The Politics of Grammar Schools

[GiftedPhoenix]

I thought some mumsnet readers would be interested in my latest post, which is about grammar schools, especially their record in admitting high-attaining children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

giftedphoenix.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-politics-of-selection-grammar-schools-and-disadvantage/

The selection issue has been bubbling away in the media and this looks set to continue next week, as the Conservatives come under increased pressure from within their own party to include a commitment to new grammar schools in the Tory Election manifesto.

I wanted to explore what progress our remaining 163 grammar schools are making towards 'fair access', so providing a benchmark against which to judge political claims that they might be engines of social mobility. I'm not concerned with research on their historical record in this respect, but with evidence of recent reform.

"What makes you think that a grammar school is right for evey bright child?"

Well, if you are in awholly selective area, then a grammar school is probably better than the available alternatives for a bright child. Owing to that being where most of the other bright kids are.

Nicely circular, innit?

There is selection anyway, either within the school (sets) or with different schools (private selective or grammars).

I would not like to see grammars introduced in Hampshire, as there are many good comps, and I like the idea that a child (including my own) can start of a bit lower (esp. boys often do), and the gain momentum later on. It's nice if they are in an environment that does not put a ceiling on their achievements.

Saying that, some comps work with very rigid sets, rigid targets and predicted grades, so you can be "stuck" in a low set, with low expectations.

The problem with the comprehensive system is that not all comprehensives are good in this respect.

As schools vary so hugely, it is hard to generalise.

I'd think I'd favour a comp system which allows for movement between sets, and for sets not to be all linked (in some comps if you are bad at English, you get in bottom set for all humanities and languages).

I was lucky enough to find one like this.

But some people prefer rigid sets (usually parents of top setters). So they should have that choice.

I am grateful we don't have a grammar school here to fuck up the system (as the remaining schools would be "second best" by default), but I guess I don't oppose them. If that's what people want, give it to them.

I did not say for "every"bright child, there are always exceptions but certainly a grammar school is the right choice for the majority of bright children.

Evil Twins. I presume you are saying that a grammar school may not be the right environment for bright Autistic or those with SEN.

There is currently a debate going on in Autistic circles that bright Autistic children would be better suited in a grammar school setting. Simon Langton Boys Grammar in Canterbury is one of the few grammar schools that has a specialist unit and is proving that case well.

What if I want my children to mix with a range of other children rather than just other clever kids?

What if I want my kids to realise that they have to have the social skills to work alongside a whole range of other children and that the word is not compartmentalised into "clever" and "not clever"

What if I want my kids to be educated in a place that represents real life?

EvilTwins, yes

Grammar school would not be right for my bright DS2, I don't think. School say he is bright enough for scholarship to selective private school. But I don't fancy it.

He is very (too?) sensitive and does not deal well with pressure. He works too hard as it is (perfectionist homework) and I would not want him in a hothouse environment, be it private or state.

I think he might be happier in a comp.

Some kids don't do well in high pressure environments, witness all the threads about self harming and stressed out kids. I know too many children with mental health issues in that sort of selective school (lots of my friends' kids) to risk it. They all say "it's a brilliant school! really great! ...sadly X now has burn out/sleepless nights/needs daily meditating to stop him freaking out/cries every day/self harms etc. etc."

No thanks.

What if I want my children to mix with a range of other children rather than just other clever kids?

What if I want my kids to realise that they have to have the social skills to work alongside a whole range of other children and that the word is not compartmentalised into "clever" and "not clever"

What if I want my kids to be educated in a place that represents real life?

My child is at grammar and has good social skills, and mixes freely with anyone. They are not robots at grammar school you know.

No, I'm saying that grammar schools are not right for every bright child, regardless of SEN. My children are bright, have no SEN but will not be going to grammar school.

Then Evil you're free to choose such a school.

But why stop others making the choice as to what is most appropriate for their children? Why do you get to decide what they do?

There are grammar schools without catchments, that have a negligible effect on the other schools in the vicinity. Most parents do not want their DC to go there and do not apply!

Why shouldn't those schools remain. The results are usually excellent. The pupils are happy. The parents are happy.

The only thing that needs to happen here IMVHO is the introduction of contextualised places.

I have also stated that I am neither Pro or Anti selection. I would just want the best school or most appropriate one available.

If grammar schools caused no "perceived" damage to the education of those who did not pass they would be "universally" liked because on the whole they achieve academically. It is important to remember this because the majority of the 163 grammar schools are doing what they set out to do, send their pupils to University and in to careers. The debate should be how we can improve other schools and help them offer appropriate educations to their pupils, not about the "toxic" nature of grammar schools.

What are contextualised places

Contextualised places take into account an applicant's background.

So lower scores are accepted from disadvantaged applicants. We use them at universities.

"I did not say for "every"bright child, there are always exceptions but certainly a grammar school is the right choice for the majority of bright children."

Two points in response to this. First. It's a shame, then, that unfortunately, it's generally only bright middle class children that get to the grammar school. Second, there is not evidence to suggest that a grammar school is a better place for a bright child to be than the top set of a comprehensive school.

Just to say, I am still undecided about super selectives. I understand that they have little impact on surrounding schools. However I am still not completely convinced that they are the best place for the children concerned. But the parents on here tell me that they are, so I must now to their superior knowledge. I am not sure that I would want that for a child of mine. But I might think differently if I had a child of the academic ability to get into one. My children, while on the clever side, are on the bit of the bell curve that would be perfectly well served in a comprehensive school.

Hak that's not strictly true.

LEAS with selective schools in them have a much higher rate of DC gaining places at Oxbridge and RG universities.

Fully comprehensive LEAs with little leakage to neighbouring GS schools don't do as well with their brightest (though do well with their middle ability students).

It makes sense. Targeted resources and all that.

Now there's an argument to be had that this doesn't matter. That it's more important to be fair. But that's different from saying that selective education has no effect upon the educational outcomes of the highly able.

Even parents of DC who could gain a place at non-catchment grammars don't all fancy it.

My own DD wanted mixed ability at 11 (albeit private). I went with it. DS wanted super selective and I went with that.

I'm really really glad I had a choice. I'd just like that choice to be extended to kids who aren't rich.

Hakluyt -

Two points in response to this.

First. It's a shame, then, that unfortunately, it's generally only bright middle class children that get to the grammar school.
Well, what is wring with being middle class. We work hard, are taxed to the hilt, have little disposable income and cannot all afford private school. We have ambitions for ourselves and our families. I want my children to do better than my partner and I. Grammar Schools are the only free way to get a surefire quality education.

Second, there is not evidence to suggest that a grammar school is a better place for a bright child to be than the top set of a comprehensive school.
It is a given for those who wish to go to grammar school that children will be stretched there. I am sure that the top sets in comprehensives stretch too - but its not always that apparent which ones do, and which ones don't. Regardless of whether the evidence is substantial or anecdotal, there is an expectation that cohorts in a grammar will be stretch in both breadth and depth. Or else, we would never bother sending ours kids there.

First paragraph, first line - meant to say wrong.

Second paragraph, second line - meant to say it's.

Second paragraph, third line - meant to say stretched.

Truly not sorry, Hakluyt.

Well, what is wring with being middle class Absolutely nothing. Unless we start to think that it makes us better or more deserving than others.

We work hard, are taxed to the hilt, have little disposable income and cannot all afford private school

Applies to the vast majority of the the working classes too. Probably rather more so.

But as I said, Portico, you are one of the few honest grammar school supporters. You say what others are too mealy mouthed to say.

I stumbled into grammar schools 8 years ago. My wife sister mentioned she was looking prepare her daughter for grammar school. That piqued my interest, in a big way. Up until that point I had thought that all grammar schools had be converted to comprehensives. To cut a long story short I decided that my children would be given an opportunity to get into grammar school. The emphasis there is on hard work and merit.

The reason why the middle class can game their way in is because there are so few schools and places left that they have to spend heavily on tutors and other enrichment activities. I have spent a small fortune on books from around the world in this endeavour. It has worked with DC1, and with DC2 I have adapted the materials. I have donated all copies that are no longer needed to DC1's former state primary. I will do the same with my other books, regardless of DC2's outcomes.

It is hit and miss whether DC2 will get in. My options are the local comprehensive, with supplementary work at home, or a private school in the same town as the DC1's grammar school.

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

What does that mean, Portico? I don't understand.

But some people prefer rigid sets (usually parents of top setters). So they should have that choice.

Should they? Even if the existence of schools that take that approach actively disadvantages kids who aren't in the top set? I'm not so sure.

wordfactory
I'm really really glad I had a choice. I'd just like that choice to be extended to kids who aren't rich.
I would agree with you
if I had the slightest faith that the entrance tests for State selective schools
were on the kids rather than the parents in the god choices
could not be gamed by tutoring by the rich

Until then I will support a choice of inclusive comps.

"Grammar Schools are the only free way to get a surefire quality education."

• sorry but I think this is incorrect!

My DDs are now 16 and 17. When we were choosing secondary schools, part of me wished we lived in a grammar school area (a few do go to grammar schools in an adjacent county but long bus rides). After being on MN for the last year or so, I am so glad we are not in a grammar school area! My DCs did not need to be tutored to do 11+. We are very fortunate that our nearest secondary school is very good. My DDs have thrived there. They have been put into sets for various subjects over the years. There is lots of movement between the sets. Those not in set 1 (2 of each set) are given extra help - the lower the set, the smaller the class etc. The school doesn't just target the academic children - there are links with local firms to look at apprenticeships; links with local college to do vocational subjects at 14+ etc. There are lots of clubs - sport, dance, yoga, music, art, chess, knitting, gardening, environmental, aspiring medics, STEM etc. What is needed is for all secondary comps to be excellent!

I wonder how many people on here, were educated in a 1980s Modern school in Kent like me (with undiagnosed learning difficulties).

Hakult. Why are you so down on modern schools, they are quite capable of educating a bright child to A grade GCSE level, provided they use strategies such as a individual learning plan. DD1 proved this by achieving ABB at A level from her modern school and getting in to her first choice University( whether she would have got 3As at a grammar school, we will never know). However, it does show that the perception that "modern"= bad is untrue and out of date.

"Hakult. Why are you so down on modern school"

I'm not.

I wonder if some of our state schools could copy some of the practices from the private sector. Always wondered this has never happened. Our private schools are lauded worldwide.