Lift on the ban on grammar schools?

[Lillie]

I can't believe the government is trotting out the old lie about grammar schools being an aid to social mobility.

Do they not read even the most basic of analyses which show the very low number of children on free school meals at these schools (around 3% I think)?

The BBC news website only very recently did its own analysis of the effect of grammar schools on achievement. They looked at Kent and found that the children at the secondary modern schools achieved less well than their counterparts in other non-selective areas. The selective system accentuates the differences and worsens social mobility.

The fact is here in Bucks and I'm sure in Kent, both counties which are 100% selective, the majority of the local children do not go to a grammar school but go to a secondary modern. You do not see the headlines along the lines of "Let's Get Back Our Secondary Modern Schools For the Majority of British Kids". We do not have the local council here boasting about the fact that the county still has secondary moderns, or that many of them are either requiring improvement or in and out of special measures.

Parents want good schools for the children, of course. But that shouldn't mean that the majority of kids get a less than good education.

[BucksBornNBred]

Why should Grammar schools be reserved nowadays for the rich (who can afford tutoring) and the poor (who claim school meals)? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but GSs should be based on true mental ability and nothing else. I think the problem started when Grammars were banned and any mention of 11+ was basically also banned in primary schools. When I took the test, we were taught techniques to answer 11+ questions - that wasn't cheating; that was common sense, no different to teaching children multiplication (though don't get me started on modern KS2 gridding). Lots of people on this forum ask about exam questions and the best way to approach them, and that is what we should be teaching children. There would be less competition for GS places if there were more of them and I think it would go back to how it was with less pressure and no need for sites like these But I am from Bucks and, as I said, had no idea that it wasn't the norm to just sit your test and wait for the results, not really caring which way it went. I saw a few parents at my DS's primary that withdrew from the test, but I really didn't understand their reasoning ... que sera sera and all that.

[Amber]

but GSs should be based on true mental ability and nothing else.

Why? How?

The idea of intelligence being fixed by age 10 is well outdated for one thing. What is 'true mental ability'?

Even if you could define it, the idea that you can test for it is ridiculous. Especially at 10 or 11.

There is not one shred of evidence that children segregated by supposed ability at 11 'do better' than those who aren't.

That is before you even look at the arguments for social mobility - the more diversity you build into a system the more unequal it will become. And where there is inequality there are always winners and losers and they are always the same kinds of people. We would hold our hands up in horror at the idea of educating separately based on skin colour or sexuality - I do not for one second understand why anyone thinks it OK that all children should not be given the same opportunities. Even the OECD PISA studies, of which I am no fan, make the point above all other points that there is no merit at all in stratifying education systems or 'tracking' (the international term for selecting) children early on. It works against all the research ever carried out about social equality/mobility and the only people it benefits are the middle class parents who manage to leverage their children into the better schools.

[BucksBornNBred]

I'm not saying the opportunities should be different based on intelligence... but why is it ok to select based on physical ability and not mental ability? I agree age 10 is ridiculously young to separate and, as I have stated, I took the 12+ which may be the difference in opinion. And social mobility, despite left wing opinion, was natural and not forced with that test - no engineering in other words. I think we can agree to differ, but I believe that in a truly selective education system all children have more opportunities, wherever they end up. Oh, and I never said that children at GS "do better" than those at secondary - in fact I think I pointed out how well my sister did at her secondary; in those days you could fulfil your potential at any school.

ETA I guess I just don't believe that "one size fits all" and different schools suit different children - is that not what a lot of people on this site think?

[Catseye]

I'm not saying the opportunities should be different based on intelligence... but why is it ok to select based on physical ability and not mental ability? I agree age 10 is ridiculously young to separate and, as I have stated, I took the 12+ which may be the difference in opinion. And social mobility, despite left wing opinion, was natural and not forced with that test - no engineering in other words. I think we can agree to differ, but I believe that in a truly selective education system all children have more opportunities, wherever they end up. Oh, and I never said that children at GS "do better" than those at secondary - in fact I think I pointed out how well my sister did at her secondary; in those days you could fulfil your potential at any school.

ETA I guess I just don't believe that "one size fits all" and different schools suit different children - is that not what a lot of people on this site think?

Well argued but only lacks one thing.

Any evidence what so ever-In fact all the evidence shows selective education does not increase social mobility for the whole cohort but the opposite( even in the heyday of Grammar Schools in the 50's and 60's (where the post war boom more than accounts for any social mobility- many children from blue colar backgrounds could move into white colar jobs-irrespective of type of schooling).

This issue will go round and round unless we stick to the evidence.

[JaneEyre]

Quote from the article below:
‘Grammar schools are neither the root of all evil nor the solution to every problem in society: but they do provide a useful reminder as to what knowledge-based education looks like.’

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... 6pHCrgrLIU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JaneEyre]

Quote from the article below:
'There are many advantages to a Grammar School education in addition to the high academic results that they achieve. They provide the opportunity for a first rate education for pupils from all backgrounds and encourage genuine social mobility. Too often the catchment areas around successful Comprehensive Schools are only accessible to the well off because of the inflated house prices in the area.'

http://www.garethjohnsondartford.co.uk/ ... ol-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't you agree that the catchment areas around successful Comprehensive Schools are only accessible to the well off because of the inflated house prices in the area? This is certainly what I can observe in Birmingham!

[Catseye]

Er.... with respect JaneEyre that's not evidence but just hearsay and gossip.

[Catseye]

Don't you agree that the catchment areas around successful Comprehensive Schools are only accessible to the well off because of the inflated house prices in the area? This is certainly what I can observe in Birmingham!

My DD school AGGS in Bowdon, ave home prices within 1 radius >£1,000,000, this is a not superselective(although the highest ranking non-superselective school in the UK).

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for ... cyCode=GBP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Entry dependent on passing the 11+ then distance.

GS would be great for the disadvantaged if only any poor children actually went there.

[ConfusedFather]

..While I agree with you that the system is in a shambles, the vast majority of children in this country do not attend grammar or independent schools and still some how manage to achieve well and attend good universities (if that is their aim).
...

Depends how you define that.

http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/u ... .02.16.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2012/13 over 1600 schools sent no pupils to Oxbridge.

......
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

Yes, I know Oxbridge is not the Alpha and the Omega of life, and yes, Russel Group is self selecting. But even when you only manage to send 1 or 2 pupil to these self selected but decent unis, there is a problem...

I would struggle to believe that:
- no kid in those 1600 schools had the skills to go there
- no kid would have had the ambition to go there had their comprehensive not failed them
Why do they fail them amongst other things?

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.

I don't know how anyone can read this and say "Comprehensives are working fine for academically inclined kids".


Now, going to some of the other comments seen here:

- grammars are unfair to the other kids: they all get the same budget per head if I am not mistaken!
- selective systems are worse on average: true. Can't recall the exact study, however I recall that while non selective systems do produce a better average attainment, they have much less outliers. A smaller standard deviation if you want. While you could say it reduce inequalities, you could also turn the argument the other way round by saying it sacrifices the development of the few for the good of the majority. That is not "fair" either. We should not have a system that relies only on the lucky few self motivated (or pushy parents) to push their potential to the max.
- only 2-3% school meals. System unfair. To which I quote the Sutton Trust report on grammars: http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/u ... inal11.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Overall, there is some evidence that grammar schools as a whole appeat to take less than their 'fair share' of pupils with FSM.....
However, if comprehensive schools in the current system are themselves often even more extreme in their social selectivity than grammar schools (as we have suggested in the previous section), then this would not appear to be any kind of solution to the problem. Indeed, if choice is between "social selection, with academic selection as a by-product", as appears to be occurring within the comprehensive system, and 'academic selection, with social selection as a by-product' as seems to be the case within grammar schools, then the latter could be certainly seen as more meritocratic.
.....
Our finding that pupils with Free School Meals who get in grammar schools do relatively better (p218) could be re-expressed as saying that FSM is more of a disadvantage if you go to a comprehensive than if you go to a grammar school

- one exam at 11 is nuts. Agreed. But why destroy the system for this obvious flaw, rather than find ways to fix the flaws? More exams? More entry points?
- system is unfair part 2: why not improve it:

1. Ensure the testing system does not disadvantage pupils from low and middle income backgrounds.
2. Provide a minimum ten hours test preparation for all pupils to provide a level playing field.
3. Improve outreach work significantly, actively encouraging high achieving students from low and middle income backgrounds to apply.
4. Schools should consider the merits of powers available in the admissions code to attract high achieving students who are entitled to the Pupil Premium.
5. Primary schools could do more to encourage their high achieving children to apply to grammar schools in selective areas, and develop partnerships with grammar schools.
6. Build new partnerships with non-selective schools to support their high achieving students

- finally, since when did the word "middle class" become a negative argument??? Feels a lot at time like schadenfreude "if I/they/all-of-us cannot do better, no one will".