Lift on the ban on grammar schools?

[Stroller]

As a parent, I used to quite value the data that was available on the Dfe website. One could see the average GCSEs grade of children who gained different levels at ks2. This is no longer available. Together with the muddle which is now ks2 results I fear it will very hard for anyone to know whether their local school is good or not until their child has suffered 5 years of it. There will be no no way the public will be able to tell if a shift to mote grammar schools, or any other change, results in improved outcomes or not at their local school.

Quite. As Alan Greenspan said,

Since becoming a central banker, I have learned to mumble with great incoherence. If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.

Humphrey Appleby would be proud.

[mystery]

The useful elements of the performance tables must have been added in during a lapse in judgement and have now been judiciously removed.

[mystery]

Am I misunderstanding something? Why is it so surprising that children who have already achieved a higher level by the age of 11 are more likely to progress by four levels between 11 and 16? Unless, of course, all the KS2 level 5s started school at a significantly higher level than the level 4s, so actually didn't make as much progress as the level 4s at primary school, so you would actually expect them to find it harder to progress through the same number of levels subsequently?

It's not surprising that children who got level 5s would get better GCSE results than children who got level 4s but "four levels" - whatever is meant by that - is pushing it a bit. And if the typical level 5 child did startlingly better at grammar school than at a comprehensive this would also be rather surprising.

As G55 said, it seems that we need a link to the research so we can fully understand what it did say.

[quasimodo]

Watching the current debate on the lifting of the ban on new Grammar schools I am a little surprised the Conservatives are continuing with their proposals.I cannot see them overturning the ban at present .To me it seems at this moment in time they should only allow existing grammars to expand.I do not believe Teresa May yet has a popular mandate to press ahead with these proposals.They need to be part of their new manifesto and Teresa May needs to win an election to overcome the political opposition.If I was her I would go for a general election as she enjoys a honeymoon period and a personal popularity in the opinion polls.She alo has no real opposition from the Liberals or the Labour party.The only things stopping her are the fixed term Parliaments, legislation which could be easily overturned and the boundary commission changes to Parliamentary constituency boundaries for equal constituency numbers for electoral votes which will give the Conservatives at least 20 plus more electoral seats.These are changes which have previously been derailed by the Liberals and Labour to avoid these electoral losses but which amount to an democratic deficit to the electorate generally.The Conservatives would want the boundary commission changes to be legislated and in place prior to the next election.The present Parliamentary arithmetic is they have a majority of around 12 in the Commons to the other parties combined and a number of there own MP's have concerns over these new proposals.Even if they get the legislation through the Commons they do not have a majority in the Lords where in my view the proposals will be defeated.I support lifting the ban but feel in order to have the best chance of success they should proceed in stages taking their own party with them but most importantly after they have a popular mandate and can prove they have the support of the electorate.

[Catseye]

I support lifting the ban

Evidence please, not a big ask for man of your intellect.

[quasimodo]

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... fullreport" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click on the full report on Grammar school statistics and click again on the PDF and consider the relative performance of children at above level 4 on leaving primary school and the types of schools they then attend in obtaining 5 GCSE's including English and Mathematics.

[Catseye]

Sorry, you have fallen for classic trap of the naive.

Correlation does not imply causation!

You are in for mauling , my old mucker!

Even Mr Corbyn(a buffoon) took Mrs May apart when she was asked for the evidence that GS facilitate social mobility.

You should've taken that A level maths

[quasimodo]

Sorry, you have fallen for classic trap of the naive.

Correlation does not imply causation!

You are in for mauling , my old mucker!

Even Mr Corbyn(a buffoon) took Mrs May apart when she was asked for the evidence that GS facilitate social mobility.

You should've taken that A level maths

"Correlation does not imply causation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We can have a theoretical debate or we can use the most logical interpretation.

The evidence here supports the view that for a bright child they do relatively better in a Grammar as compared to a Comprehensive.What was missing in these statistics is how much better in terms of actual grades in these 5 GCSE's were children doing at Grammars as compared to Comprehensives.You will note the use when comparing with the Comprehensive the 5 GCSE's or "equivalent" on these statistics.

Sorry C where have I argued that Grammar schools facilitate social mobility ?

[Catseye]

"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.

Abraham Lincoln"

Good riposte,QM.

I can't be bothered either to argue the toss, life is too short.

[Guest55]

This is not prrof - just read it carefully:

"In 2015 91% of pupils taking their GCSEs at grammar schools had been above level 4 at the end of primary school compared to 33% at comprehensives and 22% at secondary modern schools. If we only look at this group then attainment at GCSE are predictably much closer. 98% of these pupils who attended grammar schools achieved 5+ GCSEs/equivalent including English and maths, 91% did so who went to comprehensive schools and 88% at secondary moderns. The proportion of these pupils making at least the expected degree of progress in English and maths between the end of primary school and GCSE was noticeably higher at grammar schools at 93% and 95% respectively compared to 81% and 82% at comprehensives and 77% and 78% at secondary moderns.

It is important, however, to realise that there is still scope for substantial variation within the ‘above level 4 group’ between different school types. Given that grammars select on ability it is highly likely that these pupils have higher levels of attainment, when finely graded, than the ‘above level 4 group’ at non-selective schools."

The last part is the significant part - 'above level 4' covers a wide range - from level 5c to 5a [and some would have been higher than that but capped by the tests]. In RAISEonline reports the progress matrices breaks performance down by fine grades and 5cs are far less likely to get A* than 5as.

All it shows is that KS2 levels link to GCSE grades - not that the school attended makes a significant difference.