Go to navigation
It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:51 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:31 pm
Posts: 188
Location: London
some research on if grammar schools improve overall results in an area or not

Quote:
Abstract
This paper assesses the impact of academic selection at age 11 on children in the minority of areas that
still operate such a system. The answers are very clear. Overall there is little or no impact on
attainment, but those educated in grammar schools do substantially better (around four grade points
more than pupils with the same Key Stage 2 (KS2) points in similar, but non-selective, areas). This is
equivalent to raising four GCSEs from a grade ‘C’ to a ‘B’. Other children within selective areas who
do not gain a place in a grammar school are disadvantaged by a little under one grade point. In part
these effects stem from the substantive under representation of poorer and special needs children in
grammar schools. Only 32% of high ability children eligible for free school meals (FSM) attend
grammar schools compared with 60% of non-FSM pupils. So whilst the net effect of selection is not
substantive it does result in gains for those attending the grammar schools and a slight disadvantage for
the rest. The paradox is that grammar schools bestow greater advantages to poor children than more
affluent children, but very few make the cut.


from "The Result of 11 Plus Selection: An Investigation into
Opportunities and Outcomes for Pupils in Selective
LEAs"
http://www.bris.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2006/wp150.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 360
An interesting document, thanks. Odd that it presents all its findings as descriptive paragraphs and tables, without using and graphs etc, but I've ploughed through it.

The conclusion you highlight is not one I would really argue with, BUT it still doesn't present watertight data and is also somewhat muddled in places.

It's a shame it doesn't draw a distinction between somewhere like Bucks, which is a large authority that is fully selective, everyone sits 11+ unless they opt out, and if you pass, you are guaranteed a grammar place, and very different situations, e.g. smaller authorities with a few grammars, others where you have to opt in to 11+ and others where (according to the report) passing 11+ doesn't guarantee a grammar place. I would hope and presume that in the Bucks system, most bright but poor children would get into grammar.

At times it gives stats for how few poor pupils are at grammars, and at others it is only talking about the number of bright poor children at grammars. Very different things. As a group, poor children do less well at SATs, 11+, GCSE etc and that's a different problem from whether they have as much access to grammars as equally intelligent children from more affluent homes.

It also points out the underrepresentation in grammars of children with special educational needs, but that's hardly surprising. Whilst some some SEN children are very bright and can and do go to grammars, depending on the problrm, almost by definition, many will not be suited to a grammar education.

It was also interesting that grammar pupils are more likely than average to have been born between Sept and Dec. That indicates that age standardisation might be slightly skewed.

So, overall, interesting, but I'm not sure it contains any surprises or really clarifies the debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:51 pm
Posts: 2237
The Sutton Trust did some research a while back and concluded grammars make no difference to achievement levels for pupils in other schools in the area. Plenty of graphs and tables in that one, by the way :wink: .

Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 360
mike1880 wrote:
The Sutton Trust did some research a while back and concluded grammars make no difference to achievement levels for pupils in other schools in the area.


Any idea which of their reports?

Anyway, without more explanation, your summary is hard to interpret. Obviously schools that have, say, 25% of their potential top academic performers creamed off to grammars will not do as well as real comprehensives. The issue is whether attainment for the grammar pupils and those in the secondary moderns is above/below/comparable to what it would be in a comprehensive system. And there are plenty of people who claim to have proved that... but they don't all agree!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 11952
Quote:
Obviously schools that have, say, 25% of their potential top academic performers creamed off to grammars will not do as well as real comprehensives.


Actually Zee that is not correct - some Bucks Upper schools outperform many Comprehensives -


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 360
Guest55 wrote:
Quote:
Obviously schools that have, say, 25% of their potential top academic performers creamed off to grammars will not do as well as real comprehensives.


Actually Zee that is not correct - some Bucks Upper schools outperform many Comprehensives -


Sorry, you're quite right in terms of some individual schools. What I should have explained more clearly is that en masse, secondary moderns/uppers are unlikely to do as well as comprehensives en masse. The problem with all these issues is that there is such a huge range of circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 960
The broad conclusion of the report seems to be that for moderately affluent middle class children it doesn't really matter where they go to school, but for children from poor and disadvantaged homes a grammar school place could make a huge difference. Unfortunately, children like this can't get into grammar schools because all the places are taken by the aforementioned affluent, middle class children.........!!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:27 am
Posts: 84
Absolutely katel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 360
katel wrote:
for children from poor and disadvantaged homes a grammar school place could make a huge difference. Unfortunately, children like this can't get into grammar schools because all the places are taken by the aforementioned affluent, middle class children.........!!!!!!


Yes... and no.

Firstly, it's only fair to compare access to grammars for children of equal intelligence but different income. For all sorts of reasons, and with lots of exceptions, poor children as a group tend to perform less well in academic tests than those from more affluent homes, so you wouldn't expect equal numbers of FSM in grammars an non-grammars.

Secondly, I'd like to see figures comparing bright but poor children's access to grammars in opt-in systems where only a tiny proportion of local places are at grammars with opt-out systems where ~25% of local places are at grammars. Very different situations and I would expect them to be disproportionatly excluded in the former system, but they should be more fairly represented in the latter. But I don't have any numbers to back up that hope/expectation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:31 pm
Posts: 188
Location: London
I too would expect to see a difference, but (for clarity) not because of the opt-in vs opt-out, but because of the number of places available.

This in turn assumes that poor children of selective ability are at the lower end of the selectable range.

My explanation of this would be because brighter poorer children have less opportunities, less favorable contexts, then brighter wealthier children.

But first that would be true regardless of how many selective places are available and second is inherently unfair, allocating more resources to who need them less. (not a huge injustice, but an injustice nevertheless)

So, I do see your point that an "opt-out-25%-grammar" LEA is somehow better "opt-in-didly-squid-grammar-places" LEA, but that is because it waters down the unfairness in selection.

I still haven't seen spelled out a case for selection...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016