Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Please can someone answer this simple question about state selective schools?

434 replies

Hakluyt · 05/09/2014 13:06

If selection at 11 is such a good idea, why do wholly selective authorities not produce significantly better exam results than demographically similar wholly comprehensive authorities?

OP posts:
Hakluyt · 08/09/2014 20:11

You know,ni don't think the grammar school selection process has been corrupted. I think it was always middle class children who went. Yes, there are always anecdotes about plough boys and the son of the man who eats the dung (Blackadder reference) but actually I don't think it was much different. I don't actually have any evidence- but I bet that's the case.

OP posts:
TalkinPeace · 08/09/2014 21:34

A question ....
why do some of the people who support segregated scholing denigrate comprehensive schools as "one size fits all"

comps use seetting and broad curriculum and monitoring and testing
so that very, very few classes are in mixed ability, kids are able to specialise and excel in topics that the 11+ ignores

very few schools tolerate academic bullying if they can : the league table places are too financially valuable for that

FWIW my naice selective private gels school in london swept far more bullying and bad behaviour under the carpet than any of the comps that mine and my friends kids attend

grammar areas
three counties :
Bucks - has leaky borders all round,
Lincolnshire - has enough leaky borders and low population that it seems to work OK
Kent - has no borders on three sides and the further east you go the worse the grammar results and the further west you go the more insane the competition

in and around London, grammar schools are proxy private school for the sharp elbowed - the social mobility stats bear that out year on year

Hakluyt · 08/09/2014 21:41

I think it's because people genuinely don't know what "comprehensive" means.

OP posts:
TheLovelyBoots · 08/09/2014 21:46

What do you mean by that, Hakluyt?

PortofinoRevisited · 08/09/2014 22:15

No, working class children went to the Grammar School. 3 generations of my family reflect that. And DH's family too. There was always the worry about affording the uniform, let alone paying for tutoring and that shite. Many girls at my school were eligible for FSM. I would be interested to see how many are these days. I lived in an area that was quite affected by the miner's strike. There were a lot really struggling and getting food parcels from Russia.

smokepole · 08/09/2014 22:17

Talkinpeace. Trafford where I am moving next year ( despite DD2s swearing and bedroom door slamming). Is a selective area that selects up to 30% of students yet as 'modern' schools that achieve up to 85% A*-C Maths/English
with average grade for high ability students of B+. The grammar schools get up to 19 students to Oxbridge each year, even the 'modern' schools get students regularly in to Russell group Universities. People always talk about Kent/Bucks as selective areas that have not worked, why not talk about a selective area where it categorically works. The other reason we can say it works because Trafford has the full range of 'Socio economic' factors.

Stretford grammar ( who were disgracefully graded unsatisfactory in 2009) is possibly a 'working class' grammar, which according to many is not possible. I think people should check out Trafford, before they convince themselves that selective education only benefits the middle classes.

smokepole · 08/09/2014 22:18

Has Sorry....

MrsRuffdiamond · 08/09/2014 22:24

Working class children definitely went to grammar schools. My Dad was a building labourer, and I went to one.

The reason that bright working class kids were more likely to access grammar schools in my day was the comprehensive nature of the exam. It wasn't opt-in. The original 11+ was taken by every child in their own primary school. We had all had a couple of practice papers in the classroom during the preceding weeks, and tutoring was unheard of.

RabbitOfNegativeEuphoria · 08/09/2014 22:34

Hak that's really quite rude. Some of us went to comprehensives and have one or more children at comprehensives now. You did/have neither of those two things. And none of us is either illiterate or ignorant. We just happen to disagree with you for reasons which are no less valid than the reasons which support your own opinion.

smokepole · 08/09/2014 22:49

MrsRuffidiamond. I must have taken the 11+ in Kent, but I don't remember ( all I can remember is going to the 'High School'.) Does anyone know why the Kent and probably other tests become opt in rather than compulsory?. This of course must have had the effect that some families, seeing grammar schools has not for the 'likes of them'. so choose not to opt in to the test.

MillyMollyMama · 08/09/2014 23:19

If you lived in a semi rural area there were quite a few working class children at the grammar school. In the more commuter areas of the county, fewer children would be working class. My mother was truly working class and went to a grammar school. Many children in my year at school had parents with very ordinary jobs, road maintenance foreman, publican, shop worker, farm worker, and there were sons and daughters of solicitors, vets and doctors too.

One of the reasons why quite ordinary people, as defined by their jobs, had intelligent children was largely because they had been under-educated. Many parents had not had the chance to shine academically but were, nonetheless, intelligent. In the pre-war generation, when many of my friends' parents were born, there were grammar schools, but often the school teacher chose whether you went in for the 11+ or not. There is also plenty of evidence that some parents did not let their children attend the grammar school, even if they passed to go. This was often due to being seen as "getting above yourself" or because they could not afford the uniform. Even in 1966, this amounted to 3 weeks worth of my Dad's wages! My Mother and Father went to grammar schools. My mother and most of her friends were ordinary people and hardly any of them went on to university. Most had to leave at 16 and get a job to supplement the family income and this was far more likely to be the girls. My grandparents did not value my mother's intelligence and made her leave home and live in a nurses' hostel at 16, first as a nursing auxiliary and then as a trainee Nurse. She qualified in London during WW2. There is a ridiculous notion that the grammar schools were a universal passport to a brilliant career. They were for some, but definitely not for others.

It is clear there have always been middle class children at grammar schools, but where poorer parents valued education, maybe had under-achieved themselves, but had produced quite bright children, there was a chance of the grammar school for them. The secondary modern schools, however, were pretty bad and I can truly see the merits of comprehensive schools because so many children were failed in the secondary modern schools. Unless you are old enough to know what a truly awful secondary school was like, you will never understand why comprehensive schools were such a flagship policy for Labour in the 70's and, incidentally, were not changed back to grammar schools by MrsThatcher in the late 1970s. History lesson over!!!

MillyMollyMama · 08/09/2014 23:20

Bucks is not opt in - it is opt out, smokepole.

smokepole · 08/09/2014 23:57

Milly. My secondary Modern in Folkestone 85-90 was 'Bad' I was actually regarded as a bit of a 'Swot' for getting 4 D grades at GCSE. I am not joking.

The point is now that these schools in no way resemble what they were like in the 1970s or even the 1980s. There are still some 'bad' schools but progress is being made, even with them. In this thread or one of the other similar threads running parallel , I made a comment about Swan Valley community school saying how bad it was. The Ebbsfleet Academy as it is now has started to improve .I wish them luck in trying to turn round the school and give the pupils a decent education.

DaughterDilemma · 09/09/2014 00:18

Interesting, Molly, but I know a lot of people educated in comprehensives in the 70s including myself who had to get the education they wanted after they left at 18. I think it was mostly because they were pushed in the wrong direction or went through an unresolvable rebellious phase. Some of them may have had undiagnosed learning difficulties.

TheWordFactory · 09/09/2014 08:05

Peeing myself at the idea that if people support selective education it's because we don't 'understand' what comprehensive means Grin

It is a very big word after all Wink

Hakluyt · 09/09/2014 08:25

Word.

I was responding to the post immediately below where Talkin said "why do some of the people who support segregated scholing denigrate comprehensive schools as "one size fits all"

And somebody else down thread who said something like "it's not a comprehensive school if it has sets"

Many people do believe that "comprehensive " and "entirely mixed ability teaching" are synonyms. So they don't actually know what comprehensive means in an educational context.

OP posts:
TheWordFactory · 09/09/2014 08:41

Well the original idea for comprehensive education was that there would not be mixed ability teaching.

Streaming at a push.

And as we can see fr this thread (and any thread on setting) not all schools set even today.

As we can also see, there is plenty of support for mixed ability teaching. Am surprised to see you in that camp, given your party line that grammar schools are unnecessary because comps have top sets.

It seems to me that there is no globally accepted definition of comprehensive teaching. It has changed over the years and is interpreted by individual schools in different ways.

TheWordFactory · 09/09/2014 08:42

Sorry ... Would be mixed ability teaching.

LaVolcan · 09/09/2014 09:14

No, working class children went to the Grammar School

Statistically, you will find that the majority didn't.

To add to MillyMollyMama's post of last night - There is also plenty of evidence that some parents did not let their children attend the grammar school, even if they passed to go.
She could add that it was a case of only being able to afford to let one child go to the Grammar School, the boy would be favoured. My husband's aunt was denied her grammar school education on these grounds (and she would get married anyway! The war rescued her - it enabled her to get away from a restrictive background and move into a "man's job").

littledrummergirl · 10/09/2014 14:13

My dm was kicked out of school at 14- to be fair they did find her a job in a shop though Hmm

Dh and I both work in supermarkets at just over minimum wage, we both went to crap comps yet amazingly we can both read and write as can my dm.
We even Shock understand the difference between a grammar and a comp! Smile

LaVolcan · 10/09/2014 15:06

We even shock understand the difference between a grammar and a comp!

I didn't think that was a problem. It look me a long time to realise that posters who were in Grammar School areas were not talking about the same thing as I was when they talked of a Comprehensive.

Hakluyt · 10/09/2014 15:13

"We even understand the difference between a grammar and a comp! "

That's easy. Do you know the difference between a comprehensive and a secondary modern, thought? Grin

OP posts:
TalkinPeace · 10/09/2014 15:25

thewordfactory
Schools that do not set at all are in an extreme minority now.

Locally the only one that does not is so utterly leafy and MC (even by the standards of round here) that its nearly a grammar - so all upper sets.

What went on in the 1970's in comps is long gone.
People must not judge their personal experience with what children get today.

If nothing else the statistical information available means that schools where 17 of the 42 Upper 6th had to retake would be all over the Daily Heil rather than still charging high fees to naice families in London
and unable to sweep it under the carpet (I was one of the 17)

summerends · 10/09/2014 17:26

Talkin do you think your DD and her peers would have got better grades in a good grammar school? I understand that grades might not be top of your list but I wonder what you thought. Do you think your DD was taught to reach her full academic potential (whether you care about that aspect for her or not) ?

LaVolcan · 10/09/2014 17:30

I think when Comprehensives first came in, quite a lot of LEAs just changed the name of the school, but didn't really adjust the intakes greatly, and calling a Secondary Modern a Comprehensive didn't actually make it one. Over time catchments and intakes have been balanced out, and quite a lot of schools closed or amalgamated onto the one site, old staff retired, and now in Comprehensive areas they are genuinely such. And shock horror, the results show this. (E.g. think Cherwell in Oxford, which started out as a Sec Mod, although the North Oxford location definitely helps there.)

Yes it is possible for a Comprehensive child to get into medical school/Oxbridge/Russell Group universities, but nor does it hurt such children to know that the school is equally proud of the child who 50 years ago would have been written off, but has achieved a BTec in (say) childcare, and had the door opened to a worthwhile job.