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.

smokepole - that system sounds similar to the German system. Kids are put into one of three types of school at 11.

That system is being eroded more and more in Germany and leaves a lit of people unhappy. The so called vocational schools have mostlybecome sink schools where only those go who didn't get a place elsewhere, especially in cities.

Exactly - so not sure why anyone would want to impliment such a system here.

The only honest argument for grammar schools (not talking about super selectives, they are a different discussion) is that people want to keep their children away from the hoi polloi. There are, I think, two posters who are prepared to be open about this. Everyone else weasels about trying to avoid admitting it!

Well, I am the hoi poloi. Sort of. And my girls definitely are at their school. We don't care.

With maths, up to L6 it's more have you been taught x y and z and have you grasped it. The speed with which you grasp something might or might not be a reflection of ability but may also be influenced by other things including the quality of teaching, SEN issues, the size of the group, the spread of work being done etc. If you're working with a group where the teacher has to keep going back to reinforce stuff for some people that makes it more difficult for others to forge ahead although it does give them the opportunity to consolidate - but if you don't need that, then you're held back. Maths extension work at that level often consists of 'do more of the same' rather than 'take it further, do something new'. It's different in secondary schools.

I think english mixed groups are a really good thing, because exposure to fresh ideas is never bad. Just because some people have issues with eg spelling or writing for a long time (to them), doesn't mean they don't have a good vocabulary or can offer fresh ideas for composition or comprehension.

That is it in a nutshell, Hakluyt.
The middle classes can't afford private in the numbers that used to afford it so they have decided you can get a decent education ,for free,with the grammar school system. Unfortunately for them there are only 164 left and so they want more, all over the country, and particularly in their area!
To give a reason, that makes it not look just like blatant self interest, they throw in the old chestnut of social mobility when they only ever helped a handful and even less today.
It has also never been explained to me why only the avademic are thought worth of being helped. The rest appear to be expected to know their place and stay in it! Maybe the average and below average child has aspirations too and would like to be socially mobile.
I can't see any need to have them in a different building with a different uniform. If they are in the same building with the same uniform they can change sets, e.g. like my son who went up 2 maths sets in 6 months, or they can be top set in maths, 4th set in English etc.
The top sets are the ones who would have been in the grammar school, they are all aspirational and are stretched (always makes them sound like elastic!) They all intend to go to good universities.
I can't see any possible objection except, horror of horrors, they will mix with all sorts around the school, in the library/ games field etc!

"A decent education for free" err are you saying the alternatives aren't decent?

What exactly makes grammar schools superior?

And sorry you're talking tosh re parents not wanting their kids with the hoi poloi- some of us will have kids in both and don't see the hoo ha re the great grammar debate.

We picked the grammar we chose (out of 3 grammars and 2 other comps) all good and above for several reasons -the quiet,calm atmosphere,the staff,the facilities that are important to us(compared to one comp alternative other facilities are no where near as good), the alternative individual sports on offer(as opposed to a sole focus on team games),the ethos,the zero setting etc,etc

It was an instant fit for two of our dc.The comp alternative would be fine but not as good a fit for them.For several reasons I'm not sure the grammar would suit our other child and suspect said comp would be a better fit.We have more research to do.The all singing,all dancing comp there is a bunfight to get into wouldn't suit any of them.

"out of 3 grammars and 2 other comps"

If you had this choice,then you are obviously not in a wholly selective area.

Also if you had that choice, then your children must have all passed the 11+. So a "choice" rather than a choice.

I still think it is a question of 1st choice private- can't afford it -so let's use state but clear out the 'undesirable' element- apart from a token amount, and that token amount will be the academically bright ones.
However, no one us going to admit that- they will use any other reason they can think of!

"I still think it is a question of 1st choice private- can't afford it -so let's use state but clear out the 'undesirable' element- apart from a token amount, and that token amount will be the academically bright ones.
However, no one us going to admit that- they will use any other reason they can think of!"

As I keep saying- with two honourable exceptions.

There is nothing morally wrong about preferring selectivity.

Not at all Bonsoir, but at least be honest! Don't justify it on the grounds of social mobility when all evidence says it doesn't make for it.
I also wonder how many would be for selectivity if their child was going to be selected for the sec mod! Very few is my guess.

If lots were wanting their child to be selected for the sec mod you would have massive headlines for 'bring back secondary moderns' - I have googled all sorts and I can't find one single reference to anyone wanting a return of the sec mod. There is masses on 'bring back the grammar' by people who want their child in one and don't really care about the rest! ( as long as they are not in school with their child).
If a secondary modern is not good enough for your own child why on earth is it good enough for other people's children?
We need great schools for all- not just the academic top end.

I don't think it is correct that all families want their DC in the highest performing schools with competitive fast paced pupils. Plenty of parents are realistic about their DC and know that a slower pace is right for them.

The much bigger issue is developing a curriculum that brings out the best in all pupils and prepares them well for adult realities. The current emphasis on academic subjects isn't right but nor was the previous trend of low content examinations.

Utter baloney Meh.I would never in a million years have chosen any of the private primaries near us and none of the secondaries.

The school I have chosen is the one I would have chosen over all others for the particular kids going even if I was loaded.I'm sure according to Hak it is crap compared to the comp but it is an exact fit for my dc and I know they'll be happy.Not sure re the girls for my dd even though I'm pretty sure she'd have no probs getting in.

There are hoards of families in our town with kids in both the comp and the grammar the maj of whom could well have had all their kids in the grammar.We are lucky to have choice.

"There are hoards of families in our town with kids in both the comp and the grammar the maj of whom could well have had all their kids in the grammar.We are lucky to have choice."

Yes, you are lucky to have choice. You only have choice if your child passes the test.

And if you have grammars and comprehensives you do not live in a wholly selective area.

You don't have the choice if they fail the exam- sometimes by one mark!
Why can't they all be in the same building with the same uniform and then they can move around according to changes - they change massively after the age of 10/11yrs.

Hak loads of grammars aren't in completely selective areas,you have been told that several times.

Those grammars are still creaming off some of the high flyers who would be at the comprehensive if they didn't exist. A comprehensive is much better for a full mix, with those who will get into Oxbridge at the top end.
I think a super selective works when it takes children from a huge area and only one or two a primary school, if that, will get a place. Many don't even bother to do the exam and it leaves plenty of high flyers for the comprehensives.

Loads of bright kids from ours didn't bother.2 or 3 from each class(big school) are going, many local schools don't have any going,some just 1 or 2. Over 50 schools feed the girls.

Far more kids in my dd's year will be creamed off by the all singing all dancing comp alternative.

Mehit

I do not see it as my dc responsibility to forego grammar school just help raise the aggregated measures of a comprehensive school

"Hak loads of grammars aren't in completely selective areas,you have been told that several times"
I know. But the "choice" between a superselective grammar school and a practically comprehensive is completely different to the "choice" between a grammar school and a secondary modern.

And "loads" is pushing it a bit.

Thankfully, portico, with a mere 164 left most people have the majority in the comprehensive-improving it for all.
I am very, very thankful that I managed to get away from a grammar school area-the best thing I ever did.
Only 5% of children in UK attend a grammar school. For all the fuss on MN you would think they were relevant to most people!!
They will never come back. People are not going to vote for a system that benefits the 20% or so that get a place. Especially when all recent studies prove that they do not improve social mobility.

If you take out those in private education, those in grammar schools and those home educating you still get well over 80% of our children in comprehensive schools-so it is very odd that those on MN seem so obsessed with grammar schools!
I suspect that you don't get the over 80% making a lot of fuss because they are quite happy -unlike those in Kent and grammar school areas-where a lot are very unhappy, or stressed, by the whole thing.
Since my children are all successfully launched into the careers of their first choice the comprehensive served them well. They would be doing exactly the same if I had paid-and we had it all for free!