Lift on the ban on grammar schools?

[quasimodo]

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.

It all depends on your interpretation.

It was interesting to see the schools on the link for contextual offers on another thread I think in relation to Southampton University I noticed both the school my wife (and most of her brothers and sisters) and Catseye went to in the area we now live and my sixth form in another area were on the list.Now that we have the ability to choose and have more information we would never dream of putting our children in those schools.

[Bumblebeez]

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

Is that true for Uppers as well as Grammars?

[Guest55]

Yes - I believe that it has been shown that the higher the proportion of level 5s a Bucks Upper admits the better its percentage of 5 GCSE A* to Cs inc Eng and Maths.

[Catseye]

It all depends on your interpretation.

Come off it QM, you cannot at the same time try to bring in objective evidence into the discussion then imply it is all subjective and open to personal interpretation based on your own anecdotal experiences.

btw-I quite like my old school in Willenhall people often go on about a' rounded education' there is nothing like surviving a 'sink' school and making it-it definitely is an education and has made me the person I am,for better or worse.

[Tolstoy]

Seen this debate enough over the years and my own views are changing so will sit on the fence this time. I will make one point though, stats can often be as unreliable as anecdotal evidence.

... and talking of which the Upper my DC attend has a very atypical socio-mix so not fair to use it as an example of how well an Upper school can perform. I suspect this is true of many of the 'good' Uppers in Bucks.

The biggest block to learning IMHo is pupil behaviour and low expectation and more Grammars won't solve that one.

One big problem I do have with the school system is the disproportionate funding that gets fed into schools from PTAs, etc, the latest I have seen is schools employing staff to raise extra funds from various sources -ex alumini etc. This results in a very inequitable eduction system which will always give Grammars and Comps in wealthy areas an unfair advantage. It's private education by stealth and adding more Grammars to the mix will only increase this problem, as whether you want them or not we all know the testing they use is seriously flawed.

[kenyancowgirl]

Tolstoy, I am REALLY interested in hearing about state schools you have recently seen who have employed people to help raise funds through alumni etc - please can you send me the school details as I would like to get in touch? Obviously private schools have done this for years but it is the states schools that are doing it that I am interested in. Thanks.

[Tolstoy]

I have pmed you but be aware I am not happy about this practice. The slippery slope of Acadamies I fear.

[Bumblebeez]

So grammar schools don't particularly help the top KS2 achievers do better, and selection also doesn't particularly harm the progress of the top KS2 entrants to Upper schools? Is that a fair summary of the evidence?
The general pattern of the Ofsted findings in the petri dish of Bucks is that grammars are outstanding schools and that Uppers are not. Is that because there's evidence that most entrants (across the ability spectrum, such as it is) to grammars make expected or better progress, but fewer entrants (all comers) to uppers do so? And is that because, in general, the group that hasn't been quick to progress before KS3 is unlikely to suddenly become able to meet expected targets, and less likely to speed up in their progress?

Just considering the top KS2 achievers, this evidence seems to make selection a pretty ineffective approach. What about cost? Is there any public information about the direct costs of running selection in Bucks, including the review and appeal processes? What is the cost per student admitted per year at 11+, 12+, 13+? And the broader costs of transporting students from huge catchments? (How could that money be spent more effectively to improve outcomes?)

I came across this, which made me think of this thread and our policy makers. Why is it so hard to have education policies and practices based on evidence?

This is the view of Dr. Bob Slavin, a proponent of intelligent and systematic use of learning science and evidence about learning, and director of the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University:

So this posting about why folks oppose evidence-based practices in learning comes from a person who's worked practically in schools for decades, as well as been at the front edge of research in learning. He's got the experience (scars?).

What gets in the way, according to him?

People's intuition about how education should work, based on misinterpretation of their own, or their own family's, experience. He quotes university faculty who have misgivings about applying evidence-based methods to schools because it might change their own children's schools, and “the system was working very well for [them], thank you very much.” Most people who control learning environments at any level are, indeed, the selected survivors of all the random types of learning environments they've been in. It's very human to assume “it must be good – it worked for me,” but not a good way to select at-scale treatments, either in medicine, or for learning.

People's natural aversion to being wrong, leading them to reject evidence that contradicts their own practices and assumptions. Confirmation bias - it's one of a long list of cognitive biases we have that behavioral economists point out mess up our decision-making. Other fields of human endeavor have made progress in the face of this tide – completely different areas, like medicine and direct-mail marketing – with real impact. (Ahem.) Surely we need to get on the right side of this – using evidence, not intuition, to drive better results for learning? (While watching out for misuses of evidence gathered, of course.)

(This extract is from the blog of Bror Saxberg, the Chief Learning Officer for Kaplan inc: http://brorsblog.typepad.com/brors-blog ... lavin.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He also writes about the quality of evidence used in education research at http://brorsblog.typepad.com/brors-blog ... dence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[Catseye]

People's natural aversion to being wrong, leading them to reject evidence that contradicts their own practices and assumptions. Confirmation bias - it's one of a long list of cognitive biases we have that behavioral economists point out mess up our decision-making. Other fields of human endeavor have made progress in the face of this tide – completely different areas, like medicine and direct-mail marketing – with real impact. (Ahem.) Surely we need to get on the right side of this – using evidence, not intuition, to drive better results for learning? (While watching out for misuses of evidence gathered, of course.)

I and others have been banding on about this for ages-Yes, I agree, this is not an academic journal but it is an educational one and I know it is much more interesting and entertaining to listen to people's personal saga's but it adds nowt to the discussion.

I would recommend everyone to read 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre.

Intuition and personal experience is just about the worse way to spend millions of taxpayers pounds.

So, to return to the OPs original question 'Lift on the ban on grammar schools?'

If you care to read the thread in its entirety again as I have done,I believe ,one must come to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to do so at the present time.

The noes have it,the noes have it