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.

Hakluyt. A report has just been issued which shows that some Buckinghamshire Grammar schools have in excess of 40% out of County children in them. They might have catchment areas but not enough children in the catchment areas pass the 11 plus to fill the places. This is because the schools are now very much larger than they used to be. This increase in size occurred the minute schools received per capita funding which I think came into effect after the 1990 Education Act. It started a feeding frenzy to attract more and more children to take the test from further and further afield. Why would a relatively small town like Buckingham have a 1400 place grammar school if it did not have substantial numbers of children attending from Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire? Buckinghamshire is one of the few wholly selective Counties and it's Grammar schools recruit from far and wide. As I said up thread, only 16% of yr 6 children in my area of the County obtained a grammar school place in the tests taken this Autumn. There are 4 grammar schools and 7 secondary modern schools plus a tiny free school. As you can see there is a huge imbalance and the numbers in the grammar schools will be enhanced by out of County children and some getting in via appeals. It will end up being about 20% of local Buckinghamshire children in year 7 at the Grammars next year.

I also agree with LaVolcan. No working class at my Grammar in the 60's/70s either. In many instances the working class bettering themselves at grammar schools is an urban myth. In my Mum's day at grammar school, the parents refused to send their children even if they passed because it was seen as getting above yourself and they couldn't afford the uniform! I have heard that in one area, I think it was Bolton, that only 50% of grammar school places were taken up by those eligible. Guess who did not take up the places!!!??? Predominantly working class girls.

The engineering and technical schools never really got off the ground though, did they? I think they would have been a success had there been many more of them.

I certainly hope that they don't open more grammar schools - all it would do would enable the already better off to save on independent school fees. Pretty much as it did after the 44 Education Act.

Some children in Bucks arrive at the grammar schools with level 4 SATs. I don't see how they will be level 6a or 7b in their first term! Unless, of course there is some divine intervention at the grammar school which puts mere mortal teachers to shame!

Ah yes, working class girls. Well, education was wasted on them, wasn't it ? They were only going to get married, so scarce money had to be saved for the boy. This happened to my husband's aunt - not allowed to take up a grammar school place. Sadly the uncle didn't pass the 11+, so the money would have been available but it was too late for her then.

We had two technical high schools near me and they churned out secretaries and factory managers, not Chartered Engineeers! Why do people think Engineers do not need top grade A levels like lawyers and doctors? Maybe it is our misunderstanding of what type of engineers we need that makes people assume it is a lesser profession and therefore requires less of an academic education than, say, a medic. The subjects studied will be similar and we need clever people to become engineers. If we do not grasp this notion, we will continually have to employ people from abroad who do get it!

Mine had a 6 in SPAG and Maths in Y6. I think 5b or 5a for Reading and Writing.

How do they sit a level 5/6 paper at the end of Sep and pass extremely well and beat a shed load of stiff competition only to fall to level 4 the following May in Sats?

Doesn't make sense.

Le petit. They tend to coast in Y6. I did not put any pressure on my dc1 in Y6, after the 11+ exam was completed in the first week of September. I will rectify that with Dc2

Mine are coasting but they're not going backwards(I hope).

Because, LePetit, the Bucks test has not historically tested children on the national curriculum. The children were not all level 5 in the grammar schools and definitely not level 6! The old Bucks test was verbal reasoning with a bit of numerical reasoning thrown in. The types of questions were well known and widely tutored and some highly tutored kids got lucky. Different tests have now been introduced and, guess, what, disastrously low pass rates among the "ordinary" children. The very bright and highly tutored very bright are still ok because the test is now allied to the national curriculum. There were not shed loads of level 4 children, but the grammar schools did have them and the evidence is clear in their value added statistics produced by the Govt.

"How do they sit a level 5/6 paper at the end of Sep and pass extremely well and beat a shed load of stiff competition only to fall to level 4 the following May in Sats?"

Well, if they were very narrowly coached to within an inch of their lives to pass a particular test on a particular day, I suppose that could happen. I remember having to pass a Logic exam at University- and cramming til 10 minutes before the exam- if you had asked me to do the same exam the next day then I wouldn't have known where to start. But that couldn't possibly apply to the 11+ because, to quote a well known Mumsnetter, it's designed to identify "the brightest and the best".............

I think the idea that level 5 and 6 are completely different beasts is a bit false.

Most kids who are up to solid level 5 maths, say, could have a stab at level 6. Most primary school kids who are solid 5s will be doing some 6 in class or just generally.

It's not like the test is in French and suddenly their are questioins in Russian.

The maths can be a bit different. Not a problem with 5s and 6s working together in English though. At DD2s school the English 6s were taught with the top 5s all the time, but the maths ones were on their own for a chunk of the time because otherwise whenever something came up that relied on something the 5s hadn't been taught yet they'd have to go back and teach it again.

I don't know about all 11+s but our one is designed to identify a certain type of learner/worker, and it's far from clear that type is either 'the brightest' or 'the best'. I don't know anyone who thinks they are. I know plenty who think they aren't, in fact.

SATS levels don't represent some kind of universal absolute attainment level. They are no more and no less a test of a particular curriculum.

"Most kids who are up to solid level 5 maths, say, could have a stab at level 6. Most primary school kids who are solid 5s will be doing some 6 in class or just generally."

Absolutely. Learning is a continuum. Certainly in subjects like maths and certainly up to GCSE level. English is a bit different I suppose because of the maturity needed to understand some texts. The jump between level 5 and level 6, and then 7 seems much more noticeable.

Sorry Hak I don't think you could pass a reading comp on HG Wells if your reading was level 4, write a level 5/6 essay if your Eng skills were level 4 or do a level 5/6 maths paper if you are a 4. You're either that level or not.There is no way you could pull off a 5/6 at maths without that kind of ability and sorry I don't think tutoring would give you some kind of temporary ability which disappears 6 months later after further work at school.

The maths papers are hard(I found them hard),involve problem solving and the ability to think mathematically and use skills more than just general maths knowledge.Having seen them it was clear to me if you struggled with maths there is no way tutoring would hand you a high percentage pass.A certain level of ability would be required.Yes tutoring would help some kids access the curriculum and hone their skills further but give them a temporary false ability to not just pass the exam but well enough to beat stiff competition which then disappears a few months later to an average level 4 type of ability I remain highly skeptical.

Obviously if they don't do a maths exam as the poster below described that is different.

Getting to a level 5/6 level/11+,of reading takes several years of vocabulary collecting and hours of reading,digesting suitable texts and once there sorry I don't think it disappears.To say all extra help gives a child an artificial non ability is dangerous.Children who struggle at school have hours of extra help and as far as I'm concerned once they get there their ability is no less worthy or false than anybody else.

Because levels, especially in Maths, are rubbish made up stuff that everyone, who has no ideas, believe in and use them as the be all and end all of all measurement of a kid's ability :)

There I give you the real reason :)

But you do need some kind of levelling/benchmark system, call it what you like.As a parent you are clueless without some kind of system however unpalatable it may be.

I agree that there must be some kind of benchmark system but the level, and especially the sub level system, is complete made up rubbish. What is frustrating is people, ie parents and senior management use it as the bench mark to measure progress.

"I agree that there must be some kind of benchmark system but the level, and especially the sub level system, is complete made up rubbish. What is frustrating is people, ie parents and senior management use it as the bench mark to measure progress."

What do you mean?

What I meant is level is not a definite measurement of a kid ability. A level 5 somewhere is not the same as a level 5 somewhere else, unless they use the exact same test. but when a kid moves from primary to secondary, they will be sitting a different test hence it is quite normal to get a different level.

Another thing is ability in Maths like in any other skill based subjects can go up as well as go down. So after a few months without practicing hard, the ability can go down greatly. it is like Usain Bolt can run 100m in 9ish seconds, if he does not practise for a few months, he will not be able to run at exactly the same speed.

Same as some kids, level 5 in primary, level 4 in September year 7, quite normal actually.

Well, that's the nature of exams- doesn't mean SATS levels are made up rubbish!

The sub levels are, so a 4a could be exactly the same as 5c, but on paper they are a level apart. Same as the end of key stage 3 levels, which then will be used for targets for GCSE, which can be totally unrealistic.

What I am trying to say is it is very to play with the number and statistics to support your claim about many things. In this case, it can be easily used to support the existent of grammar schools.

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)

smokepole, despite your bit in brackets at the end, the way you phrase this suggestion is quite telling - some kids in grammar schools, most in high schools and 'the remaining' kids in technical schools. I don't think this sort of segregated schooling is the best approach, but if it were to work, it would require a major mind shift in this country to see vocational pathways as equal to academic pathways, not just something 'the remaining' kids who don't cut the academic mustard get to do as a consolation prize.

I'm with stn about levels. They are made up - sublevels always were. Getting a 5 or a 6 in SATs - particularly maths, means that the child has learned specific things to that level, but there will still be plenty they have not learned. To achieve a L5 does not make that child a L5. Put it another way - back in the 1990s, I got a B for A Level History. But I couldn't tell you the first thing about the Franco-Prussian wars because my syllabus didn't cover it. SATs are exactly the same - DC reach a certain level of ability to demonstrate the things they have been taught. Teachers understand that. Parents seem not to.