Grammar schools

[Var123]

I heard this on the radio this morning. Was very interesting to us parents of G&T children, I thought.
talkradio.co.uk/news/julia-tears-mp-neil-carmichael-opposing-grammar-schools-while-sending-his-children-one

"State primaries should stop pretending no one prepares for 11+ and start teaching children, who want to give it a go, to pass." What would they have to stop doing to do that? And anyway, the ones who are being turored will still be tutored- they'll just get some extra at school!

I think a lottery would be be pretty chaotic in most places, and dreadful for children in rural areas. Maybe a regular review of catchment areas every five or ten years to try and create economically balanced catchments might work.

Where I live, the comprehensive system works well, with 90% of secondary places being at schools which I would be happy for my children to attend. The 10% black spot is in an area where there is outstanding school which selects by religion in the middle of an area with a reasonably high level of deprivation, so many of the parents who care deeply about their children's education find religion and the rest have to send their children to the school in special measures. So I strongly suspect that in my local authority, all children would get a good education if schools couldn't select by religion. Having said that, the not-Catholic school in the very middle class area is now improving at a great rate now that the outstanding Catholic school nearby is full of the children of Catholic immigrants, and all the rest of the locals have to use the formerly less prestigious school.

"Why do you think they are generally better (in terms of academic results) than comps?"
They are only better if they are oversubscribed. Any school which selects, regardless of the selection criteria will do better in terms of results than one that doesn't-simply because they get a higher % of actively involved, aware families.

Religious schools generally do better if they've got religious entry requirements that mean parents have to make an effort to get their kids in.

Any secondary that selects on parental effort will generally do better than a school that doesn't.

If a dc was exceptional musical talent, is there anything wrong with selecting a school that will allow this to flourish? If one of my DC was amazing singer, song writer and could play guitar would there be anything wrong with looking at the brit school?

I was saying that we either accept selection or we do not. If we do not, I cannot see an argument for being selective about which types selection we will rule out. A child who fails to get into the Brit School will feel it as just as much a failure as one not getting into grammar.

Any school which selects, regardless of the selection criteria will do better

Any secondary that selects on parental effort will generally do better than a school that doesn't.

I went to a state comp but DC will be going to a religious school. The alternatives around here are really bad. I agree with the above, it has really opened my eyes to the effort that many parents will go to, to get their DC into a good school.

Our local secondary school requires 10 years of weekly attendance to get in. It has 90% for 5 good GCSEs compared to 33% of the nearest (4/5 minute walk away) comp school.

Whatever the system is the same parents will do anything they can to get their kids into the best schools, therefore increasing the polarisation. The only "outstanding" non religious state primary near us has house prices in the catchment area that are inflated by hundreds of thousands.

The thing is, schools that parents do anything to get their kids into will become the best schools, regardless of how they started.

Schools that parents will do anything to avoid will get worse.

Rhyader- it's important to look deeper than results. 33% could well, of course, mean that it's a crap school. It could also mean that it has no high ability children and an overwhelming number of disadvantaged children and be doing pretty well by them in other ways.............

Totally agree noble, the thing is, do we want the selection to be based on religion, house prices or a score in a test.

It's worth pointing out that leaks coming from the DoE at the moment are suggesting that the new grammars should cater for 10% of kids, and a comp school that caters for 90% of academic ability is not going to be as crushing to the futures of the kids who go there as the grammar schools we used to know... In the 60s it was around 25%.

Bertrand The school has other problems... Stabbings, even a fatal shooting last year! It undeniably has more disadvantaged children but being able to explain away why a school doesn't perform well academically does not really make parents want to send their DC there any more than if it was a mystery...

Just to clarify, the shooting was OFF school premises but involved students from the school.

On the other hand, selecting top 10% with any accuracy is extremely difficult at the age of 10. Top 10% selection is probably even more affected by socio-economic background than top third.

BTW in the 50s/60s there was the well known problem that girls did better at the 11+ but there were fewer places in grammars for them, so the pass mark for girls was set higher. Girls probably would still tend to outperform boys in 11+ due to maturity It would be interesting to see whether in practice desiring gender balance would again effectively enforce a higher pass mark for girls than for boys.

Selecting any top % of kids is difficult at 10, especially with a test on a single day. In Germany they have a system where the primary school suggest which school is best for each pupil, I'm not really sure how this works in detail though but it might be better than a single exam.

I don't think that there is any evidence for your claim that a smaller % would be more impacted by socio-economic background though... Any data to back that up? If anything you could argue the opposite, that kids who shouldn't really be there are being coached just over the 'pass mark'.

Surely it would make sense to have a equal split by gender? Especially if it's caused by something that is not the boys fault at all (their Y chromosome). You want to select based on academic potential not their ability at 10. For the same reason it makes sense to give summer born kids a slight boost I suppose.

People don't understand the difference between the best school and the best results.

My Dc are friends with kids who got into a local school that has a selective stream. Actually called 'super selective' as it has no distance criteria and people from miles around (at least 5 London boroughs) take the test, so presumably covers the 10% that would be taken into Neo-Tory-Grammars. The top sets at our comp are, by GCSE, doing as well as the kids in the selective stream. I know several boys who didn't get into the selective stream, but have got better GCSE's at the comp than those who passed the exam aged 10 or 11.

10 or 11 is just too soon to make the right choice of those who get a Golden Ticket. And it's pointless anyway - my friends children prove that teaching in sets in a good comp gets equally good results.

As for selection for the BRIT school - BRIT school is essentially an extreme vocational training - more like going to the Royal Ballet School. It selects on things outside the curriculum. Not on the same subjects and exam pathways that both grammars and comps are pursuing. They have to include those, but the basis of selection is beyond curriculum demands, And the BRIT school does not take children for Yr 7. They have to be already highly accomplished in an artform, not just showing potential, like a 10 year old in literacy or science.

Germany's school system was condemned by the United Nations for perpetuating social inequity, there have been calls to scrap selection there for decades.

"In Germany they have a system where the primary school suggest which school is best for each pupil, I'm not really sure how this works in detail though but it might be better than a single exam."

That sounds like a recipe for prejudice, families following patterns, etc etc.

The whole point is that in a comprehensive system there is no NEED for these intricate contortions to get around the various pitfalls and unfairnesses of selection. Late developer? Gets into top sets in Yr 8. Tutored and hot-housed at 10? Levels out by Yr 19, and doesn't occupy a place by a late developer acing up in the inside.

My DC's comp doesn't have overall high averages (except its FSM %) but the top sets do excellently, and the Inclusion classes get a really good education and fulfil their potential.

My Dc with a string of A and A at GCSE was not 'brought down' by the middle attainers and slower learners whose (good) education and results bring down the overall A-C average.

And we are not in a posh area, not by a long chalk.

I don't think comprehensives are the answer for many folks either. The comprehensive model failed for a number of people including myself. There are some comprehensives where aspirations are so low that even just turning up to school is considered an achievement. Great if you live near a decent one but not great if you live near a shite one . Ultimately we have a society problem which runs much deeper and beyond the scope of what a school can resolve.

"There are some comprehensives where aspirations are so low that even just turning up to school is considered an achievement"

Which ones are those, please?

BertrandRussell; Loads in inner-city London;
Hackney Downs boys comprehensive! Oh no, actually that was closed down, demolished and replaced by Mossbourne, Wilshaw's school!
Stockwell Park! No, no, that is now Platanos College doing very well indeed in a totally challenging area,
Kidbrooke? That must surely still be shit and dangerous. Except it really isn't...

Every comp that I remember as being no go zones with no aspirations is now performing really well,

My son was excluded from his secondary modern which was almost a comprehensive.He went to a grammar on a managed move. We support the comprehensive system and chose to live where we did because it was not in the lea that had grammars- although of course the students are shipped over the border into the grammar which is why our children attend a secondary modern which is almost a comprehensive.

I loathe the grammar system and our experience of it - both as a teacher and a parent - has confirmed that. We aren't hypocrites - just unlucky. All of our other children who had a genuine choice escaped the grammar.

Sorry Bertrand I'm not going to name and shame. My lodger is an English teacher at our local boys comp and she tells me that aspirations are low and there are whole periods where all she is doing is crowd and behaviour control and no one on her class is learning anything. I'm not saying that Comps are bad. I'm saying that we have a society problem that no matter what system it is, some kids just don't want to learn and have no interest in being at school and they upset the class for everyone else. I don't have the answers here and I'm unable to suggest a solution that is meaningful and that works - other than exclusion.

I teach near one..... some of the worse results in the country for varying reasons. Teaching in some tough comps are no picnic.

Ok, so the low achieving , low aspirational, badly behaved boys: how is it that they will behave better if the school they are in is a secjndsry modern instead of a comp?

And if high achieving, high ability kids are in top sets won't they be protected from these kids? (Disclaimer: I realise bad behaviour can and does happen amongst all abilities, but you are talking about those who don't want to learn and are therefore unlikely to be in top sets, however bright)

So: how will secondary moderns automatically help these 'bad comp kods'?

They won't we just manage both and have different strategies or 'teams' to deal With them.

Wannabee, I have interaction with a range of schools as a visiting service, and as such think that often the the kids who are served best by seperation into a different schools are those in units such as PRUs. I see kids getting the support they need in a smaller, less formal environment, some get brilliant interventions from drama groups etc, and discover that they can enjoy learning. Not always, Of course.....

Our comp manages totally different needs very well, and has an intake which includes gang members and Oxbridge applicants.

"Sorry Bertrand I'm not going to name and shame"
I guessed that you wouldn't.