Selective education, Kent's 11 plus and Grammar School system

[TootingJo]

I moved to Kent unaware of the selective system and found out most of my daughter's friends had 11 plus tutors. We got her a tutor with just a few weeks to go but I feel it was too little too late and she failed the Kent test.

She judged herself a failure, saw all her best friends go to Grammar schools, and went to a school that got closed down after being put into special measures. Her latest school has just had a poor Ofsted rating and disruption in class is a real problem.

I feel that Kent's system is great for those that achieve Grammar school places, but that the quality of teaching suffers in the rest of the schools. I love that my daughter is now in a local school, her Grammar school friends have hours of travel each day while she can walk to school. But as a middle class mum who's seen 'the other side' of local education I would love to have regular comprehensive schools here. I know no education system is perfect, but this one seems to serve the bright 30% at the expense of the 70% who fail at eleven. Looking at Ofsted stats it's clear that the best teaching is in Grammar schools in this county, but surely good teaching should not be reserved for the brightest pupils?

I would love to see a referendum on the school system in Kent, to allow the people here to choose the education system. It could be that I'm a lone voice and everyone else loves it! Any thoughts?

[TootingJo]

Regarding 'the quality of teaching suffers in the rest of the schools.'

I stand by this, and I'm not basing it on exam results. Ofsted records a score for quality of teaching, so it can be broken down by Grammar and Secondary Moderns in Kent. I've asked to see this split, plus the overall school ratings.

From comments from my daughter and her friends the difference could be that there's more disruption in the Moderns, and also (based on the 2 schools she's been in) less homework and discipline. Her friends in Grammar schools seem to have a generally better school experience. I wonder if there's less parental involvement at Moderns too.

It would be interesting to see if Grammar schools get more applications for each teaching job. If I were a teacher I might prefer to teach a bunch of bright middle class kids. But if this is the case then the supply and demand of it all will mean the Grammars select better teachers.

I think there are stats that could be looked at around the differences in the two types of schools, and this might paint more of a picture than anecdotal evidence about great teachers in Moderns. My daughter has some great teachers, but also a lot more supply teachers than I'd have liked.

I absolutely think the selective system is working for the bright kids, but I worry that the big picture is a worse education for many less academic children.

[Mumheart03]

I have 2 children at grammar and 1 at a secondary. As a parent seeing the two at grammar get the type of education that should be offered to all (and not just to the select few - whether that's due to an 11+ test or private fees) is very frustrating.

We live in Bucks so our children are automatically entered for the test, if you pass you've got the option of grammar, if you don't pass then it's the secondary school. The irony of our situation is that the one who didn't qualify for grammar is the most academic of the three ...

[Hullygully]

my dc went to a kent grammar. Being old I thought it would have a nice mix of children there based on merit.

hahahahahahahahaha

95% from private prep.

[RashDecision]

Certainly Judd & TOGs have around 40% intake from private preps.

Makes me v angry.

[Thymeout]

I believe in comprehensive education as a matter of principle. I have taught in Sec Mods and at a top independent school but most of my career was in Comprehensive schools, by choice. I worked in Inner London, where we do have genuine Comprehensives, because there are v few Grammars. Our pupils, some who arrived in the UK speaking no English at 11, did well in their exams and the best went on to Oxbridge.

In an area like Kent, where up to a third of the brightest pupils are creamed off by the Grammars, I would be in two minds about where to teach. Apart from wanting to teach my subject to its upper limits, I feel so sorry for teachers in areas such as Dover/Folkestone where, no matter how good the school and its teaching, its 'success' is largely due to external factors beyond the school's control. When numbers begin to drop, and the intake is skewed to lower ability entrants, it must be so depressing, particularly when it's the only chance at secondary education that your current pupils will have.

This is a situation that increasing grammar school numbers can only make worse - and we're talking about the majority of the school population here. Such a waste.

[BeaufortBelle]

I take the reverse stance thymeout. I went to grammar school in Kent in the 70s and it was a fabulous education. The children who went took it seriously and were encouraged to achieve to the best of their ability. Even at the grammar school there was setting. In those days there was also a pecking order of local schools.

First there was the boys and girls grammar school. The one in Canterbury was slightly better and some parents sent their children that far afield. Under the grammar schools was a co-ed technical "grammar" school pitched just below the grammar level. Then there was a church affiliated secondary mod regarded very highly. Then, sadly there was an awful secondary mod. The problem of course being the standards at the latter.

I think different children need different sorts of schools. Interestingly my children were raised in London and sadly there was not one local comprehensive school that offered three separate sciences, a good selection of MFL and a classical language for boys. We sent our dd to a highly regarded girls cofe comp. and found standards so desperately lacking and the behaviour so poor and disruptive that we moved her to the indy sector after year 8. The standards around teaching, ethos and behaviour were totally unacceptable.

Surely the issue is about raising standards across the board rather than insisting on one size fits all huge comprehensives where quieter children can be totally "lost". The sadness in my opinion is that the UK does not value sufficiently children who are less academic than others and does not value the vocational trades that we all need so badly and which are run as small businesses as on the Continent and elsewhere in the world.

I think we have to accept that some children are not suited to 9 or 10 GCSE's and should emphasise good, solid foundation skills so that our young people can function in the real world.

Although some children develop late I think I could tell when my children were in Year 2 which children were the clever ones just as a parent and I think it's sad that schools and parents seem to work hand in hand to have unrealistic expectations until very late on.

Wholeheartedly I believe that different children need different types of schools and trying to fit all into the same sized hole is counterproductive.

[RashDecision]

First there was the boys and girls grammar school. The one in Canterbury was slightly better and some parents sent their children that far afield. Under the grammar schools was a co-ed technical "grammar" school pitched just below the grammar level. Then there was a church affiliated secondary mod regarded very highly. Then, sadly there was an awful secondary mod. The problem of course being the standards at the latter.

And these days, in many parts of Kent, you have 75% of children at that "awful secondary mod"

[RashDecision]

In Kent, it really is a case I believe, that those with money are getting the best the state has to offer at secondary. Be it by paying for tutoring or for a private prep, and then taking all the best state grammar places. And then if Jonty still doesn't pass with all that cash thrown at it, they will just lack him off to private secondary.

Whilst the underclass that can't afford it are left with the awful secondary moderns.

And the Tories want more of this.

[BeaufortBelle]

No, because in the 60s and 70s the grammar system worked and if there were more grammar schools they would be accessed more easily by all.

[BeaufortBelle]

Why don't the 75% of parents at the less good schools stand up and be counted vis a vis the standards.

[TootingJo]

BeaufortBelle I'm sure individual parents are trying to improve standands in their individual schools. There isn't any bigger campaign for the school system in Kent.

The official way to change the selective system is to present a petition of 20% of parents (only parents names are allowed.) It has been tried but is impractical to administer as it involves asking people to list their name, address, child's name, school, and even send a utility bill and birth certificate to the electoral commission if their child is below school age!

I think education is a bigger issue for everyone, future parents should be included in any choice, and a change to the system of education effects parents with children below school age much more because it takes years to make the changes.

It might well be that the people of Kent prefer selective education, but a referendum in the county (run at the same time as the EU referendum) would seem a decent way to find out. It's not a party political issue so it's not something that people can have a say on via votes in an election.

I suspect that selective education would win in a Kent vote, but at least it would be a democratic decision.

[BertrandRussell]

Unless you believe that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are inherently less bright than children from more privileged backgrounds then the briefest glance at the disparity in the numbers of FSM children in grammar schools and high schools is all that's necessary to show the absolute unfairness of the Kent system.

[girlgonesouth]

"Wholeheartedly I believe that different children need different types of schools and trying to fit all into the same sized hole is counterproductive."

I wholeheartedly believe the opposite - my daughter goes to a great comprehensive, with really strong pupil progress for all abilities and an intake of over 50% on free school meals. She just finished year 9 on level 8 in several subjects, is in a year where I'd say at least 30 pupils are heading for straight As, tomorrow she returns from a week at an international debate school. Why oh why can't this type of progressive school be the aspiration for every local authority instead of an out dated and socially divisive system.

[BertrandRussell]

It's also important to remember that most (not all, but most) comprehensive schools set. And so do not provide the "one size fits all" education their detractors talk about.

[Clavinova]

The comprehensive system as it stands now doesn't solve the problem though. Hampshire for example is fully comprehensive but it's no surprise that the best performing state school in Hampshire has a fsm rate of 1.7%. Kent in fact only has 4 schools rated 'inadequate' (not including special schools) and Hampshire has 6. Kent has 25 secondary schools rated 'outstanding' (albeit most of them grammar schools) but Hampshire only has 8 comprehensive schools rated 'outstanding'. Kent also has slightly fewer schools 'requiring improvement' (13) even though it has more schools than Hampshire.

girlgonesouth - are you based in London? London schools receive approx. £2,000 pa extra funding per pupil compared to other areas.

TootingJo - if you are located in a fairly remote part of Kent you might not attract the best subject specialist teachers anyway.

[RashDecision]

Yes Clavinova but it's not all about Ofsted ratings, is it? Ofsted ratings are one measure. And as you say nearly all the best schools according to Ofsted are the grammars. Better to look at the sec moderns Ofsteds, if that's the measure you are using.

What about choice? Hampshire has schools where pupils can do triple science, often only available at grammars in Kent. So fuck up a test on one day when you're 10, no triple science for you 5 years down the line.

[RashDecision]

OP - I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of potential disinterest and apathy in Kent (or anywhere for that matter) about challenging the system.

People that really understand how shit it is have children of school age and know realistically that nothing will change in time for their children, and those that don't aren't that interested as they either don't really "get" it, or they think it won't affect them. Very few people altruistically challenge systems this entrenched and complex.

[BertrandRussell]

Another point to consider is this. If the selective system is so brilliant, then wholly selective LEAs like Kent should have significantly better GCSE and A Level results tha similar non selective LEAs.

They don't.

[timeandtimeagain]

Op you described yourself as a "middle class mum". So do you think grammar schools are more for middle class children? That says a lot about the image of grammar schools!
A few years back we paid a big sum of money to buy a small house in a good comp catchment with premium council tax. I am now so content that my both dcs go to good primary and secondary schools. Grammar schools are just a bus a way if they can get a place that is only our plan B. So who wants grammar schools the most? Those live near good comps but can travel to gss. Those who pay for private anyway but can possibly save large sum of money if their dcs into gss. I want to know if many of those who live in gs area with alternative RI schools want g's as much and they are affected the most.
"The tabloids harp on about Grammar schools being a vehicle of social mobility when the opposite is true." Should social mobility be for all children? Why only the very few managed to pass the test on that one day? Do they care about children who have say e.g. nc level 7 maths but nc level 2/3 Eng or kids are very talented in art, music or sports but average academically.
A few of my young OAP in-laws went to gss back in the late 50s and early 60s. Even back then they had employed tutors to coach them for 11+. It was easier in the good old days as they had many more gss around plus the independent school parents weren’t so interested in the state schools. My OAP in-laws weren’t rich enough to pay for indie however they were conformable enough to be able to afford music, dance lessons.

[Millymollymama]

Bucks is a selective LA and in the 2013 tables was in 8th place. Just below Slough, Barnet, Kingston upon Thames,Sutton, Kensington and Chelsea, the Isles of Scilly and one other! They are the best shire county and had 5500 children in the exam cohort in the tables. This makes Bucks significantly bigger than the authorities above them.

I live in Bucks and obviously our grammar schools are good. However, we continue to have problem secondary moderns. I would say that our difficulties lie in the huge problem of recruiting top quality leadership teams to some secondary moderns. Some have been in and out of special measures, and its latest incarnations, for years. All have become acadamies but some still struggle. Two of the three secondary moderns in Aylesbury are back to RI and worse. Attracting the best teachers is continually problematic. Some teachers want to teach in a high achieving 6th form. Some secondary moderns just don't have this. Other teachers just do not want the social work side of teaching in a sec mod. The challenges are different and some teachers just want to teach without having to worry about if a child is homeless or has a violent parent. (Often not issues found in grammar schools). Bucks is working at "closing the gap" and we have significant problems with this because so few of our underprivileged children get to a grammar school. Money is currently being diverted from the grammars to the sec mods to "close the gap" and the grammars are squealing, loudly.

When you judge a school, the progress the children make is paramount. Clearly the quality of leadership and teaching is a big influence on this. Kent, like Bucks, struggles to get the best leadership and teaching in some of its schools. Mainly, I suspect, because there is just not enough talent out there to meet the significant challenges. Also all Bucks schools are starved of money in comparison to, say, schools in inner London. We are near the bottom of the per pupil funding formula league tables! We do have some fabulous secondary moderns, but making sure they all offer a decent education is a challenge.

There will never be a change to this system. You do not have to take the 11+ here. You can opt out. I never understand why children slog through tutoring and the exams and are still not even remotely close to passing. Parents should know better. It is kinder to not bother. There are a few mistakes made because potential, especially in boys, is not always picked up. The primary school heads can support appeals and lots of children on the borderline are reassessed without needing an appeal. The slow maturing academic child is the type to slip through the process but there is the 12 plus and 6th form later if needed.

[ChablisTyrant]

We deliberately moved our family to a county without any selection to avoid this nonsense. The nearest 10 secondary schools all get very similar results. Almost everyone goes to their nearest school. Everyone is happy.
Selective schooling for the 25% worked well for an era when everyone else would leave school at 15 to work in blue collar or routine jobs. We don't live in this world anymore.

[timeandtimeagain]

Why not put a talented grammar school HT to manage a RI school in the same county?

[BertrandRussell]

"Why not put a talented grammar school HT to manage a RI school in the same county?"

If by RI you mean a high school, or secondary modern, then because he or she woild have entirely the wrong skill set.

[TootingJo]

I can't believe I've been looking at Select Committee reports on my day off... This bit fits my experience of the two secondary moderns.

"Grammar schools play little or no part in the education of some types of children. In practice in Kent this means that 33 secondary schools are absolved of responsibility for these children and the consequence is that the remaining two thirds of secondary schools take almost all these children. This results in the non-selective schools bearing a disproportionate burden of the education of children, who for a variety of reasons are more difficult and frequently more costly to educate."

I emailed Nicky Morgan (why not!) to see if there's any sensible way to have a say on the local education system. The current government are keen on parental involvement after all, and the last look at grammar school ballots advised that they didn't work.

[yolofish]

"Why not put a talented grammar school HT to manage a RI school in the same county?"

I know a very talented sec modern HT put in to turn around a grammar school... and she did it. Some grammars sit on their laurels.

In my view the best way to judge a school is to look at its' value added - ie, how they bring their pupils on.