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.

I completely agree with you Rabbit. My DTDs are 8 and both learn an instrument, sing in a choir and attend a youth theatre group. I would rather pay for that than for computer games etc. However, many of the parents of kids I teach are not choosing piano lessons over holidays, it's more a case of there simply not being that £7 (what it costs in my school) per week.

I have managed to secure money from the school to pay for my GCSE Performing Arts class to all have a weekly instrumental lesson, which I'm thrilled about as I think the benefits of learning to play go so much further than just learning to play, IYSWIM.

root I really don't think all that tutoring makes a difference.

I think parents who are doing it talk up its necessity to justify doing it. And also parents whose kids don't make the cut as it gives them something viable to be annoyed at.

For example, ten girls in DDs year took the 11plud entrance for a selective day school.

All private school. All professional parents. I could have told which ones would make the cut and it was most to do with tutoring!

I agree with Word,I think tutoring is hugely over inflated.

My dc did a few months before the exam of an hour a week during which they had to do Eng,maths,comp and VR ie 15 mins a week which is diddly squat.They were set homework which they needed the self discipline to complete. The work content was hard and I know several who struggled,did way more,who were at private schools and didn't get in.

I am a primary teacher but did the tutoring partly because me doing it wouldn't work,they weren't being pushed enough at school,I wanted them to develop self discipline and felt the curriculum covered would give them a good grounding wherever they went ie would have considered it for non 11+ purposes too and I liked the ethos and staff of the company.

We will never be afford private so made the best of what we've got.

I must add most of the materials are on the 11+ forum,many are free you could do it yourself.It's barely GCSE level so not hard.To the poster who mentioned essay practise there is a list of essay titles on the forum.You could easily get yourself a thesaurus,a timer and work your way through the list.

In my area, I think the tutoring is an absolute requirement for the grammar school. The local, selective independents are more forgiving. The grammar school test has to be cheap and also seen as "fair" by all; so objective. This leads to a multiple choice test with a lot of time pressure. The indies are also timed, but the pressure isn't so extreme. The indie tests involve actual writing compositions and tricky maths problems that are not multiple choice. Add to this face to face interviews.
I assume the grammar school would live to operate like this but doesn't have the resources to do it. Also, the politics of marking a bit of writing or making judgements based on interviews would be a nightmare.
I think findng diamonds in the rough and weeding out the over tutored is hard to do in a timed multiple choice exam.

I find it hugely amusing that posters are writing "tutoring is unnecessary"and then going on to say that their DC were tutored, just "not very much". Tutoring is tutoring. Some parents can't afford it, some wouldn't think of it, some would lack the confidence or ability to do it themselves. And whilst this remains the case, grammar schools are not available to all.

Toomany - we were lucky, I think, that our 11+ involved not only VR but also maths and English (comprehension AND written piece). I think both my girls might have struggled to be in the top 120 if it was VR alone. DS on the other hand would have sailed in on VR alone (or VR and Maths) but the writing would have sunk him.

evil it would certainly make our lives easier if GCSE/A level music students got free lessons at the schools DD1 and DS are at. Even if it was just on first study instrument. But we're lucky that we can cover the lessons. Still - when I remember all my free music lessons back in the day it does make me sad. The sheer cost of doing music to a decent level or pursuing music at HE level must put off/count out so many people. It seems so short sighted to me.

But Evil the kids in the Outstanding primary schools who are pushed far more daily and don't have tutoring would have far more of an advantage in the local comp and getting into the grammar than any tutored kid from a lesser school.My kids have never been on a plane,we have 1 battered old car and aren't into gadgets.You make the best of what you've got.We'll never be able to afford private,had kids were in a requires improvement school and we chose to make up for it with a tiny bit of tutoring.

Don't get the big deal with grammars to be frank.Our local comps are good,there is a far bigger bunfight to get into one of them than the grammars,recent studies have shown grammar kids are outnumbered in unis by private schools,posters say they're shit because they don't produce 100% a*s and comps are fab. Soooo send your kids to comps and get over me sending my kids to the school that we have chosen for them.

He attended a special school (behaviour) and got in to the local grammar. I don't know much about his family background but most of the children at the school came from the poorer areas and none would be described as middle class

Children can have behaviour problems from all backgrounds and they can have lovely parents!

My son is at a local grammar and there are some very wealthy children in his class and there are also a couple with 'blue collar' (for want of a better descriptor) backgrounds. The parents are certainly not disinterested nor neglectful. Our local builder's daughter also goes to the local grammar. Again, not middle class. There are probably more but I don't know them personally

You do not have to be middle class to support your child! As I said earlier, my DH's parents left school at 15yrs but they spent masses of time with their children, talking, reading, playing games, walking etc.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to name large numbers of poor, neglected children that miraculously go to grammar school and become successful overnight. That generally doesn't happen in the real world. Sadly the data I've now seen suggests that those children struggle whatever school they go to. As one of the posters on here has said, parents attitudes and support appear to be the main drivers of success

Very hard pressed I imagine!

Can I just add - a bright child who fails the 11+ doesn't necessarily have a 'neglectful parent'.

Of course they don't! My whole point as I know so many people who are very intelligent and failed and went on, despite all the disadvantages, to be Head teachers, a vicar, company directors etc. Failing made it all such a struggle-in the comprehensive it would not have been -they would just have risen up the sets. I know those thought of as 'dead certs' to fail.
3 sets of twins, of equal intelligence, to be either side of the divide.
Lots of siblings to be split-presumably the parents didn't support one more than another!

I really don't think all that tutoring makes a difference

Very strange when it is such big business-especially in 11+ areas! There are some who do it but wouldn't admit it and there are also those who would not pass on the name of the excellent tutor they use for their child!

I think there are many who think that in theory but dare not risk it in practice when everyone else is using a tutor.

The comprehensives are so good in my area that many don't bother to try for the super selectives, because they would not be with all their friends and they would have quite a difficult commute. Why go to all that trouble when the outcome would be similar?

petit - your choice, absolutely. If you want to tutor your kids then you go for it. But why then claim that you don't see why it's such a big thing? You were suggesting earlier that it shouldn't be - you said it was "hugely overinflated". Tutoring is tutoring - why pretend that you didn't do it when you did

Lucky you Mehitabel. The Grammars and mods are both great where I live and cater well for their own pupils. Clearly this isn't the case for some of the MNers on this thread so neither of us should be so smug as to judge their decisions.

Have never pretended I didn't tutor.

But it is over inflated.It is exam technique.I'd never sit any exam without it.The fact remains that it will not guarantee you a place.You need to be pretty able to do any tutoring work for the 11+ let alone anything else.

Tutoring DOES make a difference.
Not a huge one : only one or possibly two grade points
BUT
that is all the difference that middling rich kids need to push brighter poor kids out of their rightful opportunities

Cuckoos in the nest TBH

The point is, LePetit, that grammar schools are meant to be 'for the education of the brightest children' - that is the only possible reason for them to exist, if they are there to provide the education 'suitable for that group of children' [I am, for the purpose of this post, ignoring the whole debate about whether children separated by 1 point in a single test takem on 1 day at the age of 10 need to have totally different educational provision from one another...].

If tutoring / exam practice / familiarisation / 'a little bit of time with mum / a tutor each week going over the basics' gives an advantage, then you are no longer selecting those brightest children - because you are disadvantaging the equally bright children who can't access any of those things.

(The 1-2 points difference it makes on the day probably covers at least the bottom 10% who pass, and the top 10% who fail the 11+ - although schools massage the scores in various ways to spread out what are some extremely 'bunched' results around the borderline, the actual raw points score for many children on both sides of the pass mark is likely to be virtually identical, particularly in 'fully selective' counties where the cut-off point is at a fairly populous point in the bell curve of ability]

The comprehensives are so good in my area that many don't bother to try for the super selectives, because they would not be with all their friends and they would have quite a difficult commute. Why go to all that trouble when the outcome would be similar?

Yes please! This is a dream situation for almost everyone. It doesn't work in our area because of all the private schools, religious schools and the SS grammar school.

I think there are many who think that in theory but dare not risk it in practice when everyone else is using a tutor.

I think this applies to most families. You have one shot, you can't be sure. It's an intimidating situation; so people tutor just in case.

Tutoring is highly effective if it covers parts of the exam syllabus that have been missed out at school.

DD is sitting next to me doing SATS practice papers. She has received no tutoring and is whizz zing through them - bar the questions on material that is not touched upon by the French primary NC!

One of the brightest children I have ever taught was the child of a semi-literate single mum, who worked 1 job during the day and another at night to keep food on the table. Despite living near the boundary of a county with grammars, for which he would be excellently suited, he would never go - a) he would never be entered [I had to fill in the online form for his mum for the next stage in education as it was, as she did not have the skills to do so herself], b) the bus fares would be prohibitive, and c) his chances of having any 'test familiarisation' at all was nil.

Dc1 was tutored in Y5 and would not have got into grammar school without it. Dc2, not as clever as Dc1, started in English tuition in Y4 with the best English tutor for 11+ in the area. Unfortunately, she keeps adding more workload to the detriment of dc2's other work. We ditched her a month ago. We still tutor, but do it ourselves.

But Talkin that is what I'm saying a middling kid which would be a 4 hoping for 5s in Sats wouldn't cope with tutoring at 11+ level that well and therefore not be likely to get in.My dc are level 6 candidates,G&T etc and whilst they didn't find it a struggle the work they covered(which their primary hadn't) was a comfortable stretch.

The fact is some you win,some you lose.A kid can be disadvantaged on one hand and advantaged by another.No kid has exactly the same.

Also I don't get the fuss over grammar in particular for grammar sake.Fine get your knickers in a twist over kids being lumbered with special measures school,over an outstanding but that is any school and the fact remains a bright kid will have more of a chance getting a place of choice via an exam than by mortgage.My sister will have more chance getting her bright kids into the local grammar than the Outstanding comp down the road which she will never be able to afford a house within the catchment.£10 a week for a short period she could find but a £500k mortgage or rent in such an area err no.

Too many middling kids end up at grammar and selective private over the truly bright kids who can waft in but might not have the family support

top sets of comps include reasonable numbers of FSM/chaotic home - because late developers and those without home support are given assistance right through secondary

the 11+ cuts them off at the knees and defines them as "only fit for high school"

And those families who can afford neither the mortgage NOR the tutoring should go hang?

My sister will have more chance getting her bright kids into the local grammar than the Outstanding comp down the road which she will never be able to afford a house within the catchment.£10 a week for a short period she could find but a £500k mortgage or rent in such an area err no.

^^exactly that

I managed to afford practice papers from wh smith and £10 tutoring. Not a hope in hell of me affording a house in the catchment of the amazing comp teacher's children go to...