Research about grammar intake..

[seeker]

Someone told me that the had been some research recently about the "quality" - for want of a better word- of children starting grammar school declining, indicating an increase in coaching to the test of less suitable candidates. But she couldn't remember where she hqd seen it. Any ideas?

I thought that rang a bell!

There was some research done I think by David Jesson at York University - it was surrounding social mobilty and middle class parents buying their way into grammar schools by coaching kids in the 11+ for those coming from prep schools (becuase they dont have the pressure to sit KS2 SAT's) when the brighter (not sure what measure was being used here) kids were coming from the state schools. If I recall correctly his conclusion was that the middle classes becuase of the economy were concentrating on the grammar school places rather than the private secondary places they would once have taken - in many grammars 25% of their intake comes from private preps (with a very low proportion of free school meals).

So the general gist if I have remembered it correctly is that the quality of intake measured on KS2 sats (on entry) is dropping but the number of middle class kids on entry is rising.

Social justice and segregation is more my thing - so sorry for the long winded post!

Thank you. I've been banging on about this for ages. It seems obvious to me that this is happening, but the supporters of grammar schools persist in using social mobility as their key argument (publicly at least!). I was really excited to think there was some proper research to support my observations.

We recently had a flyer through the door offering tuition for children going to grammar school to be tutored in Y7/Y8 curriculum maths, english and science. I can't help but think that this is aimed at the parents who have endlessly prepared otherwise average children for the 11+ and could reasonably expect that they will struggle when they get to the grammar.

My own eyes tell me it is verily so.

There is a significant amount of research to show that the English school system is socially (i.e. class) segregated and therefore not socially mobile and some really great naturalistic studies following kids over time - just coming out now (internationally).The English system is intensely complicated but socially mobile it is not!

Well, they still have to pass the tests. Mine are on FSM so no tutoring or coaching, the only stuff we found online was attainment tests. Temperamentally some aren't suited to cramming anyway. There is not a single child in DC's grammar who is anywhere near 'average' ability, unlike in top selective independents. We are talking at worse 85th centile ability, and yes, some are stuggling to learn independently, but not intellectually. Yes if life were more fair, perhaps only 90th+ centiles should have gained places, but for the likes of us, life is not expected to be fair. At least we have a chance, even if the bar is higher.

Super selective grammars may be stuffed full of tutored kids, but that's true of most independents too. Difference is the grammar doesn't allow the Bursar to indulge his sado-leanings, so that's a big advantage. IOE even the tutored super-selective grammar kids are sharper than top public school boys, though not appreciably smarter than the top band of some hyper selective comps.

IMHO grammars contribute far far more to social mobility than do independent bursaries, but not as much as the few dozen really top comps in the country. There are an awful more grammars than these very special comps. So those of us who can do maths despite not knowing what a tutor looks like, are grateful for any good state school, and thank all who do not reduce what little we have access to, just because their child did not get in.

The very fact that grammar schools have 2% FSM proves the point though- and you only have to look at the class lists at my dd's grammar school to know that it is almost exclusively middle class- all those flicky haired Emmas and Charlottes and Annas!

schoolhelp I can see how well your DC's are doing in the grammar system and that is fantastic.

I think the problem is that the systems are biased towards the middle classes therefore the middle class children (and their parents get in) therefore the system becomes more and more socially segregated. For example there is research which shows that kids who can pass the tests cannot actually take up a place at the schools becuase the parents cannot afford the uniforms - so the system is infinately more complicated than it seems.

I am an old fashioned leftie and would like to see a system where a good local school exists in every local catchment area and is open to every child regardless of their background (or their parents) and you dont need to have any strategies to get into it - you have earned your place simply by being a child!

But then again I can dream - anyway I live in an area where we did away with grammar's years ago

Hullygully ITA!

It's a difficult debate really. I attended a state grammar school in the 90s, my dad is a bus driver, my mum a healthcare assistant. I now have a PhD in chemistry and I have no doubt that is because I went to a really good school. I remember not being able to afford the blazer for school in first year but the school gave me one and we then bought second hand. That said when I started teaching I turned down a job at a girls grammar school because I disliked how middle class it was. I could see how many tutored middle class kids there were there and I was concerned that the posh uniform would put many kids like me off from going there. In an ideal world there would be a good school in every area however we all know that is a utopian dream especally in urban areas. In some ways I think academic selection is better than selection by religion which is basically selecting only supportive parents..... Starting going to church when your kid is 3 in order to get the requisite church points mostly selects the middle classes as well. In my world there would be a couple of good academic schools and a couple of good vocational schools (proper vocational schools with standadr curriculum alongside a high quality vocational curriculum) in each urban area alongside a few other schools. And I wouldn't let kids who had been to private prep into the academic schools unless the parents could prove real hardship as a reason why they couldn't continue to fund a private education...

AH well I can dream!

At least my dd"s grammar doesn't have the expensive uniform. But it is an almost exclusively middle class school in all other respects.

It is no use comparing grammars how they were (and they weren't ever the wonderful mechanism of social mobility they were though to be, even in the golden age) with how they are now.

Do you mean middle income, rather than those who own their means of production? Because I'd say the parents of those I see attending DC's grammar have to work for a living, so doesn't that make them working class?

Our comp of choice has a lot more parents who own their means of production, but there are only a few talent-based places and then nothing is guaranteed unless you live within about 300 yards. The grammar is completely without catchment, and the parents far more working class than the comp. Uniform is a bore, but we managed with sale stuff at induction, with the creativity expected of anyone capable of gaining a place. At least three-quarters of the intake is not the Emma/Annabella/Cosima type you describe, perhaps they couldn't make it even with tutoring? Teaching is professional and pastoral care is fantastic, as is in the comp we missed getting into. The travel is a real drag, but the intellectual company miles better than the public school other DC attends.

If the economic dregs of society such as we do not complain about school choice, why should you presume to drag us out of our circumstances? People like us live with what we can make of our lives. It's often the middle income types who complain about what someone else has that they cannot get. We're fine with the social and community ghettos we inhabit, thank you.

As for banning higher income families, they also love their children, don't they? They also know you cannot choose academic ability at birth. They have to pass the exams. There is no correlation of note between economic standing and gracious behaviour. We apply for schools because we think we'll fit in. Being poorer than everyone else is neither here nor there, unless they're poo bottoms anyway. And nobody over the mental age of 14 is bothered by those.

I'd be far more convinced if catchments were completely removed from academically selective schools. That may reduce ghetto formation of the more economically agile. The demand for tutoring must be good for the country, surely, with everything else being rationed?

No, I mean middle class. Nothing to do with income, more to do with privilege and entitlement.

Surely the 11 plus and SATs measure different things though? There shouldn't really be a good correlation between SATs results and 11 plus. A better comparison would be if CAT results and 11 plus results were markedly different.

I would suspect that SATs results are falling among middle class children because middle class parents are aware that SATs results actually make no difference to your child's future, so no longer bother preparing children for them. Alternatively, if you are preparing for the 11 plus, you have less time to prepare for the SATs. Also, if all these middle class kids are coming in from prep schools, surely prep schools don't sit the SATs anyway?

What do you define as working class and middle class? I think people have very different ideas of what makes someone middle class.

I agree that some research should be done regarding GS intakes, or if it has already been done it should be more publicised.

Grammar schools imo, should only be taking a small number from children from prep schools, but the problem with that is that state primary schools differ so much anyway. Some almost seem like private schools because of the amount of funding the PTA provide, but with the benefits of being state.

seeker, I think we have better things to dwell on than what poo bottoms think. They have to send their kids somewhere, looks like you're unlucky to get a concentration of them in DD's cohort. At ours, we just stay away from them, and that helps a lot of chameleons swing over to behaving reasonably.

Milly, coming from the lower classes, I can only say that me and my mates sussed out long ago that SATs were to help the school ratings. That state schools award places independently of Headteacher's threats and logical inconsistencies. That the very best independents are likely to work out where Head is coming from. We even had the Head advising us against SPGS because hers couldn't... but never suspected we'd prefer state anyway, just that even people like us need fall-backs. Just because it's easier to keep quiet doesn't always mean we can't see. God didn't fuse economic and social awareness in the same gene. We also suspect that those of us with social issues may be less able to sweep them under the carpet [there not being one] than some better-heeled families.

We didn't know about tutoring for our first one. After our first, we never worry about tutoring. They settle like water into their levels. If not by 13 then by 16 or 20. Forcing results gets almost impossible by 20. So please don't attack academic selection on our behalf, it's really not our war. It 'd be fairer without catchments, but frankly we're not used to waiting for fairness.

Anyway, must be off now to clean today's homes. To all my "ladies", please get the right money ready, or I shall have to wait while you drive to the cash dispenser to pay me for the work you're too fragile to do.

"seeker, I think we have better things to dwell on than what poo bottoms think. They have to send their kids somewhere, looks like you're unlucky to get a concentration of them in DD's cohort. At ours, we just stay away from them, and that helps a lot of chameleons swing over to behaving reasonably."

Deeply puzzled by this! Did I say anything about people not behaving reasonably?

Ah seeker, you think a sense of "privilege and entitlement" is entirely reasonable behaviour!

So if you don't have to help we poorer classes and think everyone in DD's school is reasonable, what's the problem?

Hey ho, it's off to work I go.

Have you ever read anything I've actually posted???

What I'm saying is that grammar schools which are supposed to be a mechanism for social mobility are actually not, and are becoming even less so because the process is being hijacked by the middle classes. Not by some sort of Hooray Henry class, but by middle class children. And I didn't say sense of privilege,I said privilege. By that I don't mean homes and seats in the House of Lords, I meant a house that isn't overcrowded, enough money for good food, no need to worry about paying for swimming lessons, parents with the time and energy to spare from the daily grind to talk and listen, parents with the education to support and help...all that sort of stuff. Which too many children don't get.

Oh, and for the record "So if you don't have to help we poorer classes and think everyone in DD's school is reasonable, what's the problem?" is probably the most offensive thing anyone has ever said to me on Mumsnet.

Surely grammar school places should be available to all academically able pupils regardless what primary education they received? My very bright, extremely hardworking DD is currently in a non-selective prep school. She is there because at age 3 the local nursery attached to the primary school offered only 2 hours in the afternoon, so I decided to send her to the nursery of the prep school. When she came to reception age she was settled and happy so I didn't want to move her.

She has now sat 11+ exams and did extremely well. I bought papers online and tutored her myself as the prep school prepares for independent schools (Disclaimer - I am not a teacher). The tests for private schools are considerably different to the grammar school tests.

So my question is, why shouldn't my bright DD who I feel a grammar school is the right place for her not be "entitled" to a grammar school because she was tought in a prep school so far?

seeker, don't worry about it, judging by (her?) posts schoolhelp is a little out of touch with reality.

"poo bottoms"???? How many people use that phrase after the age of 5?

In our area there is a pass Mark for the grammar school and more kids pass than there are places. The places are then allocated on a nearest distance to the school basis.

There are middle class families from some distance away who rent a cheap terrace house near the school, don't live there and get in. Now forgetting for a minute how wrong this is, Obviously a less affluent family couldn't afford to do it.

And yes then there is the coaching side of it.

schoolhelp WTactualF are you on about?

goldie part of me feels that your dd should be entitled to a GS place the same as anyone else, you pay your taxes after all. But if your dd has been at a prep school, she has had an advantage over children that have been to not particularly good state schools.

If only a small percentage of places were offered to prep school children, and the vast majority went to state school children, then it would go some way to making sure that only the very brightest children from the prep schools got a place at GS, rather than the ones who were lucky enough to have the right preparation to do well in the test. There would also be more places available for very bright children who didn't have good preparation, but do have the intelligence. There is never going to be a completely perfect way when it comes to selection on the basis of 1-3 tests held on one day.

Seeker, I don't think that not living in overcrowded conditions and being able to afford one out of school activity means you are privelidged. Many families live like that and get benefots in teh form of tax credits. 'Middle class' can cover a huge range of children and for many, they have a long way to go before they can be considered to be privelidged. They have as much right to go to grammar schools as working class children or children whose families are on benefits.

You talk about children whose parents have the education to help them, but it doesn't take education to help children achieve their potential. It takes love and commitment to your children's welfare, that's all. It's not the fault of GS's that they have a low intake of children on FSM's. That's the fault of the parents that use FSM's. There is no real reason why they can fill in an application form and download a couple of free 11+ practice papers in the same way the rest of us do. Motivated parents will do that if they care enough whether they are poor or rich. The grammar schools are still state schools, they cannot be expected to go in to run down areas where there is high deprivation and work out the brightest children just because their parents can't be bothered to parent properly.

Viva, that could be solved if more areas were covered by good grammar schools. I think every child should have access to a grammar school, but most of the country doesn't seem to have them.

So grammar schools should only be a step out of disadvantage for children who have committed and motivated parents who are literate, have access to the internet and understand how the system works?