New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

[thing47]

I see Liz Truss has announced she is in favour of creating more grammar schools (Rishi Sunak has opted for saying he will allow existing ones to expand, which is in keeping with current Conservative philosophy). What does everyone think of this? A good idea, or not? I know we have quite a lot of teachers on this board, be interested to hear what you all think.

Did they? Can you tell us more please?

I’ve always thought the current situation suits the schools rather well; what better way of ensuring invested parents, whose proven determination for their children to succeed and means and willingness to fork out for private tutors will guarantee good GCSE results? GL are taking it in too selling practice papers, so I can’t imagine they’re too bothered about an “untutorable” test.

Willingness to fork out for private tutors will guarantee good GCSE results Yes, I think that is key in many schools (state secondaries including the leafy comprehensives, and more so even in private schools). A lot of the young people in DC1's cohort were heavily tutored in their weaker subjects from Yr 7 (and this was a high league table position grammar) to ensure they got into medical school or similar. So the great academic outcomes aren't quite what they seem.

I went to a grammar school and came from a very working class background. Was a very studious child, didn't have any tuition and didn't have pushy parents, I just really wanted to go to a certain school (that was grammar). The comprehensive schools in my area were absolutely dire and I don't think I'd be where I am today if I had gone to them. I got into a grammar school on my own merit and don't think children who have the same desires should be held back.

You’ve just completely proved my point.

you were engaged enough to research it.
not all kids have that. Years ago that wouldn’t have mattered for the top 30%. If you were clever and performed on the day you were in.
that is not the case now.
now

you need an engaged parent to research, spend time and money on it - either buying papers, tutoring, printing worksheets off.

Well done @AWobABobBob on being determined.
I wish I had a grammar school in my area when growing up, I never knew what they were until I relocated.
Though I certainly could of motivated myself more, regardless of what school I went to, its just made me determined to make sure my children get a good education and take it seriously.

I am a quick learner but wish I had bigger aspirations in life at a younger age, something my school didn't push for. The careers advice was non existent until gcses where over. My parents were old school working class, so there advice was get any job and bring in a wage.
The good thing about grammar is you mix with lots of different backgrounds and they do careers advice from year 7.

*you were engaged enough to research it.

not all kids have that. Years ago that wouldn’t have mattered for the top 30%. If you were clever and performed on the day you were in.

that is not the case now.

now

you need an engaged parent to research, spend time and money on it - either buying papers, tutoring, printing worksheets off.*

Yes. Even within preparation for the exam itself; the nearby “super selective” I mentioned upthread includes most of our borough in its catchment, but as it’s not in the borough it doesn’t get included in the information about secondaries that gets published on the borough council website and sent out to parents at the start of y6. The school doesn’t do any sort of outreach, so you’d only know children from the borough were eligible to sit the test if you went looking for the information yourself. And you’d need to do it time to register in the summer of y5. I’d say a large proportion of families in the borough have no idea the school even exists, let alone that their children could earn a place. So yeah, parental engagement is pretty essential in that case!

What happens in areas like Kent where there are lots of grammars? Does absolutely everyone in a state primary sit the test at the start of y6? Or is it still “opt in”? Because if so, that still requires parental engagement. No 10 year old is going to be filling in the registration form for the exam online and getting themselves there on the day without any parental input.

*within should read without!

Good idea.

The above list is pie in the sky.

Of course. But if the aim is what grammar supporters say it is: to provide high quality, 'best fit' education for all children, then my list is what is necessary.

Or alternatively, we can have well-funded comprehensives and sufficient Special School places.

Any political party who truly wanted to improve education would start, not from the education of middle class high attainers, but from the funding and expansion of excellent Special Schools, including those for those who display challenging behaviour. It is the failure to provide enough places and enough support (e.g. through the funding and expansion of CAMHS, Ed Psychs etc, as well as support to families, refugees etc etc) at Special Schools and in mainstream that presents a significant challenge in mixed-ability schooling.

As a teacher (though primary), the most extreme behaviour I have witnessed has ALWAYS been from children who are inappropriately placed in mainstream, and who are waiting endlessly for specialist input and the Special School places they so desperately need.

I disagree with almost everything that's ever come out for Truss's mouth but yes grammar schools are a good idea. Social mobility and the chance for academically able children from deprived backgrounds to reach their potential was trashed by removing them.

Social mobility and the chance for academically able children from deprived backgrounds to reach their potential was trashed by removing them.

The thing is, comparison of the socio-economic backgrounds of those in grammars and non-grammars in areas which still have them makes it absolutely clear that any role that grammars had in the past in increasing social mobility has long gone.

I am the beneficiary of the historic effect of grammars on social mobility. My grandfather learned to read and write properly in his late teens, having had to support his mother in exceptionally deprived circumstances as a child rather than attend school regularly, while my mum went to grammar school and on to Oxbridge. A cursory examination of the Pupil Premium statistics for grammars vs non-grammars serving the same areas of e.g. Kent show that rather than promoting social mobility, grammars actually entrench privilege. Even more so in partial grammar counties, where the conveyor belt of private primaries into grammar schools is well-established.

Another 'pie in the sky' condition for creating more grammar schools: the socio-economic mix of any grammar MUST match that of its catchment. So while the school can select, it must select the most able from each group rather than simply taking the most able overall.

I have lived in two grammar school areas previously. The grammar schools were packed with the children of middle class parents with sharp elbows.

Lots of the children went to private primary schools that marketed themselves on the basis of providing excellent preparation for the 11+. Most of the kids who went to state primary schools had been tutored heavily.

Yes, there might have been a small handful of kids from lower income backgrounds who miraculously managed to get through without this kind of support, but if they existed at all, they were few and far between. Meanwhile, the other poorer kids, many of whom were probably just as innately intelligent as some of their heavily tutored middle class counterparts, ended up in the secondary modern schools instead.

So, unless someone can come up with a selection system that genuinely doesn't offer any advantage to the children from weather families who can afford to prep their kids for the test, I personally don't see how grammar schools are going to make any meaningful contribution to social mobility at all. What would make a difference would be greater investment in comprehensive schools so that all children have the best possible opportunities.

The 11 plus was always reasonably arbitrary in selecting kids around the lower ability intake. There were always kids who were tutored although smaller numbers. What did happen was some preparation and practice at primary which I think no longer does. If you’re at the top ability of their intake you would pass without tutoring and I don’t believe that has changed. It’s not all about tutoring, it’s an unfair system because there are many kids who are late bloomers, many kids who are very good at academic subjects not measured by the test, work ethic is very important to eventual success.

Interestingly the data shows that 11+ results have very little bearing on GCSE results. There's no direct correlation between a high 11+ score and top GCSE grades. DCs at grammar schools tend to do better at GCSE for a whole host of reasons, but those reasons do not include 'doing well at the 11+'. Perhaps that's because, as various PPs have said, the 11+ isn't curriculum based and is limited and specific in what it tests?

Just picking up on a couple of points raised, the notion that grammar schools aid social mobility just is not true, in Bucks, at least. They do the exact opposite. I think this might have been the original, and laudable, aim, but it is not how they function these days.

The socio-economic mix of any grammar MUST match that of its catchment. So while the school can select, it must select the most able from each group rather than simply taking the most able overall.
This is an intriguing idea @LouisCatorze has it ever been attempted? Or even suggested (except by you of course!)

It’s an unfair system because there are many kids who are late bloomers, many kids who are very good at academic subjects not measured by the test, work ethic is very important to eventual success.
This sums up my stance perfectly @BungleandGeorge. There are also DCs who might have had caring responsibilities, who might have experienced tragedy and trauma, who might have had a chaotic early home life, who might be struggling with illness or injury, who might be very good at 1 or 2 subjects and hopeless at others, who might not be very good at tests but thrive in group work or course work. And so on. All in all just too many variables for anyone to be making irrevocable decisions at 10, we need more flexibility in the system than that.

I have lived in two grammar school areas previously. The grammar schools were packed with the children of middle class parents with sharp elbows.

That's the case now because there are so few of them. When they were in every town, they benefitted poor people massively, and would do so again. I have several family members from very deprived backgrounds who went to grammar schools and on to Oxford and Cambridge in the 60s.

There were enough of them that places were available to all who were capable. Obviously if they are only in selected areas it leads to this scarcity where house prices in catchments rocket and people do tutoring etc hence it is not the most academically able who get in. Just like with private schools. If they are in every town and available to all then they serve their purpose and provide an academic education for all children who are that way inclined.

Obviously the 11+ assessment system had (and has) its faults and these days a more holistic assessment system could be implemented to allow some teacher assessment etc as well, to account for what we now know about some kids struggling with exams etc. And it doesn't have to be a "you can only get in at 11 or not at all" thing: the system could be modernised.

However I think it is utter nonsense to suggest that providing a more academic education to those who would thrive from it regardless of means, and far better vocational and skills-based education for those who are better suited to that (as they do successfully in many countries, with industry on board and high quality apprenticeships leading to real qualifications and good, well-paid careers) would overall be a bad thing.

No they wouldn't, there'd just be MC people in all towns paying for tutors to make sure their DC got in.

There might be a small handful of naturally very bright children who manage to get in without coaching, but it certainly wouldn't "massively benefit" poor people.

And then you have the issue of the schools where everyone else goes. If all the bright kids with involved parents have been siphoned off, what will the schools the rest (still the majority) go to be like?

MNetters seem to assume that their DC will be in that top 20% (or whatever) percent 😆

Interestingly the data shows that 11+ results have very little bearing on GCSE results. There's no direct correlation between a high 11+ score and top GCSE grades. DCs at grammar schools tend to do better at GCSE for a whole host of reasons, but those reasons do not include 'doing well at the 11+'. Perhaps that's because, as various PPs have said, the 11+ isn't curriculum based and is limited and specific in what it tests?

Just picking up on a couple of points raised, the notion that grammar schools aid social mobility just is not true, in Bucks, at least. They do the exact opposite. I think this might have been the original, and laudable, aim, but it is not how they function these days.

Again this is because of the distortions I've described due to scarcity of places even in areas that have them. They have not been allowed to expand in years so there aren't enough places for all of the children who would benefit, and then it becomes competitive based on housing/ catchments/ tutoring. These distortions would be removed if far more grammar schools were opened, and vocational training/ apprenticeships leading to proper careers were improved alongside.

•No they wouldn't, there'd just be MC people in all towns paying for tutors to make sure their DC got in.

There might be a small handful of naturally very bright children who manage to get in without coaching, but it certainly wouldn't "massively benefit" poor people.

Nope. Not with proper assessment methods and enough places for all academic kids. They used to be everywhere. It is scarcity of places that drives the issues you have described. As I said I had many family members go to grammar school from extremely deprived backgrounds when they existed in large numbers. None had tutoring. The idea would have been laughed at. In fact many of their parents though they were mad for studying.

Agree with your latter points but the assessment system doesn't have to remain that way. There can be more modern assessment methods with teacher involvement to compensate for those who struggle with exams. We could have schools like in many European countries where some have more of a STEM focus and others on arts or languages so all children can thrive based on their individual talents rather than "one size fits all". There can be a system designed with fluidity so "late bloomers" can move when a different school focus suits them better. It's not very difficult to see how it could work far better than the current setup that fails all children except those right in the middle of the spectrum of ability.

When exactly were all of these plentiful places available? My mother did not get a grammar school place back in the supposed heyday of the grammar school system, despite being exceptionally academically able.

As things turned out, she got a fully paid scholarship to a private convent school instead - this opportunity was flagged to her parents by the someone at the church they attended, but otherwise, she would have gone to the local secondary modern.

There will always be a scarcity of places, as, if you expand the number of places available, the next tier of slightly less able middle class kids will simply be pushed towards the grammar schools in order to fill those places. It's all very well saying that you need "proper assessment methods", but what would those actually look like and how would you adjust to eliminate the advantages enjoyed by children from better off families?

Wouldn't it be better to invest in really good comprehensive schools that are able to cater effectively for all levels of ability?

None of my students are tutored outside school. None could afford it - most have jobs from 15/16 to ensure they can stay on for 6th form. They haven't needed a grammar school to 'reach their potential'. They've done that in our v non leafy, v concrete high rise comp. A lot of this is seeing it is possible so we have a strong alumni who come back and speak to the kids about what going to Uni can offer. That and good teachers who believe in them but set clear, strict boundaries.
However we also produce many plumbers, carpenters, carers, shop assistants, hairdressers. People we all rely on but who just don't particularly like school or exams.
Both sets of kids have 'reached their potential' as they have found careers where they are happy. They make the school community a diverse place to be with all kids growing up knowing they have worth. Telling some they are not good enough at 11 is not great for self esteem. Telling them they are capable of anything at 11 seems much healthier to me.

There can be more modern assessment methods with teacher involvement to compensate for those who struggle with exams.

If we are going to have teacher involvement in the assessment process, then I think we would need to see children attending private primary schools excluded from the admissions process. We already know from what happened with teacher assessment during Covid that some private schools will happily inflate teacher assessed grades in order to give parents the advantages that they are paying for. So people wanting to take advantage of the grammar school system would need to go through the state system from the start.

Totally agree @mumsneedwine. I think investing in high quality comprehensive education would result in better outcomes for more children, and better social mobility in the longer term. There is no need to divide kids off at 11 years old.

Telling some they are not good enough at 11 is not great for self esteem. Telling them they are capable of anything at 11 seems much healthier to me.

I think that's completely misunderstanding it. It's not about "not being good enough". It's about creating a system where all different talents are recognised and developed.

I'm absolutely useless at practical stuff. I am good at academic stuff. Some kids are astonishing at music and art. Others at tech. We need a system that doesn't waste hundreds of hours forcing kids to focus on subjects they have no interest in and will never be much good at, and let the focus primarily on their talents. It's not offensive to recognise that everyone's natural skills and talents are different

In many countries there are selective state schools that focus on a particular area and children apply to the ones that suit their interests/ abilities the best. They still do the other subjects, but spend more time on what they enjoy and are good at and therefore leave school with their skills in those areas more highly developed, as well as a standard education in all key areas.

It would also likely result in better behaviour and less disruption in school because children would enjoy it more. The "one size fits all" model does not work. People may come out of it doing fine - I have - but I could have done SO much better in another environment that I didn't loathe going to every day.