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.

With Milly's suggestion about "Selective" Modern schools I thought the ultimate Academic ,Middle Class, Modern School might look something like this. 900 Pupils ,2.5% FSM 90% GCSE Maths/English 226 B- Average grade at A level with a intake of 4% Low 48% Middle and 48% High ability students. Believe it or not some modern schools are actually not to far away from these "statistics".

opalfire
which bit of highly competitive top sets, supportive middle sets and nurturing lower sets in a comp
do you not "get"

which bit of allowing kids to do science and art and music and computing and drama and maths to the level of their own ability

do you not "get"

which bit of how utterly grating it is for the 93% of us to see PFB threads about "sensitive" little rich kids - because ours just have to suck it up and grow a pair
do you not "get"

Opal, I'd be more convinced by your argument if all parents could genuinely choose from a range of schools with different cultures. But since many (most?) parents have little or no real choice, I think it's more important to ensure any child can thrive in any school.

Amber agreed.

Which is why I get uber frustrated that some comps are so resistant to making changes that will ensure their most talented pupils are more appropriately catered for!

Talkinpeace
I've been looking round lots of local schools. We have 2 secondary mods equal distances away. One has a very strong work ethic and a pressured environment for all children even the bottom sets. Colleagues children go there and it suits some but not others. The other school is much more touchy-feely and other colleagues children go there. Again some like it some don't. Each whole school has it's own culture whatever set the children are in. Do you 'get' what an organisation's culture means? Usually a function of the head teachers ethos. All of the schools I've looked around offer the whole range of subjects.

In a town near where I live, there are three comps.

One has rigorous setting, one uses streaming, one doesn't do much in the way of either!

The experiences of the DC attending those schools are not the same. The cultures are very different.

opal I haven't read all of the material posted here but I think you're coming in for some unnecessary flak. I live in the same area as you and am currently experiencing the joy of Year 5 prep for the exams. I think we are extremely lucky in the area we live in, having a choice of amazing schools that can cater for a range of children with a range of abilities. We have the option, as parents, of making that choice. For me personally, I agree with the grammar school. In our particular area, the grammar school system is actually benefitting all of the schools and children locally.

BUT, I accept that our area is fairly unique. Even in places where there are grammar schools, the alternatives are not so great. In some places, there simply isn't a choice. And you do have to accept on the whole, it is an affluent area, with tutors, parents putting in a considerable amount of time in support, lots of upwardly mobile / professional / pushy parents. House prices close to the grammar schools are hundreds of thousands more than an equivalent house half a mile away.

And whilst the results the grammar schools achieve are in the top 5 I think in the country, and a local primary school was 2nd in the whole of the country in the league tables, and the results for the alternative schools are just as impressive, you can understand why people may view it as out of reach for families who can't afford to live in the area / have tutors etc.

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

I think this is a misnomer, though. I went to school in Winchester, Hants. It was a comprehensive, but I have to say that the higher achieving pupils had absolutely zero to do with the those in the lower sets. We were streamed from what is now year 7, with mixed form groups which were, in effect, totally segregated. We're in Bucks now and DS will be going to grammar in September - it's actually quite a mixed group going from his school and he knows a lot of boys there through sporting activities. Not all "little emperors" at all.

Amber. I think we must be very lucky here then. We do have a choice. There is no one school that would suit everyone but there is a good variety available.

opal I think that comparing schools to work in terms of culture is inappropriate. As an employee, yes, adults make choices for themselves about the type of place they want to work. However, many of us try a range of workplaces before finding one we truly like, and also might find that our tastes change as our lives change or our careers progress. Our choices might be limited by other areas of our lives.

Children do not choose their own schools, usually - it's their parents' choice. Children tend to stay at the same school, unless there are problems, yet the change in the children between the ages of 11 and 16 or 18 is phenomenal.

Claiming that we need a range of schools so that children can find one which suits them, culturally, is a ridiculous argument.

"think we are extremely lucky in the area we live in, having a choice of amazing schools that can cater for a range of children with a range of abilities."

Really? So proper comprehensives then?

eviltwins private schools offer very different cultures. This is accepted in the sector and parents choose what they want.

I have my own (evil ) twins and their respective schools could not be more different.

If I have that within my grasp because I'm rich, why should others be denied any choice of culture because they are not ?

They won't be offered a choice of cultures if the school they choose is selective and they don't get in!

Comprehensive schools differ hugely in culture.

Opal. The range of schools offered in Trafford means that not one pupil, is left in a unsuitable school. As you are probably aware BTH and Wellington are only Modern schools in name and bare no relation to what people think modern schools are (past or current). The (fully) selective system works in Trafford, it does not work very well in Kent particularly in East Kent, the difference is that if your High/Middle ability child fails the 11+ in Kent, they are likely to end up in a school with a 40% pass rate at GCSE. The worst though is that even "High Ability" pupils at these schools in Kent achieve C grades, whereas in Trafford at the two schools mentioned High Ability pupils average B+ for GCSE.

It is difficult for people to say the 11+ does not work in Trafford, because it does work. The difference though from Kent is failure does not confine pupils who fail to abject schools.

My point was that the children do not choose the school themselves based on where they might fit in, and that they don't get to experiment and try different places for a few months, or change as their outlook changes, as we do as adults with jobs.

A parent choosing a school for their child is not the same, which was the comparison opal was making.

And culture in schools is such a fluid thing. The school I teach in has changed beyond recognition in the 10 years I've been there. The previous school I worked in did the same in the 4 years I was there.

I am waiting for the day when anyone says 'bring back the secondary modern'. It won't come.
They don't stand a chance of coming back when 80% of children won't get in then 80% of people with children, or grandchildren, or bothered about the next generation, will vote against it.
The disadvantaged don't stand a chance-money buys a place these days.

Hakult. You can't get a more "Modern School" than Stretford High with 39% FSM yet last year 52% got GCSE Maths/English, but perhaps better is that the 15% High Ability students averaged B - at GCSE. A similar school in Kent would be 25-30% GCSE.

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

Not in my area where the comprehensives are excellent. When they get the stream that would have gone to grammar school into top universities you would be a bit silly to pay.

"High Ability students"

Definition?

I shall get very militant if there is any suggestion of sending the majority of our children to secondary moderns and actually get up and fight it-to the end.

"Not in my area where the comprehensives are excellent."

What are the mortgages like?

Those who enter Secondary school at Level 5 in English/Maths?

I think that is the definition from the "Performance Tables" on the Dept of Education Website.

It would only work if they could get a test that was utterly tutor proof and that is an impossibility. Money buys a place-drill a child hard enough and long enough and it can be done.
If they did come back they need to have an end of year shuffle and the ones in the secondary modern who are out performing any in the grammar schools need to swap places.

What are the mortgages like?

That of course is also unfair. You can imagine what the mortgages are like.

Quite simply the best schools and the best teachers need to be in the poorest areas as the rest will do OK.

T"he top LEAs for GCSEs and A levels were dominated by areas where grammar schools still exist like Sutton, Bromley, Kingston, Barnet, Trafford and Redbridge"

Well, in Sutton there are no fewer than 3 boys super selectives, and I believe some girls schools too, which take the top % from thousands of applicants from all over London - so a comparison based on a borough will be very skewed indeed. I believe Kingston is the same, with super-selectives.