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.

"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."

Very bright children being challenged in non-selective schools?

Yes - of course it can happen. But not if a large proportion of ambitious parents refuse to send their children to non-selective schools.

"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'."

I couldn't disagree more.

Finland trumps us on every educational measure, despite the fact that pretty much all children are taught in comprehensives.

Children need teaching tailored to their individual needs, talented teachers and a calm environment to learn in. They should have access to that in any educational setting.

There are comprehensives in the UK - a good number - which regularly turn out children achieving at the very highest level. I fail to see why this isn't considered good enough for everyone.

Finland trumps us on every educational measure
No it does not.
Finland is great at getting everybody up to standards
It is rubbish at extending the gifted - which would not go down at all well with MN posters

Yes - of course it can happen. But not if a large proportion of ambitious parents refuse to send their children to non-selective schools.
Indeed, but there are large parts of the country with minimal numbers of segregated schools - and we like it like that

It's true that middle class flight doesn't help retain critical mass of highly able children (guilty as charged here).

But how schools deal with these pupils seems to have little correlation to their numbers.

An example. Some schools do not offer triple science. Regardless of how many DC would benefit from that. They simply don't offer it.

That (and Spanish being the only foreign language) is precisely the reason why we moved, WordFactory.

I live in Bucks, and there are processes in place for the bright kids who just fail the 11+:

The appeals process - I've known a number of children who've got into grammar school on appeal

The 12+ - available the following year, although if you pass, a place is not guaranteed.

6th form - all the grammar schools accept children into the 6th form from the secondary moderns if they reach a certain standard and there are places. A lot of kids do this.

The secondary modern schools are also very good, and even though the brightest children have been "creamed off" still enable their most able students to achieve excellent results. They are not second rate at all.

If the non grammars are so great, what the photon is the point of the stress of the 11+ ?

Talkin - I suspect many mn would sacrifice happily an educational system which serves the majority vastly better but which doesn't quite stretch enough the top 2% for one where inequality of provision and a fractured, complicated system disadvantage the majority but where the elite get to keep their privileges.

People are supportive of inequality of opportunity when it is not THEIR children getting the shitty end of the stick. In fact, if you are on the side of the 'winners' inequality of opportunity is a pretty excellent thing.

So I ask again root why you put your DS in for the 11 plus?

Word
Probably because they live in Kent or Lincolnshire

then again, the defenders of the grammars seem to rate their SecMods so highly, I'd have to agree - why do they play along with the game ?

Part of the reason I'm in favour of comps is so that kids do not leave school as precious little emperors who have never worked with poor or non academic people

But when there aren't grammars it's simply not the case that all the kids who would have gone to the grammars go to the comps. Large numbers of them go to the private schools where they're even more likely to emerge as precious little emperors etc.

I just don't understand why these conversations are always conducted on Mumsnet as if private schools don't exist.

Countess
it's simply not the case that all the kids who would have gone to the grammars go to the comps
Do you have the slightest shred of evidence for that assertion?
Do you have evidence that percentages of local pupils going to private school is higher in comp counties?

There are lots of private schools in Hampshire - many of them are BOARDING schools for kids from all over.
Ditto Dorset and Oxfordshire and other shire counties

Yes talkin I recall that you thought it a very useful thing for your DD to mix with the less able - do that she will be able to talk to them when she employs them IIRC.

Only anecdotal, Talkinpeace. I'm thinking about the kids I knew from dc's old primary, in the area where the local comp was crap. I knew a lot of them very well because I ran a club at school and the majority of the bright kids went on to what they called the 'grammar' which was actually private. Not much fun for the ones whose parents couldn't afford it and weren't in a position to move and saw most of their friendship circle go off.

We couldn't afford private for 3 kids but luckily were able to move, to a town with two excellent comps - a fact that I suspect is not unrelated to the fact that it has no private schools so if you want to go private you're looking at a bit of a commute.

I also recall my own grammar school education where it was very common for children to have siblings at private schools.

People make choices for their kids based on what all the available options are to them and for many of the parents these options do include private. The private/state cohorts aren't separate breeds and (as we also know from their use of independent primaries) many parents of the grammar cohort are the ones in a position to pay for private.

"So I ask again root why you put your DS in for the 11 plus?"

Because my DH insisted.

:-(

His view was 'let him have a go'.

My view is 'there's no point letting him 'have a go' when he hasn't covered the maths curriculum and he's up against children who've had years of tutoring and extra work at home.

DH won out.

Wordfactory
Too right.
I see so many shockingly bad business and political decisions made by those who do not understand the people at the sharp end of their businesses.
Barings and Nick Leeson was one of the clearest.
The current crop of politicians in their entirety.
Much of the disinvestment from manufacturing in the last 30 years was due to poor strategic/tactical communication.

Countess
You said that where there are no grammars, more people go private.
Prove it.

root I think I remember your thread.
It was a super selective wasn't it?

My DH would love DS to go to a selective school because the local 'comprehensives' aren't actually comprehensive. This is because of the existence of some very successful church schools, 4 super selective grammars, and a flourishing private sector including a number of schools with a very generous bursary scheme, in or near our part of the borough.

I am strongly supportive of comprehensive schools and my dd is at an excellent one. By 'excellent' I don't mean 'full of middle class children', I mean 'a school which takes children from across the ability range and appears to meet the needs of all'.

Luckily DS has got a strong chance of a place at another out of borough comprehensive which is also representative of the full ability range.

I think I'll have to agree to disagree with most of the MNers here! I strongly believe that one size does NOT fit all. We spent a lot of time choosing the right primary school for our children, the one that had the right 'feel' to it. Some were pushier some more nurturing, some big, some small. We applied to the one that we thought suited our children best. Why would we then want to lump them all together in just one comprehensive secondary school?

Adults don't all work best in the same type of environment. Some thrive in a competitive environment others prefer a more cooperative culture. Some like small organisations others prefer multinationals. Why do we think children are any different? Why should they all HAVE to go to the same secondary school regardless of whether it has the right culture for them?

The OP asked if we thought the Grammar schools should be allowed to prioritise more disadvantaged children. In my opinion if the grammar culture would suit a child on FSM then I personally wouldn't object to a softer pass mark to recognise the determination needed to get to that position. Our local grammar asks children to write an essay as well as complete multiple choice questions so that they can look at that for borderline pupils. The same could apply for children on FSM.

Yes Opal, it's amazing how many middle class/wealthy people have a powerful conviction that their children are too sensitive/arty/intelligent/shy/musical etc for comprehensive schools many of which seem to cater perfectly well for for poor children who can also be all of these things.

Root and branch
Did you actually read what I said? Nothing to do with my own children being too clever / arty / shy for comprehensive. I just said that different cultures suit different people. I'd hate the culture in some working environments that other adults would love. Same with children and schools. Each school I've seen has it's own culture that would suit some children and not others.

"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'."

My DS would thrive in a "A highly pressured academic ethos" for some subjects and needs a "nurturing culture that others may find boring" in other subjects and can therefore only be catered for in a "one size fits all" school.

Just because schools are comprehensive does not mean they are all the same.