Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

[Delectable]

Everyone I speak to about schools speak highly of Grammars. They move house for Grammars and speak proudly of their children's Grammars.

I watched an Episode of Yes Minister and when asked why the govt abolish Grammars Sir Humphrey the civil servant said it's so the govt didn't have to pay Grammar teachers more for the results they got compared to other schools so it was presented as an "all teachers are remunerated fairly" scenario.

So I've been wondering why did the govt ban the creation of new grammars??

@TeenPlusCat
Because the majority are in the correct schools for them. The cross over will be around 10% either way. Some are tutored like mad to get the 11 plus here and do. Some don’t get as much help and go to a secondary but could have been ok at a grammar. They are highly unlikely to be Oxbridge type students though. Mostly they are a little bit slower in getting through the 11 plus papers and just fall short of the marks. When they get to A level and can concentrate on what they like snd have ditched subjects in y9, they can shine. That doesn’t mean the 90% in the grammars are in the wrong schools.

Plus, around here, they won’t change. This LA is wedded to grammars. However parents snd schools that are secondaries work hard to be good schools. Sadly some are in snd out of RI or Inadequate. So I fully understand why some parents will want to avoid them. They won’t be great at MFL or have cohorts of talented mathematicians, by and large. Parents whose DC go to the grammars are happy but all my friends who have DC who didn’t go (and missed the cut by nearly 20 marks) still find DCs can get firsts from universities. They have found what they are good at. At a grammar they would have struggled. So taking it a big slower, getting the subjects you want, taking 3 years to do GCSEs etc is advantageous to them - and that’s ok!

@TizerorFizz

There are always a few DC where 11 plus doesn’t work. However in a 11 plus LA, there are more places available and she almost certainly would have got in.

As for an area being 25% to grammars: this for my grammar LA is false. Where there are greater numbers of highly educated professional parents, it’s nearer 35%. In the north of the county it’s less than 20%. Many DC from out of the county get places at the 4 grammars in the northern area. Some schools rarely get a single child to any of them.

I would say some secondary modern schools are very good. They do, after all, have 30% high achieving children in them so they get plenty to university. It’s also possible to change a schools at 12 and definitely at 6th form. A highly academic child should probably move for 6th form.

All our grammars are outstanding. Obviously quite old reports but progress 8s are pretty good. Some of the secondary midterms are less good

I have a theory about social mobility and grammars. I think in my day the grammars definitely provided social mobility in my county. Schools had farm workers children mixing with farmers’ children. DCs of council road workers mixed with the DCs of the chief officers. My reasoning is that social mobility has happened! The DC I went to grammar school with have all escaped being working class. They are now middle class and so are their DC. Their DC are likely to go to the grammars or do very well at a secondary modern. Which, incidentally, have better results than a good many comps. The children who I know who went to our local sec all did really well. Better than some in the grammars!

@TizerorFizz I don't think you're correct about DD would have got into a GS in another LA. She scored well below the pass mark on both tests she took (despite lots of practice). I was beside myself at that time because I knew it was wrong. DP had much the same experience and his parents had to send him to a private school. (No comps in his day!). DP now has a PhD!!!

@dizzydizzydizzy
Yes but they have both achieved in their fields. One of our friends has a PhD and went to a secondary mod and took CSEs. It doesn’t matter if you have a very high skill and can capitalise on it later. My DH employs engineers who went to the sec mods. It might take longer to get qualified over and above the MEng grads but it’s no big problem. As I said, it is sometimes very worthwhile going a bit slower! The final outcome might well be the same.

Mostly they are a little bit slower in getting through the 11 plus papers and just fall short of the marks. When they get to A level and can concentrate on what they like snd have ditched subjects in y9, they can shine

Well it might be that, or it might be that they simply aren't suited to 11+ style exams which are not curriculum-based. Or it might be that they aren't good at exams full stop but thrive in performing or demonstrating their skill. Or it might be that they mature later – there's plenty of pedagogic studies which indicate that educational achievement is not linear (for example 11+ scores show no correlation whatsoever to GCSE results 5 years later). Or it might be that degrees and beyond require original thought rather than the regurgitation of learnt material which suits some people better and others less well… A myriad of reasons in fact, often inter-connected.

The crossover may well be 10% as you say @TizerorFizz, but that could still equate to a lot of children. Particularly as many of these issue could be addressed by setting for different subjects within a comprehensive school rather than siphoning children off into different types of school.

I do agree with you, though, that there is no harm in sometimes going a bit slower.

@thing47
Some 11 plus absolutely are curriculum based. Verbal, non verbal and maths here. However you would expect an enhanced level of reasoning to be required and quick thinking. As the exams are taken in September it’s difficult to test on an incomplete KS2 curriculum. I have long advocated 11 plus tutoring in school for all higher achieving DC to level the playing field.

I would bet a lot of money that the grammars here get better results than the secondary schools. Although there’s undoubtedly as cross over at the lower end of grammars and top end of secondaries.

I cannot think why you think the 11 plus is not picking out the brightest overall. There’s a big difference in top end at the grammars and the few that achieve well at the secondary Moderns. Clearly demonstrated in government published stats.

Where there is a single grammar serving a massive area, and it’s super selective, of course you find DC in other schools who achieve very highly. In a grammar LA, that’s far less likely and stats definitely bear that out.

[quote TizerorFizz]@TeenPlusCat
Because the majority are in the correct schools for them. The cross over will be around 10% either way. Some are tutored like mad to get the 11 plus here and do. Some don’t get as much help and go to a secondary but could have been ok at a grammar. They are highly unlikely to be Oxbridge type students though. Mostly they are a little bit slower in getting through the 11 plus papers and just fall short of the marks. When they get to A level and can concentrate on what they like snd have ditched subjects in y9, they can shine. That doesn’t mean the 90% in the grammars are in the wrong schools.

Plus, around here, they won’t change. This LA is wedded to grammars. However parents snd schools that are secondaries work hard to be good schools. Sadly some are in snd out of RI or Inadequate. So I fully understand why some parents will want to avoid them. They won’t be great at MFL or have cohorts of talented mathematicians, by and large. Parents whose DC go to the grammars are happy but all my friends who have DC who didn’t go (and missed the cut by nearly 20 marks) still find DCs can get firsts from universities. They have found what they are good at. At a grammar they would have struggled. So taking it a big slower, getting the subjects you want, taking 3 years to do GCSEs etc is advantageous to them - and that’s ok![/quote]
All of which goes to show that Grammars are not actually necessary!

Unless there is a cohort of intelligent young people who nevertheless simply cannot function to full potential unless physically separated from the slightly slower learners?

While those very same slightly slower learners do well in ‘high schools’ and get firsts at Uni despite being with a much wider group of abilities!

Well the system is never going to change here and people want the grammars - they move to get them. Starting from scratch isn’t an option. Some leave to avoid them! Plenty pay for private 11 plus crammer schools.

The firsts gained by the secondary modern DC are rarely at elite RGs. The destinations of the DC from these schools don’t support that view here. Hardly any go to these unis. Or many RGs for that matter. Although some do. I don’t think anyone keeps tabs on uni results and school attended overall. Just state: grammar or other. Other is usually a comp. So who really knows what secondary moderns produce at uni but firsts from elite unis would be rare.

I see no issue with taking the curriculum a bit slower and recognising some DC mature later. Some need consolidation in key areas and then move forward swiftly. Although many grammars here have better progress 8 figures.

In fact more DC should transfer into grammar 6th forms in my view but they are perceived as scary!!They offer a wider spectrum of subjects and DC in general are aiming higher, but not all! The pushed and over tutored DC in my village haven’t done well at the grammars! So I’m very aware of the pitfalls. The behaviour of some parents who live near me has been appalling! But they didn’t need to do it. The ones who accepted the sec mod route have all had happy children who did very well. (even if a couple had lessons at the grammars whilst on roll at the sec mod!) As I said, around 10 % at each type of school could go either way.

Some trivia that some people do very well after attending Bucks secondary moderns
James Corden went to a Bucks secondary modern, as did the BBC breakfast TV doctor Nighat (3rd paragraph from the end).....heartofbucks.org/inspiring-buckinghamshire-dr-nighat-arif/.
I can think of friend's children who went to Bucks secondary modern, two are at the University of Birmingham doing popular subjects...Someone else a degree from Cambridge Univeristy.

James Corden went to The Misbourne.

[quote TizerorFizz]@thing47
Some 11 plus absolutely are curriculum based. Verbal, non verbal and maths here. However you would expect an enhanced level of reasoning to be required and quick thinking. As the exams are taken in September it’s difficult to test on an incomplete KS2 curriculum. I have long advocated 11 plus tutoring in school for all higher achieving DC to level the playing field.

I would bet a lot of money that the grammars here get better results than the secondary schools. Although there’s undoubtedly as cross over at the lower end of grammars and top end of secondaries.

I cannot think why you think the 11 plus is not picking out the brightest overall. There’s a big difference in top end at the grammars and the few that achieve well at the secondary Moderns. Clearly demonstrated in government published stats.

Where there is a single grammar serving a massive area, and it’s super selective, of course you find DC in other schools who achieve very highly. In a grammar LA, that’s far less likely and stats definitely bear that out.[/quote]
But the types of questions the 11+ asks are not covered in the Y5 curriculum so if your DC's primary school doesn't do CATS, children will be going into the exam in the autumn term having never seen those types of questions before… The solution is probably, as you say, to give some instruction (tutoring) to all DCs in order to level the playing field.

I'm sorry, I obviously wasn't clear on my point about results. Of course the grammar schools tend to get better results, but that's not comparing like for like. At grammar schools there is no evidence that a child who scored 141 on the 11+ will go on to do better than the child who scored 121 (or even 119 and got in on appeal).

Like all tests, the 11+ picks out the best people at that test. That may, but does not necessarily, equate to the brightest overall, the test can be tutored for, as you yourself admit. But even if it does pick out the brightest overall, that doesn't mean the brightest at the age of 10 will be the brightest at the age of 16, or 18. It's the making the decision at such a young age which I disagree with, there needs to be more flexibility.

@TizerorFizz

James Corden went to The Misbourne.

I believe he went to Holmer Green School rather than the Misbourne.

@thing47

Where is the evidence to say the high achievers at 11 plus don’t do better? I’m not aware of anyone recording 11 plus scores and exam results later on. So who knows? Although my strong guess would be that most of the 141 score DC do very well. Most DC scoring 141 are pretty bright from what I’ve observed and most get high scores without extensive tuition. Where is the evidence that 121 or lower scores do just as well? From my knowledge of where I live and friends of DDs, tha suggestion that low scores do just as well is way off the mark (so to speak). They are the 10% who possibly should be elsewhere. Have more than likely been coached to oblivion and in many cases, still have to appeal to get in.

I certainly accept the tests are flawed but what selection test doesn’t favour one person over another? Tutoring might get a few more marks and into a grammar but after that, the cracks can show! Any grammar school teacher will see the effects of over tutoring and DC then struggling. No, they don’t get stellar results from these DC. More likely MH issues!!

I think some people don’t like selection in y6 but are quite happy with it a bit later on. It’s the same child though! There is, I would have thought, plenty of evidence that secondary mod DC may well benefit from being in those schools if the schools are good and the ethos suits them better. Some schools are not good though. This has long been an issue and doesn’t appear solvable! However as Bucks is a fairly high achieving LA in terms of exam results, there are enough brighter children in the best secondaries to form decent cohorts. So DC can do very well. Some subjects are absent and some DC take “easier” subjects. The best ones really do their best for the DC.

Nothing in life is completely fair is it? That also includes better off parents who move to very middle class areas in other LAs to get the places at the best comps! What’s to be done about that?

There's plenty of evidence, all the grammar schools round here track them. A couple of grammar schools round me actually show you the graphs at a new parents evening, they put it up on a PowerPoint . Anonymised obviously but the raw data is available. Although I would probably phrase this the other way round – there is no evidence that grammar school DCs who score lower at 11+ don't catch up their peers by GCSE, I'm sure you're right that the ones 141 go on to do well. It's primarily a pull-up effect rather than a drop-down one iyswim.

I agree you'd think that DCs who had to be tutored and only just get in would struggle once there, but that really isn't what the data shows. Counter-intuitive maybe, but hey, I didn't produce the data, I've just studied it.

And you're right of course nothing in life is fair, but that shouldn't stop us advocating for greater fairness where possible.

I think some people don’t like selection in y6 but are quite happy with it a bit later on. It’s the same child though!

That's an interesting point, and not one I've really considered let alone studied. Off the top of my head, I guess you could say that by university application time all DCs have done GCSEs and A levels (or BTECs) so the playing field is a bit more level than it was at 11+ where the amount of help (tutoring) is very variable.

Also the much wider range of courses, and institutions, at university age means there is more flexibility in catering for all interests and abilities, but yeah, interesting point.

There's a lot of focus on results, but I think it's about more than that. Two kids with a 9 are not necessarily of the same ability - it's just that a 9 is the highest you can score. A bright kid at a comp or secondary modern may well still be able to get good results, but their educational experience might not have been the same. In a selective grammar class (particularly in a super selective school or a top set), the pace of learning is fast, so the breadth of learning can be wider. I know that at DS's school, in some subjects, they'll finish the nuts and bolts of the GCSE curriculum by early Year 10, and they can then spend lots of time broadening, exploring, following the pupils' interests, getting them really inspired about the subject, which is all brilliant for their intellectual development and as preparation for higher level study. If you're a bright kid in a mixed ability class, then you'll probably still get your 9, but you're also quite likely to have spent a fair bit of time getting pretty bored going over the same thing. Of course, part of a teacher's job in that scenario is to differentiate, but however well they do that, it's still not the same as having the cut and thrust of being in a class full of similarly bright, enthusiastic, competitive kids. Arguably you can achieve that in a comprehensive with setting, with the advantage of wider mixing outside the classroom, but I suspect it's probably harder to achieve than than it is in a grammar. Not least from a teaching point of view. The teacher you want to put in front of your top set A level maths class is probably not the same person that you want in front of your bottom set Year 7s, and it's not easy to recruit and timetable that mix perfectly.

I think people shouldn't say 'grammar schools are better' without knowing whether they are also better for the 70% who don't qualify.

Personally I think there should be a rule that if you apply for grammar and don't get in then you have to go to your secondary modern, you aren't allowed to go private.

@thing47
If the lower score DC catch up, everyone would get a high number of grade 9s. They certainly don’t do that here! Plenty of lower grades at some grammars (not below a 4 obviously) but LA wide grammars really don’t have all DC getting the same results regardless of 11 plus score. I’m not saying some don’t do very well though and some higher score DC don’t get distracted! It’s not an exact science. I do accept most of our grammars have very positive progress 8 scores though. Hopefully great teaching does that!

Yes. I do think there’s value in speeding up or slowing down the curriculum. Taking 3 years to do 9 GCSEs is common in secondary schools. Others do a wider breadth of GCSEs in 2 years. Yes, the brightest do get broader teaching.

I don’t know how many schools don’t set any more. To get best results a lot do. Makes it easier for teachers. However there’s plenty of evidence that DC can achieve well at secondary moderns with a slower approach. Others need pace.

@TeenPlusCat
Never going to happen!

@TeenPlusCat
Among my friends/neighbours whose DC have gone to the local secondary modern are PHd holders, university lecturers, head teachers, teachers, accountants, solicitors, and a number of others who could pay but like the local school! DC did well so everyone was happy.

LA wide grammars really don’t have all DC getting the same results regardless of 11 plus score.

This is slightly misrepresenting what I'm saying, though. I'm not saying they all get the same results, I'm saying that 11+ scores are a poor predictor of GCSE results. The top and bottom ends of the spectrum may achieve in line with what scores would predict, ie DCs who score 141 are likely to be bright children who will go on to do well later. But for the large middle range, that's not really the case – a child who scores, say, 131 is not de facto more likely to get a 9 at GCSE than a child who scored 121. This is what the data shows.

@thing47

LA wide grammars really don’t have all DC getting the same results regardless of 11 plus score.

This is slightly misrepresenting what I'm saying, though. I'm not saying they all get the same results, I'm saying that 11+ scores are a poor predictor of GCSE results. The top and bottom ends of the spectrum may achieve in line with what scores would predict, ie DCs who score 141 are likely to be bright children who will go on to do well later. But for the large middle range, that's not really the case – a child who scores, say, 131 is not de facto more likely to get a 9 at GCSE than a child who scored 121. This is what the data shows.

You keep talking about data but I don't think you have any. You've been told some things and seen a couple of Powerpoints. As anybody in quantitative analysis can tell you, if something makes it onto a Powerpoint, that's not data, that's the conclusion that someone wants you to draw, i.e., propaganda.

I don't have the data, but I have studied it. Admittedly a few years ago now so it's entirely possible that I am out of date and the situation has changed. For example, the 11+ exam in my area changed a few years ago and the format is now slightly different from when I looked into it, so that might have made a difference.

But @TizerorFizz doubts that schools track this sort of information and I can assure you all that they absolutely do. And anyone's who's really interested enough to do the research can. I'm not because my DCs are no longer school age and I'm not longer working in the education field.

The PowerPoint comment was a joke, hence the smiley after it. Apologies if that didn't come across.

sorry no longer

As the data schools collect isn’t for public consumption it’s very difficult to get info from the schools.

The idea that the top set at a comprehensive school can offer the same opportunity for the brightest DC is flawed.

Assuming a normal distribution curve, the range of ability in the top 10% (and the bottom 10% for that matter- often with EHCPs ) is much wider than that in the other deciles. From a logistical POV it makes sense to teach these DC separately. There is also the issue of peer support which they won't have in a similar sized comprehensive.