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.

Oh I didn't go to GS. They'd been abolished. I went, like every other kid I knew, to our nearest school. We had no choice.

And maybe I wouldn't have got a place. But I would have liked to have the option. Or at least the option to go to a school that was better than mine.

And so it turned out did a lot more kids. Because as soon as parental choice was introduced, many went elsewhere.

Choice. Yep.

Two children who live next door to each other in a grammar school area. One has switched on, educated parents who understand how the system works. That child has a choice of grammar, faith and high schools. The other doesn't have switched on educated parents, and therefore has the high school.

Explain to me exactly how that is any sort of "choice"? Except in the way it offers a bigger slice of pie to the privileged- as usual.........

Two children in the same city, one living in the teeny catchment area of a highly achieving comp, the other on the other side of town in the catchment of a sink school.

What choice is that?

At least if there was a grammar school there would be the possibility of getting a place there.

No possibility against the hoards of children whose parents know how to work the system.

I would be interested to know if someone would be campaigning for the return of the grammar schools if they knew their own child had no hope of a place ( however much tutoring).

I have just googled 'return of grammar schools campaign' and lots of results. I then googled ' return to secondary modern schools campaign' and nothing.
I think that tells you all.

How would people feel with twins where one is at the grammar and one the secondary modern? I know 3 sets it happened to and all of similar ability.
Even more where siblings are either side of the divide.
I am so grateful that mine were all in the same school.

Too much bile and invective (from the usual suspects) about those parents who are engaged in their kids education, and clued up enough to do something about helping them.

Hakluyt. Do you equate engaged and switched on parents with being the "privileged few"

Mehitabel, not no possibility. It can be done and there are plenty of examples.

Absolutely no possibility though of being able to afford a house in the catchment area of naice comps

The grammar schools that I and my brother went to (super-selectives now) are 75% non-white now (predominantly Indian and some south Asian). How does this tie in with your 'privileged few' argument, Hakluyt? They are not a group traditionally associated with privilege, but they do believe in tutoring to get places.

DH and I are what you would call "engaged and switched on". We are very far from being privileged, though. One doesn't automatically equal the other!!

NotSureToday can you give me an example, this century, of one where there is not a supportive parent behind them? The supportive parent is the necessity- one that will read to them, talk to them, take them to the library. Can you give an example where they are disadvantaged in the area and the parents?

I am not ignoring any replies - I am unlikely to be online again until tomorrow- RL calls!

In this context, I think privileged/advantaged means having switched on, supportive parents, rather than having lots of money. This is what really makes a difference to children's outcomes. The two are interlinked, obviously - it's easier to support your child if you don't have to hold down two jobs to make ends meet, or if you don't struggle to understand their homework because of your own poor education - but it's the engagement that makes the difference, not the money.

And I think it's simplistic to argue that selection by postcode is equivalent to selection by test (and it is selection by test, not ability). Both lead to inequality, but I think it would be easier to tackle the former if the latter didn't exist.

Maybe we need to "define our terms"

When I say "privileged" I do not necessarily mean materially. But educated switched on parents who understand the system, are articulate and confident enough to engage with it, who know how to support a child's education and can can provide a calm "education friendly" environment confer huge benefits on a child, whatever school they are at. And it is foolish to ignore the fact that those benefits are more likely to come in familiar which also have other privileges- such as being in higher socioeconomic groups. And for anyone who has been involved with grammar and secondary modern schools the class thing is impossible to miss, even though nobody talks about it.

I'd quite like definitions of "bile" and "invective" too. They obviously don't mean what I think they mean........................

Hak, there is a lot of anger and sarcasm in a lot of the posts. In terms of bile and invective, look them up. If you wish to take me to task today, I am up for it, today more than evert.

Portico, I don't see any bile or invective on this thread. And no desire to "take you to task". You are one of the very few honest grammar school supporters!

Hakluyt - where exactly do you stand. TalkinPeace is pro comprehensive, I am pro-grammar. You seem to say a lot. Where do you stand. Or do you just like to be provocative for the sake of it.

To all, we have an education system, and we have to deal with it as best we can. Some comps are great. Some are not. A comp does not need to have an Ofsted 4 rating to be shit. Performance tables' trends, speaking with teachers, speaking to students and the reputation of the school will inform school choices. I prefer the grammar school that my child attends as it provides a free and very high quality education - and I am working hard with my other child to enable them to join their sibling. There are some grammars that we avoided. PS, the CVA score at the grammar school is good.

Gosh- have I not made myself clear? I am opposed to selective education, and very pro comprehensive.

Its all good and dandy thinking about the "majority" of children or families and having a socialist outlook. The reality though is that in life today any advantage you have (whether in terms of Educational or Money) you have to use. The way the world is today and will be for our children, is that if you waste any advantage in this "Cut Throat" world you are either naive or stupid. The sure fire way of making sure you or your children end up at the bottom of the Pyramid is by not using your advantage. Therefore if you have a bright child and a grammar school is available not using it based on is plain daft. It is also against the child's interests to place your ideology above the correct school for your child.

Not using it is plain daft.

Quite agree Smokepole.

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

What makes you think that a grammar school is right for evey bright child?

It is right for any child, who in agreement with their parents, wishes to try to get in.