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?

Lily - are you in Kent? Your comments sound like you aren't.

Hi Tooting Jo:

My DD1 also failed to score high enough for the two reasonably commutable grammar schools she was interested in going to here in Birmingham and attends a local comp. She's very happy there and for her less homework (considerably less than grammars i.e. 1.5 hours a week at comp vs. 10-12 hours a week at grammar) is a bonus as she has more time for her sporting interests and indeed it has paid off as she's made a county team.

I too feel that the school doesn't always appear that ambitious. In part this may be because much of KS3 is taught mixed ability and they emphasis at the school (which may change as Progress 8 rolls out) - anyway the emphasis at the school is about given less able pupils confidence and not labelling anyone by set. Their feelign (and they're probably right) is that once you know you're bottom set it can be negatively reinforcing - you sort of give up, what's the point I'm rubbish at this kind of thing. The downside of this approach is that they don't appear to have put a lot of effort into higher ability pupils - so it isn't always clear what more they could be doing to stretch themselves.

I've posted about my worries regarding maths here on MN Secondary, but basically my solution has been to do more at home. DD1 agrees that it really isn't enough herself (homework is worksheet started in class but she almost alwasy finishes in class so has no homework) - she does need reminding about what she could do when I get the 'Mom, I've got no homework again' statement but if you say 'How are you getting on with Tom Sawyer?' - she'll run up to her room and get it and start reading/ or if I say how are you getting on with those maths worksheets/ NRICH puzzles - she'll get back to those.

The one advantage we do have as parents is our children are being educated in an era where the internet means with a bit of research we can identify websites that will support and enhance our children's learning. If you invest in an ipad or iphone (and you can get a reconditioned older model fairly inexpensively) you can also access GCSE materials private schools are putting on line - there are tutorial apps and some schools are starting to put their own course materials online (www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30832938) - a lot of this is free or relatively inexpensive. Things like Khan academy (entirely free: www.khanacademy.org/ are brilliant supplementary resources when you just don't quite get how something works in maths/ science especially. Quircky blogs/ you tube channels can be absolutely fantastic discoveries: e.g. learn something new: zidbits.com// Khan Academy & MIT Academy K-12 videos from MIT students: www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/mit-k12 or Corbett Maths 5 a day: corbettmaths.com/5-a-day/

In English I'm a bit of a fuddy duddy but there simply is no substitute for quality writing - my solution was to look up what books are required reading for middle school pupils (Grade 6 - 8 = KS3 in UK Y7 - Y9) and that is our list of supplementary reading material.

In a weird sort of way we seem to have gone full circle now back to the kind of self-education (autodidactism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism) of the pre-19th century.

------

Aside from what we're doing I also think it is really important as a parent to understand what a school (regardless of OFSTED rating) can do with an able, hard-working pupil. One of our good friends had a daughter at a school in special measures but they were fantastic with her. They gave her extra work, encouraged her to stretch herself and she got a clutch of A and A grades for GCSE. She successfully transfered to a King Edward Grammar for sixth form and has a clutch of conditional offers from high calibre universities for her particular science degree. As a school they barely get 40% to 5 C - A GCSEs including maths/ English - but they were fantastic with this girl and got her to a very high standard and she went on to do amazingly well at the grammar in sixth form (predicted A/A* for A-Levels).

So I would advise that just because a school is officially not getting great outcomes for every pupil (or nearly everyone) in the way a grammar school might - remember that a grammar has an intake where it is skewed to very high ability and very motivated students (whether that's coming from them or pushy parents or both is beside the point). Moreoever I know that grammars won't let a kid slip too far behind - they're given extra support/ work to catch back up to the mainstream or if they persistently fail to perform they're encouraged to transfer back to a comprehensive secondary school.

Meanwhile in a comprehensive you have a range of kids who do and don't want to be there. Those who like to learn and are prepared to work and those that just see it as a total waste of time and every shade in between. A comprehensive intake is much more complex, demanding and generally of considerably lower ability than a grammar and therefore the one thing I'd argue strongly against in your OP is that the results of a comprehensive mean 'lower standard of teaching' - the results of a comprehensive often reflect lower achievement of intake at start of Y7 - if you're starting with a significant portion of the kids you take in a position where they are weak readers, poor writers, are shaky in maths and would find division with remainders beyond them it's a steep hill to climb. Grammars don't face any of that. Comprehensive secondaries regularly do.

HTH

"I don't get why, when non-grammar schools suffer problems with disaffected students, classroom disruption, lack of parental involvement etc, that's it's somehow the responsibility of grammar school kids and their parents to come and "save" them."

If there were a healthcare system that gave 20% of the healthiest people the best doctors and the fastest emergency care, it would mean worse doctors and slower ambulances for the rest. Only I don't think people would accept it if we administrated our health system this way.

What Lily said. This analogy is based on the absolutely false idea that the government somehow favours grammar schools in terms of resources. It doesn't. In most cases, the opposite will be true. Children on free school meals get a pupil premium paid to the school to increase the resources for their education. As grammars notoriously have far fewer FSM children than secondary moderns or even most comprehensives, they will actually get less money overall. They get no more money for buildings budget than other schools, no more more for technology, support staff, SEN support or anything else. My daughter's grammar school is a joke in terms of resources: buildings that are literally falling down, with knackered old windows that freeze the kids all winter and then boil them in summer.

You've said that grammar's have the advantage of attracting better staff. I can well imagine that MIGHT be true, I don't know. I'm not aware of any huge problem of secondary moderns being plagued by substandard staff. Like anywhere there will be good teachers and less good teachers. I rather doubt that abolishing grammars would suddenly make a huge difference to other schools because there'd be all these amazing teachers on the market. You may well find that what is needed for a teacher to succeed with a tough mixed ability class is not the skill set that grammar teachers have anyway.

Beyond that, the difference is purely to do with the students themselves and their parents.

If comps are to work then there has to be a well funded option for the disruptive, disaffected and non compliant minority who dilute learning for pupils and job satisfaction for staff. Some of the conduct in schools would never be tolerated elsewhere.

I understand your pov OP but it isn't just the kent area that is like this, ther are pockets all over the place.
Where we live the mc families would love some grammar schools and the chance to pay for extra tuition for their dc to pass the 11+ or county exam.
the schools here are ok or failing, not one outstanding amongst them.
there is widespread disruption in classes and we have more than a few classes of childcare, travel, and beauty Btec courses in schools.
There is one school in the whole county that teaches latin.

You're missing the point. The prime resource that grammar schools have is their pupils. Anyone who's taught in a true comprehensive, with the full range of ability, as opposed to a secondary modern without the top 25-30%, will tell you that the presence of a sizeable number of able and interested pupils lifts the performance of the middle band. As well, of course, as their parents and a wider range of teaching opportunities to attract staff. It's like the difference between teaching in an 11-18 school compared to one without a 6th form.

I also think it's good for the top band. There's a lot they can learn from the experience of mixing with the rest of the population. For a start, they discover that a high IQ isn't everything and that the average student has talents and gifts that turn out to be just as valuable.

" we have more than a few classes of childcare, travel, and beauty Btec courses in schools."

Your problem with this is?

Thymeout- absolutely. And t's not just academics. The grammar schools tend to have most of the kids who have had outside school sports coaching or music lessons too, because their parents have had the time and/or money and/or inclination to provide it.So the secondary moderns tend to get trounced at inter school competitions too. Just so demoralising and damaging for individuals and for society.

I'm in a grammar county.

We have 2 single sex grammars, several secondary moderns and 1 bilateral school (secondary modern & grammar on same site).

We are in the catchment for the bilateral school which is Ofsted outstanding and easily my first choice for my DDs.

The issue now is that so many people have moved into the catchment area we now won't get in on distance .

House prices around the school have rocketed in the past couple of years. The only guarantee of getting in is to secure one of the grammar places.

I agree with everyone here and really wish we lived in a different area but we can't afford to move.

Everyone here has a tutor for grammar. I hate it but don't know what to do. I genuinely feel like I would be failing my child if I sent them into an exam without the same prep as everyone else.

I know lots of children who pass then struggle, but I don't want one of them to get my son's place!

The grammar schools tend to have most of the kids who have had outside school sports coaching or music lessons too, because their parents have had the time and/or money and/or inclination to provide it.So the secondary moderns tend to get trounced at inter school competitions too. Just so demoralising and damaging for individuals and for society.
Despite the undeniable social injustice of different backgrounds would those SM individuals would feel any better in comprehensive schools being excluded from even the chance of participation and representing their school due to competing with the MC kids with outside extras? Blaming the SM / grammar structure for this is in effect blaming social inequality which seems just as prevalent in the comprehensive system (both within and between schools) whatever some of you would like to think.
Luckily in at least some sports raw talent and the love of it does prevail as can be seen from the footballers and athletes from deprived areas in South America and Africa. There are also music initiatives for poorer children in certain countries that show a lot can be achieved to develop potential with well organised determined enthusiasm.

I refuse to get my son a tutor. If he is naturally able to get into grammar school, then he will go to grammar school. I have some past papers we will look through over the summer, but that is it. No way am I having him tutored up to the eyeballs to get him in, only for him to not be able to keep up once he is there. And I am not paying a tutor for the rest of his school years!!

The tutor thing is bonkers and does mean that grammar schools are selecting people by financial advantage, which further stretches the gap between rich and poor. When it is the rich who are getting the better education, there is something wrong with the system.

I suspect my son will go to the local comp. fine. He will go where he is academically ready for. If he gets into grammar school, it will be on his own merit and he will go there.

Of course social inequality is inherent in the system and exists in comprehensive schools. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. But anyone with an ounce of imagination could see what it must be like to be at a school which is always beaten by grammar schools. What do you think that does to morale, to aspiration, to relationships within society?

It's priorities though isn't it.I've had experience of some quite tough schools where parents will happily shell out £££££ on football,academies,strips,computer games etc but balk at music lessons or books. Ime often such schools slaughter other schools at sporting events.

Round here the grammars compete against other grammars or independent schools, not the secondary moderns. Not sure what that says really.Ds was tutored (extra classes on saturday) and we did an hour a day 4 days a week for the whole of year 5. TBH I think this just leveled the field with those from prep schools, without the disruption and class sizes of 15-20 rather than the 34 ds had in year 4 (now 32 I believe)

"Round here the grammars compete against other grammars or independent schools, not the secondary moderns. Not sure what that says really"

Practically everything that needs to be said on the subject, really.

It is about priorities. My priority was to secure the best possibly education within my means for my children. That's what being a good parent is about. I can't change the system or the world but I can make sure my children get as much out of what exists as possible.

FWIW we sent our dd to a high performing sought after small cofe comprehensive that had a spectacular reputation. It had also had new management a couple of years before my daughter started. It went from having an incredible ethos to an ethos of "this is just a comprehensive" where nothing was done to deal with dreadful behaviour because those responsible for it were from deprived backgrounds and therefore allowances had to be made. That is what is wrong with the comprehensive system as I have seen it: it supports a culture of excuses.

We moved our daughter after Year 8 due to disruption and her increasing unhappiness. Only English and Maths were set. There was no setting for any other subjects except that later on the top half of the cohort did triple rather than double science.

What we saw was a system that supported the gradual sink to the lowest common denominator rather than a rise to the highest which surely would have been better for those with least support.

Our daughter would probably have got into a grammar school in Kent btw where it's the top 25%. She stood no chance for somewhere like Tiffin where it's probably the top 0.5% and which I question in the context of ethos nowadays because it has been infiltrated by a "Tiger Mummy" culture in a way that is quite extreme and cannot be healthy.

Anyone who's taught in a true comprehensive, with the full range of ability, as opposed to a secondary modern without the top 25-30%, will tell you that the presence of a sizeable number of able and interested pupils lifts the performance of the middle band.

I think this is certainly the case.

The other bit about the mix in schools that I find it upsetting is the social split it creates. This is not really an educational point, but my daughter's Grammar school friends are all Pizza Express and Gap clothes people, her secondary modern is completely McDonalds and Primark.

So my daughter hides her secret Pizza Express life from her friends, it's bizarre. And while I hope my son goes to Grammar school I'd much rather he mixed with a range of people. He's pretty much going to assume everyone can afford foreign holidays and nice stuff. he may get good exam results but he's going to need tutoring in reality!

"You've said that grammar's have the advantage of attracting better staff. I can well imagine that MIGHT be true, I don't know. I'm not aware of any huge problem of secondary moderns being plagued by substandard staff."

It might be true, and after half a bottle of wine on a dull Saturday night I made a FOI request to find out. I asked the difference between the number of applications for Grammar teaching posts vs Moderns, and also the number of supply teachers used in each.

I can say that in the two schools my daughter's been to there's been a huge problem with teachers leaving and supply teachers in lessons for months. This wouldn't be so bad but the supply teachers never bother to set homework.

Good and bad teachers exist in all schools, but you'd think if Grammar school's get more applications for each teaching job this will lead to some effects on the rest of the schools.

If anyone can think of any stats stuff to show Grammar Schools are a Good Thing I will quite happily look at that too.

It was a good point someone made about overall exam results being no better in Kent or other selective counties. But if there is some proof that a selective education system is better I will be happy to see the other side.

"Anyone who's taught in a true comprehensive, with the full range of ability, as opposed to a secondary modern without the top 25-30%, will tell you that the presence of a sizeable number of able and interested pupils lifts the performance of the middle band."

I think this is certainly the case.

The other bit about the mix in schools that I find it upsetting is the social split it creates. This is not really an educational point, but my daughter's Grammar school friends are all Pizza Express and Gap clothes people, her secondary modern is completely McDonalds and Primark.

So my daughter hides her secret Pizza Express life from her friends, it's bizarre. And while I hope my son goes to Grammar school I'd much rather he mixed with a range of people. He's pretty much going to assume everyone can afford foreign holidays and nice stuff. he may get good exam results but he's going to need tutoring in reality!

"You've said that grammar's have the advantage of attracting better staff. I can well imagine that MIGHT be true, I don't know. I'm not aware of any huge problem of secondary moderns being plagued by substandard staff."

It might be true, and after half a bottle of wine on a dull Saturday night I made a FOI request to find out. I asked the difference between the number of applications for Grammar teaching posts vs Moderns, and also the number of supply teachers used in each.

I can say that in the two schools my daughter's been to there's been a huge problem with teachers leaving and supply teachers in lessons for months. This wouldn't be so bad but the supply teachers never bother to set homework.

Good and bad teachers exist in all schools, but you'd think if Grammar school's get more applications for each teaching job this will lead to some effects on the rest of the schools.

If anyone can think of any stats stuff to show Grammar Schools are a Good Thing I will quite happily look at that too.

It was a good point someone made about overall exam results being no better in Kent or other selective counties. But if there is some statistical proof that a selective education system is better I will be happy to see the other side.

oops, double post computer glitch, sorry.

TootingJo makes a very good point about the social split. At the comp. we sent our daughter to it was like a "Tale of Two Cities" or some sort of social apartheid. It was the unhealthiest social structure I have ever witnessed. One school held all sorts of different pupils which should have been marvellously diverse but in reality it supported an extraordinary selected of marked sub cultures with very little overlap. It was utterly bizarre and extremely stressful for our daughter. It was possibly a London centric thing but it was shocking.

Bertrand less sporty independent schools get regularly beaten by other schools ditto grammar schools being beaten by other sporty schools.

It is not a SM vs grammar issue but any school vs sporty school.
As I said what's worse -being regularly beaten or alternatively being excluded from being in the team because of competing with coached DCs.