be be against children being put into sets at secondary school. It’s in everyone’s best interest to have lessons tailored to ability

LESSONS tailored to ability IN EACH SUBJECT within the same institution - absolutely.

Better specialist and well-funded institutions for those with behavioural difficulties-absolutely.

Separate institutions for an imperfectly selected group from amongst the more able - no.

But I don’t think that’s unfair. I think selection at 10 is.

I went to one of your utopian comprehensive schools where there was no Grammar schools and it was a dreadfulthe kids who did not want to go on to higher education took all the time and resources - why take away the few good schools there are and make them awful Comprehensives just because you think eveyone should be pulled down to the worst level.

Yet to see a post mentioning talent and neuro diversity. There's lots at play. I have a child who is severely dyslexia and ADHD but also gifted. They were in private school but we can no longer afford it. That's ok, we couldn't predict inflation and vat. Their school now is amazing and I'm really pleased. But we live in a grammar school area. No way will they get in, it's super selective and accepts from any postcode. 0.3% ND at last count. But without tutoring they won't achieve their potential either. They are lucky to have parents who invest but the worry is never ending and god knows the amazing brains we are missing by having no good investment in education.

They take the test at the start of Y6, so no many will have not covered that part of the curriculum.

If tutoring doesn't work, then there are a lot of educated middle-class families wasting their money.

Yes, I think there are a lot of families wasting money on tuition.

The vast majority of children who pass always would have passed.

Not all parents want their kids in grammar schools. Round here, the grammars are so selective/competitive that they are dominated by very earnest young people (or students with parents who are very ambitious for them). There is a focus on top grades in the most serious subjects - nothing else matters much. Those who can afford it are happier to go private, where there is a more rounded education eg focus on sport.

I would be completely on board with selection and choice of streams at 16, for A levels or equivalent.

In many areas, this effectively exists already- some schools have academic 6th forms which expand their cohort size for Y12/13. There are FE colleges offering more vocational routes including apprenticeships. Specialist providers of eg dance; music; sport often have a sizeable 16+ entry point. In large centres there may be some specialist provision such as Maths / STEM sixth forms.

This should be combined with universal provision of Functional Skills Maths & English GCSEs and some viable vocational qualifications for KS4.

@cantkeepawayforever the problem I have with your argument is that you are strictly talking grades. My view is parents want grammars for the perceived lack of antisocial behavior and cohort of students.
grades are not the be all end all,
The social aspect isn’t measured in the studies.

My reply is to question why only able students deserve to avoid the antisocial behaviour and disruption to studies?

Much better to provide good - and swiftly available - provision for those who disrupt (often because the curriculum does not meet their needs and their life circumstances and particular needs make it hard to conform to ‘standard’ school expectations) and then allow all others of all abilities to study uninterrupted.

I would also argue that very few - if any - of the top set of true comprehensives miss ‘like ability / like minded’ peer groups. I would quite agree, though, that high middle / high ability pupils who for whatever reason ended up in secondary moderns as a result of an exam taken when they were 10 are - as I have said before - significantly disadvantaged by the presence of grammars.

@cantkeepawayforever 16 is too late for many teens unfortunately.

I have said before that I would support a ‘special school’ model of education for the genuinely tiny number of students of such high ability that they cannot efficiently be educated with their peers in mainstream school.

It is likely that, as with some other forms of special need, the best structure would be co-location with a true comprehensive mainstream school. This in subjects where their ability was within the norm, they could have lessons with their age peers, and the unit would not necessarily need to offer the full curriculum, as it would depend on where the extreme abilities of their pupils lay.

Assignment to such schools would be via the usual EHCP processes, Ed Psych reports etc and could occur at any age 11-16. Transport to regional hubs via usual special school transport. Staff could also train staff in other schools and potentially provide outreach or ‘inreach’ sessional provision for children with less extreme needs.

”why only able students deserve to avoid the antisocial behaviour and disruption to studies?”
Because it’s the parents who apply and navigate the system.
Parents do this because the government has failed to.

The people who talk about “bringing everyone down to the same level” and phrases like that- can you explain why GCSE results (of course not a perfect measure, but a reasonably objective one) are not significantly better in selective LEAs than Comprehensive ones?

How is that fair or beneficial - at a societal level? Those most privileged, being both able AND having parents rich and able enough to help them navigate the 11+ (through private primaries; coaching; ‘just a month or two of familiarisation’ with an educated and available parent) can gain a further benefit, leaving equally able but less privileged children in schools where challenging fellow pupils are present in disproportionate numbers. Attainment of the less privileged is further depressed in order for the more privileged to be further advantaged … in an age where a highly educated population is vital. Hmmm.

I completely agree that the government should be doing much more to cater for the disadvantaged and potentially disruptive students; those with SEN and those who need a curriculum other than Gove’s 1959s throwback. But that should not involve creating or maintaining a life-raft for ‘the already lucky few’