New analysis - Grammar schools in England

[IntheMotherhood]

There's been quite a bit of engagement from various MNs recently over disproportionate focus on % A*/As league table and what this does to providing an actual education to our children.

There's also been discussion on super selective schools, specifically grammars and the continued obsession on 'getting in' being a pinnacle of 11+ academic ambition for many families.

Does it really make a difference if your child is of high prior attainment? Does the individual perceived benefit(s) of going to a Grammar outweigh the larger social disbenefit(s)?

Thought this new analysis published online today in the British Journal of Sociology of Education might be of interest.

Make yourself a cuppa and enjoy.

"....Using the full 2015 cohort of pupils in England, this article shows how the pupils attending grammar schools are stratified in terms of chronic poverty, ethnicity, language, special educational needs and even precise age within their year group. This kind of clustering of relative advantage is potentially dangerous for society. The article derives measures of chronic poverty and local socio-economic status segregation between schools, and uses these to show that the results from grammar schools are no better than expected, once these differences are accounted for...."

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01425692.2018.1443432

[IntheMotherhood]

Hello Needtomakeachange - would you argue that for this group of children, where being in a top set of a high performing comprehensive is too easy...that a super selective education should be state funded?

I would think that kids of this description would be able to access scholarships and bursaries to get an education amongst the super selective Indies (subject to various thresholds)?

Of all the reasons for selecting grammar, 'because it will make my child happier' has never been provided as a reason.

Sometimes the simple answer is the right one.

[Needtomakeachange]

I might be misunderstanding but I suspect a lot of parents choose the school where they hope their child will be happiest.

[IntheMotherhood]

Of course, that's as it should be. The crux (for me) is whether or not in this case, that grammar schools are the best use of state funds. I like the 'special needs' lens that you gave it.

Isn't the prevailing thinking here, that under state provision, supporting a SEN child in mainstream education is considered the best option?

[FraggleRockHopper]

If you take the state of Massachusetts and it filed as a country it would be (in the year of this article in the top 10 in the world for English and Math). No selective state system. It can be done.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2014/09/29/if-massachusetts-were-a-country-its-students-would-rank-9th-in-the-world/amp/

[theeyeofthestormchaser]

Grammar schools do not work
it really is that simple

What are you basing that on, Talkin.? What do you mean? Don’t work for whom?

Also, you’re wrong about grammars getting more money per pupil - they don’t.

And it’s not true that they don’t ‘let pupils with FSM or SEN through the door’ - - several pupils in dd’s grammar are on the autistic spectrum.

Few pupils qualify for fsm, but some do.

You sound bitter.

[HPFA]

avoid the disruptive elements is too simplistic.

I have often seen this mentioned on threads as a reason for people wanting their child to be selected by a grammar school. I even saw someone say a secondary modern had really suited her son because his behaviour was "too disruptive" to be in a grammar school - the fact that he was presumably disrupting the learning of children in the secondary modern apparently being of no importance.

It may not be a motivation for everyone but it certainly is for some.

[Piggywaspushed]

need you really can't accuse others of being ignorant or generalising about grammar schools whilst accusing comprehensive schools of being places where bright children are routinely bullied, excluded or bored. This is not my experience at all- across a range of state schools.

I am interested that some people send their children to so called super selective schools to avoid bullying. Because clever people don't bully?

[IntheMotherhood]

Arguing with people's motivation for selecting grammar is an uphill struggle as they range from totally rational reasons to dated misconceptions based on their own experience.

I think an approach to try is to trickle demand by not making grammars free, unless your child is FSM.

Use the funds on supply side issues like improving quality of teaching for all children to benefit. Or improving school buildings and sports facilities that all children will benefit from to have a nicer learning environment.

[Mumski45]

I don't think anyone is implying that clever children don't bully of course some of them do. However in a grammar school a super bright child will not stand out in the same way that they would in some comps. Any child that stands out for whatever reason can be a target for bullies.
There will of course be lots of other reasons for bullying which will happen in grammars.

My DS1 is at a GS and whilst there have been a few minor incidents (not involving my son) it is nothing compared to the bullying his clever friend has endured in his comp (which would have been one of our alternatives) so yes my son is far happier at his GS than he would have been at any other school we considered.
As for a good use of taxpayers money? My understanding is that state grammars are funded in exactly the same way as other schools so how is that even a factor. The GS my son goes to has no impact on other local comps and they are definitely not "secondary moderns". The comp I'm talking about above gets excellent results in progress 8 and DS1 may well have done just as well there academically but he would not have been as happy as he currently is despite a relatively long journey.

By the way I fully understand there are issues with a full GS system but for my DS I have to operate within the system as it exists locally. However I believe the issues to be more around fair access to grammar schools and the quality of teaching in some comps rather than getting rid of them entirely.

[TammyWhyNot]

Mumski, if you are in a full Grammar system is your friends DS in a school where many of the clever cohort are at Grammar?

If course no school is immune to bullying, but the singling out of clever kids seems very out of date in many comps. I visit lots as part of my work (not a teacher, but I do engage with kids) and it is largely now cool to be clever. ( As long as you don’t boast or show off).

Surely over all, the more bright kids are in a school the bigger the peer group, the more normal it seems and the less isolated they are?

My brainy boy has suffered no teasing, let alone bullying.

And what should we do? Build seperate schools for kids with mild speech impediments? Glasses? A splint?

I understand parental choices in full Grammar areas as they exist. But I can’t think it is a good system or support an expansion of Grammar education.

Keep investing in improving comprehensives!

[Ionacat]

But if the comps have a full range of ability then the super bright ones don’t stand out. When you have superslectives, you have tutoring parents see them as a free alternative to private schools. I work in an area with two superselectives and the tutoring starts in some cases in year 1/2 although generally 3 or 4 so not really doing what they were designed for as the cohort is mainly bright tutored kids whose parents are invested in their education and they will do well anywhere. Where I work, many parents are unhappy with the superselectives as there is a shortage of school places locally and they watch kids being bussed/driven in when they have to drive miles out to get to the nearest school with spaces.

I don’t agree with any form of selection at 11, it is too early to determine a child’s future. However if a form of selection was introduced at around year 10 where we could have properly funded and respected vocational learning, mix, and academic rather than pushing everyone into the one size fits all GCSEs then I would be all for it. Scrap SATS and this stupid emphasis on them in primary and stop the emphasis on data (which because of the size of the data sets is inaccurate anyway) and start treating pupils as individuals and making sure that they have best education possible whether that is accelerated maths because they are a maths genius, car mechanics, apprentice accountacy training, computer programming or just an all-round selection of subjects as they don’t have a clue what to do. The most successful systems in the world have a well funded and respected vocational side something which thanks to Gove’s reforms is completely lacking.

[TammyWhyNot]

Ionacat: I agree with you over genuinely useful options later on.

And Brexit means we need to be encouraging and training up skilled workers across many of the industries currently reliant on EU labour. The CEO of Aston Martin was on the news the other night saying it would take 5 years to develop the engineering workforce he needs from within the UK.

[IntheMotherhood]

Totally agree with points made above. Selection is part of human nature but having it manifest itself into a state funded elite education track based on an exam at 10/11 is very questionable.

Now about that pesky disproportionate obsession on A*/As rating as a shortcut definition of 'school brilliance'...if only we could change parental demand on that we might actually get somewhere with making the idea of mixed ability schools with vocational pathways an attractive option for all children.

[Mumski45]

No we are not in a full grammar system and the school my friends DS goes to is a very high performing comp. However bullying for whatever reason is prevalent and swept under the carpet. My friends DS is not particularly happy there and my friend is disappointed with the school.

I'm afraid I'm not a teacher and don't work in the education sector, I am just a parent like any other who wants to make good choices for my DC. I don't claim to have the answers to how we can make education work for all but I can't see how making people pay for grammars would help. In my sons school many parents would not be able to afford private schools so would instead go to local comps and the funding would follow them meaning there is no more in the system per child than there is now.

By the way I don't think the facilities and teaching at the GS are superior to the local comp. (Although the approach to bullying is more effective). In fact some of the facilities are in very poor condition due to lack of funds. The GS faces all the funding and resource issues faced by any state school.

I think we should look at the ways in which the current system works and doesn't work and try to find a way to improve what we have and the access to good teaching without losing the benefits and strengths of the current system. I don't believe that making all schools carbon copies of each other is right as different schools suit different children.

[noblegiraffe]

The GS my son goes to has no impact on other local comps

I bet this isn’t true.

There’s a popular girls school a few miles away from my school. It affects my mixed comp. It’s not an effect that an outsider would see, but it skews our intake enough to have a noticeable impact, visible because it relates to sex not ability. Grammar schools are often single sex too so that will also have an impact.

[Notenoughsleepmumof3]

I've been following these debates and studies for many years now and I don't think there is a simple answer. It depends on the area you are in and it depends on the child. In London, the grammars don't have any impact on comprehensives, but I recognise that in areas like Kent they do. The populations in London are much more diverse ethnically, economically, and socially. So in London, I do think the few grammars that we have are a good use of state funds. It's just providing a different type of option. I have 3 kids. They are all different. They have different needs. What works for one doesn't always work for the others. I'm pro-state, but there aren't enough state schools and state school places in London for everyone to go to state school anyway, so I don't begrudge those who choose an independent path. Equally, I wouldn't want there to only be schools like my DD's comp even though it is very good. That system doesn't work for everyone. She is a number at her comp. She is a stat for them. She's a good one, but she doesn't have a great connection to any of her teachers. They just have too many kids for that to happen. However, because she is a self-learner and always has been it isn't affecting her at all. I can see how some kids wouldn't cope with that and need a smaller, more nurturing school. Kids mature and grow at different rates.

I don't think having a private schools sector helps education in the UK, but it is so ingrained in the culture and the class system. It forms an elite sense of identity. I see it in kids all the time. Equally kids in the state schools sense it and the divide is widened because they think they are better than the privates for going state. It's happening in this thread. Everyone wants to believe their choice is the right choice. Many people are just doing the best they can with the options in front of them.

I'd like to see State Education take on board some of the good things from the private sector especially when it comes to the arts and sport. Grammar schools do this which provides a good option at least to some kids. I wish comps did this, but many schools are so stretched time wise and budget wise that those things seem frivolous to the heads who are often super heads and work like CEO's in a company. The grammar and selection process does seem to provide these outlets more, at least in my area.

These studies only show one side of the issue. Rather than focusing on keeping grammars or ditching grammars, I'd like to focus on raising attainment and options across the board in the state sector and to continually look for ways to make the educations better. I'd like to get rid of private schools, but I don't think that will ever happen.

[HPFA]

Switzerland is widely held to have one of the best vocational systems in the world. Apprentices are paid and the programmes lead directly into good jobs.

ncee.org/swiss-vet/

Despite this the academic route seems definitely to be regarded as the prestigious one - a teacher speaks about the pressure from parents and also that teachers are seen as "better" the more children in class pass the exam

www.postulateone.com/2012/in-the-swiss-education-system-your-future-is-determined-at-age-12

There seems no answer to giving academic and vocational education the same esteem.

[Notenoughsleepmumof3]

Yes, HPFA. Many of the vocational courses and paths here in the UK are disappearing with the focus being only on Maths and English.

[minifingerz]

“I'd like to see State Education take on board some of the good things from the private sector especially when it comes to the arts and sport.”

I’m sure they would if they had £14k a year funding per child like private schools do instead of just 4 or 5k.

[Notenoughsleepmumof3]

Minifingerz- yes exactly. The private system undermines education for all. But, I'm not convinced getting rid of selection or specification schools in the state sector where say a school specialises in music or languages or art or sport will improve things, because the inherent private system already undermines the whole thing. And that will never change in the UK.

[IntheMotherhood]

Our system is a mess! No easy answers. Really sparked by everyone's views.

Personally I think I would be less anti grammars being state funded if it was evident that steps for fairer access were being made for FSM kids (who only comprise 2.6% of grammar school population).

Also this:
'...High proportions of grammar school pupils come from the independent primary school sector, roughly double the rate you would expect. In fact, a pupil attending a private prep school is ten times more likely to enter a grammar than a pupil on free school meals...' (Sutton Trust 2016)

And I'm sure this describes the picture in London and Kent area (no evidence - so happy to be proven wrong!); and that London and Kent are not representative of the country's wider grammar system.

I find the above really distasteful and perhaps where a my thinking gets clouded. I want to add that I am NOT anti-Indie, we are in a mixed market economy and parents want choice.

It feels wrong within our array of state choices for there to be an option (grammars) that is so inaccessible for the vast majority of families - at a system level.

I know parents are only working with the system they have access to. I too would like to see attainment and options improve across the board - but can't yet reconcile really how grammars as state funded instruments fit into this.

[Piggywaspushed]

But isn't part of the point that there really isn't a (much) wider grammar school system? The filter of MN could make one believe they are everywhere and they really aren't . If it ahs been shown to be such an abject failure for so many children in Kent, why on earth have they been allowed to persist. Lots of evidence points to the three tier system affecting results in my county, despite parents liking it, and it is disappearing.

Off the top of my head, grammars exist outside of London and Kent in pockets in the fringes of London, in parts of Buckinghamshire, tiny bits of Yorkshire and some parts of Manchester? There may be a few more pockets . (I am aware of NI but that's a very different kettle of fish)

[FraggleRockHopper]

There's no need for the complex system. If comps had proper funding with smaller classes of course they could stretch the most able and deal with behaviour etc. But they have been stripped to the bone and instead of fighting for fair funding and a fair system that accommodates all children parents end up shunting their kids into Grammars to try and give them a better education. I can't say I blame them.

But there is no good reason you can't stream kids within the same building and allow for late bloomers to move up when their ready or for those who need a bit more support to move down. The current system benefits no one really.

There aren't many things the US gets right but I'd take their secondary education system any day. I went to secondary with kids who did vocational courses, whose families had very little money and lived in rented apartments alongside those who had beachfront villas. Those that struggled were in small classes and weren't in the top streams. We all mixed for things like PE/Cooking etc.

[TalkinPeece]

fraggle
What you suggest already happens in comps up and down the country

but MN pretends they do not exist

[Piggywaspushed]

....and meanwhile, in Canada , they don't 'stream' anyone. Go figure.