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.

Do you mean proper OFSTED failing or Mumsnet failing?

I think about 30% are in the bottom to categories.

The schools concerned are encircled by the houses of mumsnetters.........

If 30% of schools are classed as failing or in the bottom 2 categories even though any Government would want to give the impression that schools have improved under them.

What is the real number or percentage of bad schools that get grade a Outstanding or Good grade from Ofsted ?.

Get Graded Outstanding or Good from Ofsted ?.

Why would OFSTED give a bad school a good or outstanding rating?

"Why would OFSTED give a bad school a good or outstanding rating? " To keep house prices high, of course! Can you imagine - equity disappearing down the toilet...social unrest in the independent coffee shops the country over.....

Hak
DH goes to lots of schools.

One he was at had just been failed on Ofsted because of "safeguarding" because the fence along the back of the playing field was too low.
Except that it belonged to Network Rail and would have been a criminal offence for the school to touch it.

Another school was rated inadequate during the -mercifully short lived-- period when VA was not counted into results : this infant school has one of the poorest catchments in the South of England

Another was rated outstanding because it was a new Academy with an amazing building
BUT
it was 1700 pupils and no outside space and the staff were leaving in droves

Another outstanding school had cannabis plants growing on either side of the front door

Ofsted ratings are box ticking
they reflect political bias and tabloid headlines

Under pressure from any Government to show how they have improved Education since they took office ?. No Government would suddenly want every school being graded poor even if it was true would they ?.

But if as many as a third of schools are 'faililng' on some index or another, how come 90% of parents are pleased to have been offered their first choice of school?

(this is of theoretical interest to me: I live in a shit=ish area of S London, one often spoken of in tones of horror on MN, and the catchment for our 'Outstanding' and very well favoured by parents and children alike comp is surrounded by social housing and housing significantly cheaper than the area beyond catchment in at least 2 directions. I live here because of the 'cheaper' house prices)

"nother was rated outstanding because it was a new Academy with an amazing building"

New academies are doing very well, OFSTEDwise.

And I would very much like to see the report on an otherwise good school that was rated "failing" one one single point.

hak
the railway one was a case where "safeguarding" over rode all else : I've checked the report - it was all good / outstanding except that one point which resulted in "required improvement"

New academies with shiny buildings are indeed shoo ins for good ratings - even when they are utterly undeserved, but that would involve unwinding the PFI of the buildings so Ofsted are under pressure to shy away

FFS my local school is half empty, has dire results, the kids are regularly hauled in by the police for vandalism, are barred from most shops and bus routes
BUT
the building is on a PFI with the academy chain
so ofsted steer clear

Grammar schools are actually an utter irrelevance compared with the oncoming train of sponsored academies

I went to a grammar school in the 80's. It did what grammar schools were designed to do - take working class kids from disadvantaged areas and give them a better chance. Now admission is mainly based on being middle class.

As no one tutored in those days and primary schools actually spent a bit of time preparing all pupils for the test, admission was much fairer. Saying that, not all the intake did that well, and sadly more often than not it was the children with parents that didn't take much of an interest in their children's education that did not achieve good results.

I also had friends who did not pass the 11+ and went to the local and very dire comp. Despite what I am sure were very very low average results, they did well and have gone on to have successful careers. Mainly because their parents were interested and involved in their education and that the results of a school are only an average. There will always be pupils with results both significantly below and also above the average and with the right input, a child can achieve above the average at a comp.

I partly feel people have lost faith in their children, and think they can not exceed the "average" results a school achieves.

packed Lunches
I also had friends who did not pass the 11+ and went to the local and very dire comp
If you went to a grammar, the other school was not by definition a comp

My biggest problem with the whole concept of grammar schools is the long term and pernicious damage they did since the 1950's to skills and engineering in the UK

those who failed were sent to the technical and engineering schools

only twerps in ivory towers cannot see why that needs unwinding

Well what ever it was officially called, it was a secondary school that did not achieve (on average) good results. It was a while ago now and I do not recall the exact definition!

I didn't think that grammar schools were ever designed to take working class children and give them a better chance. Some working class children made it, but that was a bonus for them.

It could be said that the post 44 Education Act Secondary Moderns were designed for working class children to give them a Secondary education; something which was lacking in many areas.

LaVolcan - whether designed or not to take working class children, my grammar school did take a substantial amount. Compared to now, a very different intake.

My mum went to a 1950s grammar. Her parents were working class. Her brothers also went and all three of them went on to university and were the first generation of the family to own homes and have professions. My mum went to teacher training college, not university, as she was a girl. My dad's brother also went to grammar school - also a working class family. Both grandfathers worked at the power station, one grandmother was a cleaner and one was a seamstress. My dad's dad died when Dad was 11. Dad failed the 11+ - hardly surprising, and was written off. Left the secondary modern at 15 with no qualifications and went into an engineering apprenticeship. When I was 11, he completed his masters degree, so hardly unintelligent. Writing off kids like that is just wrong. However, 1950s grammars DID give working class kids a chance. The flip side was plain wrong though and anyone who wants to go back to that system needs to take a good hard look at themselves, IMO.

The 50s grammars gave some working class kids a chance, but denied the same chance to the majority.

I went to a 60s girls grammar school. We didn't have many daughters of mill hands or labourers; we did have daughters of bank managers, the local doctors, the town clerk, the local firms of solicitors, and quite a few farmers daughters (rural area), plus some with parents with clerical occupations - so lower middle class rather than working class.

You can't compare results of 'grammar school/secondary modern ' LEAs areas with comprehensive LEAs because theer is too much cross boundary flow to be meaningful.

"You can't compare results of 'grammar school/secondary modern ' LEAs areas with comprehensive LEAs because theer is too much cross boundary flow to be meaningful."

No there isn't. In wholly selective areas, grammar schools tend to have quite tight catchments. About 6/7 miles in my neck of the woods.

Talkinpeace. The engineering and technical schools should have been a huge success. The problem was naively and wrongly they were seen as second class and only for "Dummies" my god we are crying out for engineers and technicians now!. The UTCs are a fantastic initiative , that should have been done 30 years ago. The UTCs also prove a point that you could have grammar schools operating next to them offering an academic education for up to 35% of the ability range .50% or so could be educated in high schools the remaining 15% in technical schools (which would be regarded as the equal or better than the grammar schools).

I know people will say two things the first will be, it sounds like a throwback to the 1950s. The second will be what about the 50% in neither the grammar nor the Technical school (Well who cares, 50% will get a good/great education). That should be a large enough spectrum of ability to cover our children and anybody we knows children.

I am only half joking !

Excuse me, TalkinPeace, but my DH is a Chartered a Engineer with a degree and lots of letters after his name, most of which start with F for Fellow. We are sick of this notion that engineers are or were academic failures!!!! He went to a grammar school in the 1960s and they really knew how to educate potential Chartered Engineers by extraordinarily good teaching. He did Engineering A level, which is sneered at now, and was as academic as anyone else at the school. The Grammar schools greatly encouraged engineers, but not necessarily the people who mend your washing machine. I assume you do know the difference?

Hakluyt
speaking for the grammar school area I am in, there are not enough in catchment children in the top 28% to fill the places, so about a third are out of catchment .Secondly the secondary modern school is way way undersubscribed because about 50% of the children who fail the 11+ are bussed to comps in neighbouring areas.

This debate has run to 424 posts and has still not kept most of the posters happy.

I genuinely hope that more grammar schools open. More grammar school will ease the competition and let those in who would not normally score enough.

My dc2 will hopefully get into grammar school next year (still 50/50 chance). More places will be created and it should help disadvantaged kids, as PP will be used as a key determiner to let them in on much lower scores. This is good. However, it is not so good, as it prejudices those that attained a higher score and did not subsequently get in. Also, not trying to be provocative. Honestly. But, will those with lower scores be able to deal with the pace of work. The new CEM tests are intelligence/aptitude tests that are used as an indicator to assess how pupils will cope with a more demanding and pacier academic environment. DC1 is already hitting 6a and 7b grades across the board in the first term of Year 7, and I am in awe with the work being given.