Lift on the ban on grammar schools?

[Amber]

There are many studies which show that grammar schools categorically do not aid social mobility - in fact they have quite the opposite effect. This research is not negated by anecdotal evidence nor by the instinctive feelings of some people that their particular view is correct. Throughout the entire world, social mobility is reduced not enhanced by selective education. That is a hard fact. Here are just two articles - one a 'lay' discussion and another an academic one. For those genuinely interested in the evidence a quick search on google scholar will yield many more, including if you have academic access an in depth discussion in the Oxford Review of Education (2013) of the situation in Buckinghamshire authored by Harris and Rose.

https://theconversation.com/hard-eviden ... lity-28121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://iwaee.org/PaperValidi2014/201402 ... eb2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is indeed the case that comprehensive schools deemed to be 'good' will attract middle class parents (no insult intended, I am one, but they are the only ones with the cultural capital to exercise 'choice') and thereby perpetuate the so-called 'postcode lottery'. As Sweden has discovered to its cost, the more choice you introduce into a system, the more unequal that system becomes. Add in selection and you only make it worse, not better - so those bemoaning this postcode lottery and then looking to grammar schools to sort it out are arguing against themselves really.

[ConfusedFather]

There are many studies which show that grammar schools categorically do not aid social mobility - in fact they have quite the opposite effect. This research is not negated by anecdotal evidence nor by the instinctive feelings of some people that their particular view is correct. Throughout the entire world, social mobility is reduced not enhanced by selective education. That is a hard fact. Here are just two articles - one a 'lay' discussion and another an academic one. For those genuinely interested in the evidence a quick search on google scholar will yield many more, including if you have academic access an in depth discussion in the Oxford Review of Education (2013) of the situation in Buckinghamshire authored by Harris and Rose.

https://theconversation.com/hard-eviden ... lity-28121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://iwaee.org/PaperValidi2014/201402 ... eb2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is indeed the case that comprehensive schools deemed to be 'good' will attract middle class parents (no insult intended, I am one, but they are the only ones with the cultural capital to exercise 'choice') and thereby perpetuate the so-called 'postcode lottery'. As Sweden has discovered to its cost, the more choice you introduce into a system, the more unequal that system becomes. Add in selection and you only make it worse, not better - so those bemoaning this postcode lottery and then looking to grammar schools to sort it out are arguing against themselves really.

Thank you for the debate.

I did bring some detailed research too to the table, and I think the biggest difference in our points of view is going to be around the definition of "fairness".
I would like to point out also that I am not necessarily in favour of having a fully selective system, but that at minimum there is some level selective schools within each county.

Also note that I am quite open to multiple entry points, and even that selection could be better achieved at around GCSE time rather than so early at 11.

Going back to your argument:

Grammar schools hinder social mobility: as I said before, I did mention that non-selective systems tend to perform better than selective ones on average. And grammars do increase standard deviation. But there is also evidence that the ones that do make it to the selective schools achieve better. And also, the research you shared in first link clearly shows that selective system does benefit to about 30% of the kids in scope of the study. Even if that number was 10% or even 5%, I repeat my question: would it be fair to break the potential of these kids? The cost may indeed be the other X%, but is the goal of grammars to "reduce inequality" or "better look after kids that would benefit from its teachings and peer groups"? Your own study shows that the selective system does benefit to those who benefit from it.

The studies I shared show how comprehensives fail a great number of kids. Of course helping some will increase standard deviation. But was is the approach then? Is fairness to say we keep tolling in the cotton fields when the masters enjoy a bourbon in their mansion, and we punish those that try to escape the shackles? Everyone must be saved or nobody?
Lyricism aside ( :p ), how do you care for those that are bored in school, those that are not challenged enough. Those who, will fail later on because school failed them? Because they were not important enough, or would do well anyhow.
How do you care for those who could have had a more academic path, but who were failed by the school because it did not know (or worse, did not want to tell the kid about) the various paths they could take?

Is the purpose of school to get to a standard deviation of zero? I don't think so. But there is a genuine problem you do raise: if helping some hurts other, how do we chose? Is it simply a numbers game?
Ideally, you'd funnel more money into the system, but then again people tend to vote in the UK for different choices, so you have to work within the constraints of the system. So what do you do?

I think that given the financial (or cultural) limitations of comprehensives, selective systems are needed in some shape or form (and should not get more money per head) to cater to the needs of those who need this type of environment.

[Catseye]

I must say confusedfather your arguments are very good food for thought.
The best I have have ever heard in favour of GS and believe me I have heard almost all of them.

Lift on the ban grammar schools is the question.

To do this ,would require taxpayers to invest a huge amount of money in such schools, given the fact that we don't have a pot to micturate in, would it not be better to invest in the 95% of state children who attend comprehensives and thus right the ills you highlight?

And you too easily dismiss the X% who would even in a fully Grammar county be the vast majority.

Fully grammar counties do not work,if you don't believe me look at Kent.

[Amber]

Lyricism aside ( :p ), how do you care for those that are bored in school, those that are not challenged enough. Those who, will fail later on because school failed them? Because they were not important enough, or would do well anyhow.
How do you care for those who could have had a more academic path, but who were failed by the school because it did not know (or worse, did not want to tell the kid about) the various paths they could take?.

How do you suppose that countries with fully comprehensive systems (Scandinavia, for example) cope with all these bored children? Perhaps if we widen our view of what education is while at the same time narrowing our expectations of what school is meant to do then we can arrive at an answer. I do not buy into this idea of 'not being challenged enough at school'. The curriculum is the same wherever you go - there isn't a special one for grammar schools. Where is personal responsibility in all this? Where are drive and motivation and self-improvement - why is it always down to a school to challenge a child? I know very bright kids in their early teens who can't think for themselves - but come top in every maths test the school throws at them. Why are they bored, if they are? We sneer at the idea of cooperation here - of able children helping less able ones. People don't want their 'bright' child being 'held back' by having to assist an 'average' one. Why not? Isn't that what life is about, really? We are all human beings and instilling ruthless competition and a superiority complex aren't going to help once you get out into the workplace. We also sneer at the idea which dominates education in East Asia, namely that all children can succeed at the same level, and differentiation isn't necessary. This requires determination and tenacity, neither of which we encourage when we differentiate - every worksheet, every maths task, every scientific experiment.

I went to what you would call a 'sink comprehensive' now; school did not 'challenge' me and I pretty much mucked about all the way along. I didn't have books at home and was the first in my family to go to university. I am on the way to a doctorate - in a subject wildly different from my first and second degrees. I don't consider that my school 'failed me' and do not in any way wish I had been educated differently - I learned a lot along the way and am a pretty tough old thing now. One day I realised that I rather like learning and don't ever intend to stop. I do not envy anyone who had a more privileged education - though some of them think I do. I would have failed an 11 plus as no one would have had enough money to pay for a tutor. Having more grammar schools wouldn't have done anything for me.

There is always time to take a 'more academic path'. Our aim should be to improve opportunity for all, not keep banging on about bright children being bored. My three are bright children and I tell them that if they are bored it says more about them than anything else. With top grades, from a very mediocre school until GCSE, I don't recall my daughter ever complaining of being bored at school. She just got on with it, and taught herself a load more things outside it. If school is dead easy and boring then get it out of the way, go out and do something else, preferably something which will benefit other people. All these incredibly bright but bored young people can be taught to use their immense intellect for the greater good if only we start thinking really creatively about what kind of society we want. Countries which have non-selective systems seem to produce their fair share (more than their fare share?) of Nobel prize winners, eminent scientists and medics, without creaming them off at any point and playing to their strengths. 'Break the potential' of the top 5%? Poor things. If they are that bright then they will find a path through. And what about the rest, the other 95%, or even 70%? Germany, with the most entrenched selective system in the world, is gradually dismantling it as they come to terms with the fact that you cannot allow the majority of your young people to be denied opportunities - there will be both an economic and social price to pay.

The loudest advocates of grammar schools are always those who stand to benefit from them; but if they are as intellectually astute as they claim to be they will understand that there is no future in cultivating an underclass. This is a pernicious right-wing agenda and as one of the most unequal countries in the developed world already, we will pay a heavy price if we allow it to prevail. We should face outwards and think about what we want our country to become, and then educate for it. Not by segregating and privileging, but by radically improving what is on offer for all our children.

[Catseye]

Why is the Finnish school system so good?

http://leftfootforward.org/2013/12/why- ... m-so-good/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comprehensive school system 'better and fairer'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34631493" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


This piece of research was published in 2011



"Researchers at the universities of Oxford and Bath Spa used data from the National Child Development Survey, which has tracked thousands of adults now aged 53, since they were born.

The academics took a sample of more than 3,300 adults, a third had attended comprehensive schools, a quarter had gone to grammar schools and two-fifths had been educated in a secondary modern.

They compared the jobs the adults did at the age of 33 with the work their fathers had done 17 years earlier – when the adults were 16 – and analysed the results to see whether the adults had climbed the social ladder.

The researchers also looked at the salaries the adults earned at age 33 and compared these to how much their fathers had earned 17 years earlier, having converted this into today's figures.

All those in the sample had sat a test to measure their academic ability at the age of 11. This enabled the researchers to compare what difference going to a grammar, comprehensive or secondary modern makes in terms of earnings and social status for adults of a similar ability.

The study, which appears in the latest edition of the British Journal of Sociology, found children from working-class homes were no more likely to move up the social ladder if they went to a grammar school rather than a comprehensive. Attending a grammar school did improve a working-class child's chance of earning slightly more than their parents. But children from middle-class homes, who went to grammar schools, also earned slightly more than their parents had done.


However, across the sample, the advantages of going to a grammar school were cancelled out by the social disadvantages experienced by those who went to secondary moderns. These adults did not have a different social class or earning power to their fathers.

Vikki Boliver, a sociology lecturer at Bath Spa, said many "bemoan the introduction of the comprehensive school as depriving academically able children of a crucial ladder of opportunity. Our analysis provides a more rounded approach."

And all of the research since and before this analysis come to the same conclusion, contradicting your anecdotal evidence.

source - http://www.theguardian.com/education/20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... l-mobility

Grammar schools do not boost social mobility, report finds

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 97401.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At last,a good debate about the issues based on some evidence.

Thank you-Confusedfather-welldone!

[ConfusedFather]

...

After saying we should refer to studies and not anecdotes, you do fall in the same pitfall:

'Break the potential' of the top 5%? Poor things. If they are that bright then they will find a path through.

They don't. That belief is countered by studies. Your own stat show that the top 30% of said study perform WORSE in a non selective environment. Look at the graph (there are maybe some other biases, but the study suppposedly filtered against some, and it's your own argument, so can't be accused of cherry picking studies ).

Are you suggesting to ignore the stats? Or those kids, because, well, they are already on a path to more <insert a criteria>, they don't need more help, they don't deserve to be better?

And the personal responsibility argument is a double edged sword. What if someone said "anyone who doesn't go to grammar, they can only blame themselves". Both of us would be in outrage. And rightly so. Same for personal motivation. Not everyone has relentless ruthless drive. Personality, peers, schools, parents, TV, all play a role.

If they are that bright then they will find a path through.

Re-quoting this part. Again, I gave a link to a study that shows that a massive amount of comprehensives never or barely send kids to good universities. That in others, teachers hold them down by thinking they can't make it. Are you saying that it is easy for the kids in those schools to become a top doctor, a lecturer at a top Uni or a MIT engineer? Let's say you do answer "it's easy". Is it easier or harder than for others? It is "harder" when you end up in these places. Because of the schools' culture, or the environment's lack of ambition, or because peers put down those that excel. The number of parents I have heard saying "my kid is bad at academic subjects, just like me" when their kid is only 5 or 6! How easy will it be for these kids to go against the stream without the school's help?

by radically improving what is on offer for all our children

I agree with that, but then you need the majority to vote for money for schools. If the majority doesn't, do you still say "everyone gets saved or nobody". And it will not really address the need for selection or streaming.


I will now also use personal experience. I actually was thinking it would be great to have a thread for forum users to share their own personal experience and how it may have shaped their opinion on the education system. It is interesting to see how we are shaped by our experiences, or how we grow against them.

I went to many schools, in 2 different countries, fleeing bombs. In secondary, I was in a streamed class. Top 15% of the cohort. I still finished everything before most other kids, still tried to answer all the teacher's questions. To get some respite and to be able to take care of the other kids, teachers allowed me to read comic books in class.
A bit later, GCSE type level, I aced them, didn't study a thing. Had the chance to go to a super selective school, but my parents couldn't move there. Still went to a very good school for what you'd call 6th form. Top 3rd stream. Everything was still easy. Never had to study. And you know what? To be accepted and avoid bullying, I started making mistakes on purpose to avoid appearing too brainy. The joys of peer pressure and social acceptance.
Got first at the Uni entrance exam. And then, I got horribly horribly crushed there. Everything was on a different level, nothing ever challenged me before, I didn't have coping mechanisms. Nobody taught me failure. Nobody taught me how to learn. Nothing to do with self motivation or self drive. How can you prepare for a problem you ignore having???
Can't be pitied, still managed to get a couple of degrees. But what if?

Had I gone to that selective schools, who knows what would have happened. I would probably be a very different person. But I probably would have met much brighter kids than I. I would have been tested to the extreme. I would have learned how to study. Teachers would have made sure I kept learning and keep challenged. At least they would have kept feeding me things to learn. I would have been able to meet like minded kids who also enjoyed talking about WWII, the Odyssey or simply boardgames.

Regular, standard, schools are simply not tailored to address all type of kids.
Unless we can afford 1-1 teaching in all schools with the perfect teacher(s) for each kid, which isn't really in the realm of possibilities.
Or unless one's political view of utopia is a grey world where everyone has similar abilities and the outliers in a given aspect are not nurtured to prevent them causing inequality...

There is always time to take a 'more academic path'.

Good for you You make it sound so easy, but there are often constraints. If I didn't have them, I'd be going for a PhD myself and learning. (no, I wouldn't do it on top of my job, I also do have hobbies. It's either job or PhD).

Lift on the ban grammar schools is the question.

I would say "No", it's not needed. I anything, reduce the number of GS in GS counties, but make sure any county can cover 5% or 10% of a cohort in a selective system at least for A levels and maybe GCSE. Selection at 11 is bad. Kids are still kids, and change a lot in interests and abilities. However when the serious stuff starts, better have homogeneous classes/schools to push kids to the max and avoid negative peer pressure in those teenage years.

[Catseye]

CF your graph is a nonsense.

Selective schools tend to be in affluent areas (my area Trafford has been Tory since precambrian times and a prime example-that's how and why they clung onto GSs).

It is no surprise or at least it shouldn't be to someone of your intellect that earning would be higher in these areas, it says nothing about social mobility-the whole point of GS!

[Guest55]

I have taught in both Comprehensive schools and a GS - I do not recognise the 'differences' you talk about ConfusedFather. In all the schools we had students who went to Oxbridge and RG unis - but, remember these universities are not always 'the best' for all careers paths. If I had a student who wanted to be an F1 engineer then I woud not recommend either Oxbridge or a RG uni - that's not where they recruit they most engineers from.

You ignore the most 'potent' reason for not selecting at 11 - the fact that the test is flawed and from my experience of the 'products' of these tests, the system does not select 'the best'. Some of our 12+ students and later entrants are far better than the '11+ successes' ...

If you believe in GS then why should Bucks shut some of them to select an even smaller quota?

There are very few 'true' comprehensives - just look at the KS2 entry profile of some of them. Their cohorts are skewed by local GS and private schools.

[ConfusedFather]

I have taught in both Comprehensive schools and a GS - I do not recognise the 'differences' you talk about ConfusedFather. In all the schools we had students who went to Oxbridge and RG unis - but, remember these universities are not always 'the best' for all careers paths. If I had a student who wanted to be an F1 engineer then I woud not recommend either Oxbridge or a RG uni - that's not where they recruit they most engineers from.

You ignore the most 'potent' reason for not selecting at 11 -
....

Starting from that last sentence, actually I do agree that selecting at 11 is ridiculous. I do like selection, but I definitely do not find it appropriate to select at 11, on a single exam, and as the only time kids can chose.
It just happens that it is better to be in than out within the current system. If you can't fight it, join it.

Regarding the first part, I do agree with your comment. What I do point out, is that IF a kid wanted to go to Oxbridge within those 1,600 comprehensive, they would be severely handicapped.
If they wanted to go to a top uni, however defined (whether Sutton 30, Russell 24, etc..) they would be at a disadvantage.

Previous research has shown that some 30% of comprehensive schools have at most one or two students progressing to the prestigious 24 Russell Group Universities

When again, studies, not anecdotes say:

Previous Sutton Trust work has found that over 60% of teachers underestimate the percentage of students from state schools on undergraduate courses at Oxbridge, with a quarter saying fewer than 20% of students come from the state sector (the actual figure is around 60%).
The same survey found that over 40% of teachers in state secondary schools say they would rarely or never advise academically-gifted pupils to apply to Oxbridge.

How can we even claim that comprehensives are working as intended and are giving the right chances to kids? 40% of teachers. Not the odd one out. 40%!
Maybe some GS are not working great either, I can't comment on your specific experience. But even on improvement type measure, studies have shown that kids do benefit more from GS whether on FSM or not.
The burning issue of this topic is whether this comes at a cost to others. In which case, how to solve the debate of how can you help all sides of an equation? If you truly have to pick some over the others, how do you even make that choice? And whatever that choice is, how can it be ethical or fair?


As a side note on the "creaming" debate: http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/u ... inal11.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; section 9.1.4
Says that only 161 schools are heavily impacted by creaming, and 3/4 of them are in 4 LAs (guess which? :p ).
A third of schools are not impacted, and the rest is only very mildly impacted.

[Guest55]

That report is from 2008 which in terms of education is several GCSE versions ago!

That section actually says:
'The effects of selection are so widespread, albeit tailing off to low levels, that we cannot confidently draw lines around its impact.'

I was comparing the national spread of KS2 data against the intake to judge whether a school was really 'comprehensive'.

Please be aware ConfusedFather that some excellent universities are not RG e.g. Bath, Loughborough ... the thinking about 'top universities' depends on the subject and the career choice - it is not cut and dried any more.