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 suppose it depends what you mean by outliers. If you mean "people likely to have a stab at a Russell Group" the I see no reason why their needs shouldn't be met perfectly well at a comprehensive school. If you mean the shoo-in Senior Wrangler type, then obviously you have a point. That's why there is an argument for the super selective. Although I think if I had a child like that, I would still want him or her to be playing sport with, doing art with and generally socialising with the majority, rather than being segregated with other super bright children. Academic excellence is not the whole child. So I think, if I was in charge of education, I would want special provision within an "ordinary" school, rather than separate schools.

In my area the comprehensives do master classes for the very able when they are still in primary- they do not let them decline into mediocracy once they have them full time!
The parents of a boy that I know who was extraordinarily gifted in Maths sent him to the comprehensive where they were prepared to treat him as a special case, rather than the super selective who just dismissed them with 'all our boys are clever'. I don't how he would have fared anyway as he was fairly average in English.

Outliers will always be outliers. IME (personal as well as with my girls) it's better to be with a group of similar people (ideally, ones slightly better than you) then on your own, separated out for special treatment and burdened with the mark of Cain. The removal of the curse of always being the tall poppy has been the biggest benefit for my girls in going to the super selective. The stratospheric increase in their happiness once they were out of an environment where they were a bit of a target was so noticeable - even their primary head teacher (a family friend who we see every week and whose son is at Comp with DS) has frequently commented on it.

"So I think, if I was in charge of education, I would want special provision within an "ordinary" school, rather than separate schools."

Totally agree. Students have so much to gain by mixing with a full range of other students.

I'm not sure that you would get into a grammar, nevermind a super selective, if you were very gifted in one area but very average in others- one of their disadvantages.

I can see that too, Rabbit.

My ds is a "tall poppy" at his school- not because he is particularly able, but because there are very few high achieving pupils in his school. There are times when he does do completely different work to the rest of his class. But mostly he does the same- but more is expected of him. In English, for example, you can have interesting views on a poem and contribute to a discussion without being an academic high flyer.

You would get the best education system if it were to be designed by someone who didn't know which class they were going to belong to, how much money they would have and how bright their children would be!
Since that is impossible, it is always designed by people who are happy to sort it for other people's children- knowing their own will not be affected!

Hak - I agree about English in fact I think I made a similar point upthread. The tall poppy thing can be very very difficult for some types of people, and if you have SEN issues, or something else that others you as well, it can be isolating. Both my DDs are so happy to be regular in most ways now instead of odd in most ways. Some kids thrive on being a tall poppy of course, but many don't. It's a myth that being able makes you robust.

It must be very difficult for your DS sometimes. I understand why you are so frustrated with the kent system. :(

Thank you, Rabbit- although I didn't post for sympathy. It is sometimes difficult for him- but school is difficult sometimes. I'm sure he would have more fun in lessons if there were more people at his academic level but I don't think he's suffering unduly! The sad thing, I think, is that many of his classmates don't have aspirational examples in the school- teachers can do their best, but if there is no tradition of higher education in family or school it's hard to imagine that you might be the one to do it. Being a comet is much harder than being the tail!

What about creating a "NASM" National Association of Secondary Modern Schools ?

Seriously such an organisation could help to reduce the stigma about the schools and demonstrate that they are able to educate bright students to University standard.

They could also get together and come up with ideas to stimulate children in to aspirational thoughts.

When I was at a school I was a comet in my subject and a tall poppy in all the other subjects (except the ones I was thrown out of - cookery needlework and art - and the one I skived off the whole time - PE). I found it very difficult although I now look back on my schooldays with fondness because the difficulties I had at the time, mainly caused by the combination of being dyspraxic with my levels of attainment/ability, took my attention more than all the good stuff. Distance lends perspective. Had I had a different exoerience, or had my girls not been dyspraxic, I might well have decided that the proximity of the comp and the ease of having all the kids at the same school outweighed the benefit of the grammar. But having had my experiences, I wanted my girls to have the chance of an environment where things were less tense for them.

Rabbit. Suffering with the lot Dyspraxia/Dyslexia ASD . I can really see where you are coming from. One time in ART we had these "ink" pens to blow on a piece of paper to make a pattern, being Dyspraxic (undiagnosed) I of course blow the wrong way Result Ink all over my face and school jumper. This being a modern school the other kids thought it funny to copy me and cause a "riot" which led to me being banned for "life" from Art (Trouble Causer).

NASM will hardly work at raising aspirations when they have already been told they are not academic at the tender age of 10yrs! The big lesson they get is that the child who went to grammar school can be a doctor, go to Oxbridge etc but they are expected to be practical or vocational. Show me a sec mod that teaches Latin? I don't expect they exist.

Even when you assume that all DCs will have been equally prepared and supported, SM will include bright DCs who are not allrounders or had exam problems or who are not suited to fast paced learning.
In some sports when you go through the different selection levels from county to national DCs get the chance every year to be reselected. I think at the least after a year or so eg for Y8, Y9, there should be a SM school recommendation for some DCs to change to grammar.
Personally my DCs have benefited hugely from being at superselectives not the least because they don't have an overinflated view of their abilities compared to others (real danger for bright pupils in comprehensive schools). For some DCs being regarded as a 'star' may help confidence, for others it means they coast and have a smaller pool of peers with whom they can exchange ideas.
However there should be more cooperation between schools to provide eg latin or debating or maths / science clubs.

The thing with that, Summer, is that it perpetuates the idea that grammar = winners and SM = losers. DC can be "promoted" to grammar. Would you also have movement in the opposite direction? I have an ideal solution... Put all of the children in a school which caters for all abilities, then children who are great at maths but struggle in English can be setted appropriately and taught to meet their needs. Oh, hang on...

If you are going down the route of 'promoting' some Sec Mod children to Grammar School then you would also need to 'demote' some GS pupils to the Sec Mod. On the whole few GS parents wouldn't go along with that.

Similarly, you can turn down a GS place and send your children to the Sec Mod. It doesn't work the other way.

Evil, it is not about winners but best suited learning. The demotion occurs at sixth form level anyway but that might be a bit late for some DCs who are more suited to an academic envirinment.
A good comprehensive will do well for the majority of pupils however it does n't get round my second point above.

insert -bit late to change to grammar_

When they get to 12/13/14 and it is obvious they were wrongly placed you would expect the flexibility of a swap but there is no flexibility. Sometimes some may go 'up' at 12 but no one ever goes 'down'.

"This being a modern school the other kids thought it funny to copy me and cause a "riot" which led to me being banned for "life" from Art"

Now that is just the sort of statement that makes my blood boil! What on ^earth makes you think that grammar school kids wouldn't have found it funny? Or

"Evil, it is not about winners but best suited learning."

Good luck with promoting that message!

Hak - it's the truth though, in some cases. The accelerated way they do things at our grammar, and the 'heavy' work load (especially in the 6th form) just wouldn't suit many kids. This is one of the reasons why the accepted wisdom about the school from those with no kids there is that it's incredibky high pressured and a hothouse. It's neither - to the sort of kids who thrive in that sort of environment. Which isn't everyone.

"Evil, it is not about winners but best suited learning."

If that were the case, then the tests would be different: there would be a raft of practical tests to identify a practical/vocational bent, sporting tests to identify sports skills, portfolios of art work examined to identify the artistic. It doesn't happen - except in those very few cases of children trying for ballet/drama/music schools.

Of course not all kids are suited to grammar school. In the same way they are not suited to the top set of a comprehensive school.........

My argument is always against the very public segregation at 11 and the need for separate schools.

How many parents would accept though, after, say, 2 years at a grammar, that the ethos/environment isn't ideal for their DC and would therefore happily accept "demotion" from the grammar. Basically kids kicked out of the grammar for not making the grade. I can see that going really well.