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.

Talkin why are you now saying grammars offer the best education?In other threads you say they're crap because they don't get 100% A*.

Why does taking the top 2 or 3 % from a huge number of primaries equal a better education and advantages?

Only last week there was a study saying there were less grammar kids than private at Oxbridge in the 80s.

I just don't get why a tiny percentage going to a few grammar schools is worse than hoards of better off kids buying places at the best comps by property leaving hoards of poor kids with the worse comp schools.

lePetit
spot the italics : I do not think grammars are in any way best

and if there is a "grammar in every town" as Farridge and Cameroon and Bojo have been threatening, they will be taking a lot more than 3%

and remember, I do not live in the catchment of the naice comp - nor do 400 other kids there
nor do 400 at the other naice comp up the way

The thing that stands out from the report is that the two areas with the highest percentage of pupils educated in selective schools. Trafford,Bucks with 45.2 and 42.2% respectively achieve amongst the best GCSE/A level results across their schools, in Trafford's case significantly higher at 70.5% GCSE pass rate to the very similar demographic fully Comprehensive area of Cheshire East at 62.4% GCSE Pass rate.

The other thing I want to say is just because a school is a secondary modern does not mean, it can't achieve excellent results above 65-70% GCSE pass rates (inc) Maths/English. The automatic assumption on here based on a type or name is damaging and untrue in many cases.

I am neither pro nor anti grammar, though I believe that pupils need to be educated with students of their own academic ability. I also believe that in many Comprehensive schools, the standard and expectations fall to the lowest common denominator of their students be this in terms of Discipline , dress standards, behaviour and academic standards. Talkin will tell how successful her DCs Comprehensive is at educating all ability of students, yet the school does not have a Sixth Form(like most of the schools in Hampshire). This is something I don't like, I like a structured school environment for sixth form.

TalkinPeace

Hi. Are you worried about the effects on the school that is the secondary modern when successful candidates have got into a grammar.

On a separate note, the Middle classes only have a stranglehold on grammars because. There are a lot less of them about than at their peak. Therefore, it is harder to gain entry and more resources are allocated to tutoring kids.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100220161/grammar-schools-and-the-myth-of-social-mobility/

fullfact.org/factchecks/grammar_schools_and_social_mobility-29269

www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/education-vital-social-mobility_tcm8-20069.pdf

Tim Wigmore is a very young Oxford Graduate, 2012, and so inexperienced in life. While a freelance writer his leanings are to the left. Surprised that article slipped by the Daily Telegraph

www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/workingpapers/SEDP-2012-10-Hart-Moro-Roberts.pdf

As I posted earlier, smokepole, there are not circa 42% of Bucks children in Bucks Grammar schools!!!! In Aylesbury Vale where there are 4 Grammar schools, 3 in Aylesbury and 1 in Buckingham only 16% of children educated within the County at state schools gained a place at these grammar schools. It is expected to rise to 20% on appeal. Some children attend independent schools but huge numbers live in Milton Keynes (a separate LA) and neighbouring counties where there are no Grammar schools. You cannot draw any conclusions from the figures quoted in the blog because they are just plain inaccurate!

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2014
Data on pupils attending school in an LEA other than where they live

I don't know the area (at all) but I have noticed that Waddesdon Church of England School achieves 74% GCSE (English/Maths) and an impressive 211.7 C average at A level for a "Modern". (DDs Kent Grammar 215 C+)
I wonder if a number of parents have opted for Waddesdon, rather than for a grammar if eligible and consequently the numbers in grammar schools from the Alylesbury Vale area are low at 16-20%?...

"Clearly not a good system!"

The means of selection is problematic before we add tutors or stray far from reasonably rounded children.

People don't tend to talk about them when telling us about their IQs, but for most tests (especially ones dealing in cognitive ability etc.) there are error bars e.g. an actual score of say 130 might imply the true score is somewhere between say 125 - 132. Go to a bell curve, draw a vertical line through it to get your top 25% and then with error bars in mind contemplate the number of children a bit below and the number a bit above that line. Selection is fundamentally dodgy around the selection threshold.

"Impossible to do this."

We don't have grammars here, so you would only have to think about children selected out to the private school sector.

RAISE Online has KS2 - KS4 transition data (anyone can download and play with) which has end KS2 SATs with sub-level granularity at one end and GCSE grades at the other.

Lots of interesting reading Talkinpeace, thank you. That seems to support the Joseph Rowntree paper re social mobility that disadvantaged children stay at the bottom of the heap regardless of which type of school they go to, grammar, secondary mod or comp. Few schools appear to be able to make up for lack of parental education/aspiration in the longer term.

Grammar schools on the Wirral (particularly girls) have a great reputation. I now live in an area without grammar schools and was surprised by the difference in attainment of A-C grades at the 'good' schools in the area. Without a selective system the variance in ability can create problems and I agree with earlier poster regarding potential of standards falling to 'lowest common denominator'. In terms of social mobility - good schools are always going to drive up house prices regardless if grammar or not and you will always get parents paying for tutors which feels a bit unjust. As op says - very political but when our government is run by Etonians then you know the issue of social mobility has not been resolved.

I'm wondering what thoughts grammar enthusiasts have about bright children who don't pass the 11+ (there are many) or bright children who aren't entered?

Do you think that it's good for these children to be educated in schools which aren't geared up for children who are intellectually able?

Or do you think all schools should be able to educate across the ability range?

If schools are geared up to deliver a suitable education for those bright children who are not in the grammar system then why aren't they suitable for children who would pass/be entered for the 11+?

It's really not acceptable to say comprehensives aren't suitable environments in which to educate very bright children, as all schools will have very bright children in them, and need to be able to meet their needs.

A tiny number might opt for Waddesdon rather than a grammar school but this would be very rare. Waddesdon is the most "selective" secondary modern in that it has a tiny catchment area and recruits many through C of E affiliation rules. It operates its own admissions system and is being investigated at the moment. Basically it takes all the brighter secondary modern children from Far and Wide! Look at the results for the nearby Aylesbury secondary moderns and you will see what I mean. Also, the percentage numbers for Aylesbury Vale are those with a score high enough to go to the grammar schools for September 2015. These figures are for children in year 6 currently - they are not at any secondary school.

"Clearly not a good system!"

Thanks Pique. My DS is top 99.5% in some ares of IQ and average in others. He would not pass his 11+. Yet another student who is top 25% across the board would pass! He needs to be with other very high ability students in some subjects and fellow average students in others.

Garden - my Ds recently failed his 11+ despite having the highest reading age in his year, being the highest achieving child in his school in music, and being a great mathematician. Three children in his year passed - all have been tutored for 18 months plus and work at home every evening for an hour doing maths and literacy. Ds had no tutoring and only does homework (1 hour once a week), nothing else.

My dd (now 15) would also not have passed. Her target grades at school are 10A/A*.

I'm very unsupportive of the view that a school being socially and academically mixed makes it an unsuitable learning environment for very able children.

Totally agree Rootandbranch. Our DC's demonstrate that the very opposite of very able children needing selective education is true.

ktd
I now live in an area without grammar schools and was surprised by the difference in attainment of A-C grades at the 'good' schools in the area
Do you mean as percentage of the GCSE's obtained?
Well of course they will be a lower percentage in a Comp - its not segregating out the low achievers at the door.
What were the grades of the non grammars in the grammar area?
Because only by re-combining the two schools can you compare them with a Comp.

Results ARE about parents and motivation and support.
All kids should have access to the same level of teaching.

Thse kids with supportive environments at home will probably do better
but why deny the others the best supportive environment at school as well?

root whilst I agree that the comprehensive model ought to be able to offer an appropriate education to the brightest pupils, my experience is that too often it does not.

In my more charitable moments I think it's fair enough. Why should a school direct a disproportionate amount of time and resources to the tiny few?

At other times, I get very frustrated/cross!

Btw can I ask why your DC sat the 11 plus when you are against selective education and have had a good experience of mixed ability?

It's not just about getting disadvantaged kids a place at the grammar though is it? A place at a grammar does not miraculously solve the problem of low parental involvement, support and aspiration. I fact you could perhaps argue that it would be much more difficult for the disadvantaged child in the grammar environment without such support? Just a thought.

Rootsandbranch asked the question about bright children that don't pass. I don't know about what happens nationally but where I live they go to what locally are known as comprehensives but I gather would be called secondary moderns by some. The schools are excellent and the top stream get some brilliant results. My friends have daughters at the school (and siblings at the grammar); both girls are in the top sets and consider themselves to be intelligent, which of course they are. They have flourished in a way they didn't at primary school. If the children from the grammar school were there too they would be average again. The consensus among those that have children in three (or four!) different schools, (grammar or secondary modern) is that each child is in the most appropriate school for their needs. Their highly academic children are being challenged at the grammar, their other children cherished at the secondary moderns with better drama and arts facilities. One friend's son went from secondary modern to grammar in Year 9 as he was doing well in the top sets but not being challenged enough. So clearly there is some movement between schools. Could all this happen under one roof? In an ideal world, yes. And I'm sure it does in some good comprehensives, not in some others. The perception however seems to be not if other areas of MN are considered. There seem to be lots of questions from parents re moving to Trafford from even affluent parts of Manchester as they don't believe the local comprehensive schools would challenge the brighter pupils enough. I suppose as parents we want to be able to choose from a variety of schools to find which has the best culture and ethos for each of our children.

Sorry, thought I was previewing not posting! I meant to add that in the same way that the culture in some organisations that I've worked for have helped me thrive others certainly have not. I think that schools are the same. A highly pressured academic ethos would demotivate some children where others would love it. Similarly some children may prefer a nurturing culture that others may find boring. I think that we need to have a variety of schools not 'one size fits all'.