Grammar schools do not boost social mobility, report finds

[Catseye]

If you spend as much time as I do trawling through endless research articles you get used to to thses kinds of data.

My conclusion is;

1) those of poorer disadvantaged backgrounds who get into selective schools show a marginal uplift in social mobility compared to if they went to modern secondary(or uppers as in Bucks)

2) But for the the other 70-80% of pupils there is a stifling of social mobility

The net effect is negative in terms of social mobility for the whole cohort , this is as true today as it was in the 50s and 60s.

3) The new CEM exam as been a disaster for disadvantaged pupils winning places at grammar schools, it has played straight into the hands of the sharp elbowed middle-classes -it required more tutoring/coaching than the old GL not less.

So what should we do? If like most parents the main priority is for ones own child then if one child is reasonably bright, grammar school would be better but for taxpayers money to be most cost-effective in terms of social mobility then more should be invested in comp schools and not in expanding grammar schools.

We are all selfish when it comes to our own children and I do not blame parents wanting the best for their children but do not kid yourself that grammar schools are best for society as a whole, the evidence simply does not support this assertion.

[southbucks3]

D

o all the students at that Prep school enter the test? I doubt it ...

If it's the one I'm thinking of, yes they do.

Also not all children in state schools enter either, a rising number do not.

The disparity is blatantly, unarguably, obvious, but as you say, there is also a disparity between state primaries even between those located in similar areas.

[kittymum]

D

o all the students at that Prep school enter the test? I doubt it ...

If it's the one I'm thinking of, yes they do.

Also not all children in state schools enter either, a rising number do not.

The disparity is blatantly, unarguably, obvious, but as you say, there is also a disparity between state primaries even between those located in similar areas.

WSS really - basically it's the reason why people go to that school!

[drummer]

The report, which LEE say has been updated with latest data is here:

http://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/publications/

[Lillie]

I think this article says it all for me really. (Hope the link works).


http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... nt-to-them" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tolstoy]

Okay stepping in where others fear to tread but here it goes.

If you have a sink Comprehensive/upper or two on your doorstep, as many do, than the chances of getting into an Outstanding or even good one further afield is zilch.

So for academically able DC getting a Grammar place is easier. However as most counties have now stopped free transport that avenue is also out. The transport issue is the great divide as it also stops DC accessing better Comprehensives/Uppers. The idea of parental choice is a farce for those who don't have the money to enable choice. Curiously the transport issue never makes the papers as the great divide. Suspect it is the same for pensioners wishing to choose which hospital they want to be treated in.

I also agree with Catseye that a DC could practice some of the GL type tests and get a place off their own steam and I know someone who did and got a place at a Super selective. I don't think that can happen with CEM. I am reading less and less of the, DC did a couple of papers stories and more of the wish I'd got a tutor type.

[southbucks3]

Am I the only one who gets hacked off with fsm data always being bandied about and the huge proportion of children with parents earning low-moderate income but non fsm being ignored,, even though they are comparatively poorly represented at gs too?

[Guest55]

Since the final report on the September 2014 test has not yet been published I cannot see that this data is 'up-to-date'.

[drummer]

Am I the only one who gets hacked off with fsm data always being bandied about and the huge proportion of children with parents earning low-moderate income but non fsm being ignored,, even though they are comparatively poorly represented at gs too?

Not at all

Though all involved are aware that FSM is a VERY rough approximation of relative deprivation.

In fact, in some schools in deprived areas the FSM children actually outperform the non-FSM cohort because most of those not in receipt of FSM are only just above the threshold and are really struggling without and extra support.

[Catseye]

Am I the only one who gets hacked off with fsm data always being bandied about and the huge proportion of children with parents earning low-moderate income but non fsm being ignored,, even though they are comparatively poorly represented at gs too?

FSM ,is used as measure,because it is a quantitative measure of the disadvantaged .

That is to say all children/families in poverty are including this subgroup but not all the "middle-squeezed "could be including in this sub-group-it's like the Venn diagram , the middle squeezed may have a foot in many circles-sectors- but those in FSM group almost exclusively belong to the poor, uneducated (i.e no family members have been to university)

You may feel like the middle squeezed but I know from your past posts you are highly intelligent and qualified -Oxbridge graduate no less!

i may be stupid but I have almost photographic memory!