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.

Well, obviously anyone who supports selective education would, eviltwins. Because it's about the best learning environment for the individual...........

There's certainly some attrition at ours, most intakes.

Rabbit-hours is a supr selective. I think that not being able to keep up in one of those would be more acceptable than in an "ordinary" grammar.

You would need it fair - as it stands it is based in numbers.
Grammar school may have 120 places but the one in the next town has 125 spaces. It is crucial for the child who comes in at number 121.
The numbers are such that a boy may get a place having less marks than a girl- just based on intake. Or vice versa.
The marks that got a child a place last year may not get them a place this year if more get higher marks.
It is all very arbitrary. I wouldn't be so against it if you could take each child on their merits, rather than spaces first- who are the first through the door with marks and a different cut off point each time.
It is great at the very crude top/bottom divide- what it can't do is sort the ones in the middle- somewhere equal children find themselves on opposite sides of the divide. There are no allowances for late developers.

Wordfactory
I suspect that one of the biggest problems you face is not actually the children or their families, but the low aspirations of certain careers staff in schools.

Proactive schools assume that their brightest kids can achieve anything, regardless of how half arsed the parents are.
Less good schools - sometimes because they have by definition not got the academic kids - have low expectations : which are met.

If your team could kick all schools into aiming
to every year get kids into RG surely doable
to every year get kids interviews for Top200 Unis an ask but not a massive one
within every 5 years get a kid into Top200 Unis ; including Oxbridge

you would have achieved more for social mobility than any ferkwit politician
and utterly redeemed yourself for the fee paying flight

but I will not single out Oxbridge as Imperial and LSE and others have plenty to offer
that and DH's work with Uni outreach is about getting people into STEM which is not your area

Define ability:
SO,
the best education is open to those who run the 100m fastest on their 11th birthday
OR
the best education is open to those who can swear in the most languages on that date
OR
the best education is open to those who can pick the lock to the safe that holds the exam papers the fastest
OR
the best education is open to those who can do 16 fouetees on the spot on their 11th birthday

ALL
are valid mechanisms to define future ability

choose which one the state supports

I don't understand why you think that grammar schools provide the best education. They do for some, not for others. The same is true of the comp model.

That's true rabbit.

Selective schools offer a terrible education for the majority!

Can we find a way of distinguishing between super selectives and "ordinary" grammar schools? Because they are two different debates- and much cross purposing can happen.

Super selective is a grammar school with no catchment.

Catchment selective is a grammar where selection in first round of offers is made on those live in the grammar school's designated catchment meeting the minimum automatic qualifying score.

Super selective. Catchment Selective

I expect that selection is best for a few, but I don't see why the majority have to have a system to their detriment to allow for it.

The super selective works because only one or two a primary school get a place, and some of the highest achievers don't even bother to apply.

We did not choose a local catchment grammar in the same LEA. It is a school that achieved very good gcsse results. Upon closer analysis, turned out many resits were undertaken. At A'Level the sixth form becomes a comprehensive and the numbers double to 300. It is alarming the drop in performance. I questioned the head about this on an open day. His reply, "If you don't like it, there are other schools". That was all I needed to opt for a super selective.

I expect that selection is best for a few, but I don't see why the majority have to have a system to their detriment to allow for it.

Mehit. No one is forced to enter for the exam. Btw, my taxes pay for comprehensive school. Why cannot they also be allowed to pay for grammar schools.

portico
Super selective is a grammar school with no catchment
Do they provide free transport to the school for every child over 3 miles away, no matter where they live?

No we have to pay close to £1800 for train and local bus. For the catchment grammar in our lea, travel costs would be covered by the lea.

So the "superselective" is utterly financially selective regardless of how bright the children are

I could not afford £1800 a year per kid and I'm in the top 20% according to the IFS

superselectives become more odious the more I discover

TalkinPeace

We make sacrifices to make this payment. Some things for partner and me have had to go to accommodate this.

Sorry Hak, partner and I

Tbh, I would not expect an out of county lea to pay for my child's travel costs. But, there are some means tested allowances that provide some relief to those who can prove that they need it.

TalkinPeace the costs will rise if dc2 is fortunate to get in.

"sacrifices"
PAH
half the country has take home pay under £23k per year
before food
before mortgage/rent
before heat and light
before clothes

£1800 a year per child on transport to the school of "choice" is so far into the land of MC first world problems its unreal

Not all superselectives require that sort of travel expenditure! And surely the cost of trains and buses is the fault of the government or the local government, not the schools. In London, transport is free for kids. In other places, it isn't (and it's often shit) - that's not a school's fault and it's no reason to label a school odious.

Talkin you are continuously ignoring the fact that most parents who are fortunate enough to get their kids into out of catchment comps(like you) if the catchment comp isn't good enough pay exactly the same.

It is a far,far bigger problem.

Basically if you can't afford property in the best catchments or failing that transport to it the poorer kids are lumbered with the poorer schools.

For some getting their kids into a local grammar they can drop them off at,cycle or walk to is easier than to a desirable comp.

rabbit
London was not covered by bus deregulation
so schooling in London is insane because distance is no object

in the rest of the country, school buses have to comply with VFM
ie its insane to provide a free bus from outside one school to another one

BUT
the fact that those parent who can spends thousands of pounds per year per child have a choice of state schools that poorer families in the same street do not is odious