I have conflicting thoughts on the merits or otherwise of the grammar school system (having attended both comprehensive and grammar schools).

The proposed “annexe” (to existing schools) comes across rather poorly – what would the Conservatives make of a party trying subvert legislation on fiscal rules, for example…?

The rules are clearly being bent over o get this through.

I don’t personally have a problem with selection provided the option to be selected is open beyond age 11, to support any late bloomers. I believe – on purely anecdotal evidence – selection combined with bursaries as it used to work offered more chance of social mobility than the current system.

Various people will be along shortly to shout me down.

I don’t personally have a problem with selection provided the option to be selected is open beyond age 11, to support any late bloomers. I believe – on purely anecdotal evidence – selection combined with bursaries as it used to work offered more chance of social mobility than the current system.

My instinct tells me that you are right on this.

You can’t have Grammar schools without Secondary Modern Schools. You can call them comps if you like, but if you have schools based on selection, then you have schools for those who aren’t selected. Lots of people say they want to bring back Grammar Schools, very few of them say they want to bring back Secondary Moderns, but its the logical outcome of their desire.

I went to one – it worked for me. I guess that’s the problem! It’s fair to say the kids I went to school with came from the full socio economic range, but there was definitely more middle class kids there than the general population of the area. It was also a really tough environment academically – keep up or die on your arse was the general mentality.

Those that ‘miss out’; those that get in because they were coached half to death; the late developers that would have benefited from the academic heavy atmosphere but did not show the ability early enough. It’s a minefield.

I’m into the concept of smallish secondary schools where every teacher knows every student. Small schools can’t be good at everything which makes the grammar school concept a good way to specialise in academia in a smaller school (with other schools specialising in learning support, vocational learning etc – secondary moderns in old money).

On balance I’d probably come down in favour but only if the other schools in the catchment were equally good but at developing other talents and I don’t think that kind of utopia will every exist. Sadly.

my eldest goes to a state selective Grammar school.. she worked her backside off to get in.. we re not middle class .. we live in rochdale im a plumber and the mrs works for tesco.. dd1 wanted to go so she would be rid of the kids in her class who shouted swore and threw things at teachers.. dd2 is equally keen to get in.. shes 10 year 5.. this term they have been learning!!! three and four times tables.. only 4 in her class can do 30 questions on 3 times table in less than 5 minutes..

if able and enthusiastic kids are in another enviroment it gives those more challenging kids more one to one time with teachers.. win win all round.

if you have schools based on selection, then you have schools for those who aren’t selected

If you have jobs based on selection, then you have jobs for those who aren’t selected.

What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability?

Evidence is pretty clear on balance Grammar schhols are not helpful.

I went to both and don’t understand why grammar school results are so, so poor.

For those that still exist, they must surely be letting down the brightest and best of each generation…?

What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability?

middle class parents dont like their kids mixing with kids from council estates

Just out of interest have you got any links to that effect AA? i’m undecided at the mo.

Probably help a lot that Michael Fallon is the Sevenoaks MP.

I went to both and don’t understand why grammar school results are so, so poor.
For those that still exist, they must surely be letting down the brightest and best of each generation…?

Just checked the GCSE results of the one I went to (all boys, girls school down the road, mixed 6th form)

At least 5 A*-C grades – not dropped below 99.6% in the last 5 years.
Percentage of grades that were A* or A – not dropped below 80% in the last 5 years.

They seem to be doing OK by their charges on that score at least.

Also sent a minimum of 6 students (Max 10) to Oxbridge each year too out of a year group circa 115- again, if you value those things.

I went to a Grammar School in an area about as deprived as you get with a majority of bright kids who most definitely weren’t “middle class”

I now live in a town with a comprehensive school that will have a far higher proportion of middle class by virtue of the town it serves

but don’t let that spoil your class war diatribe

let’s be honest, they’ll be dominated by kids whose parents can A) afford the coaching, and B) afford to buy a house in the catchment.

in summary, they’ll be schools for the rich, paid for by the public.

There’ll be the occasional pop-n-crisps kid who’s held up as an example of social mobility.

mind you, this isn’t hugely different from the current system, otherwise school league tables wouldn’t affect house prices.

At least 5 A*-C grades – not dropped below 99.6% in the last 5 years.
Percentage of grades that were A* or A – not dropped below 80% in the last 5 years.

There are so many ways in which those statistics can be manipulated that it renders them basically useless.

Evidence is pretty clear on balance Grammar schhols are not helpful.

obvious there is no effect in the evidence of the small numbers which are geographically isolated creating catchment bias

my old school had the advantage of being in an area which was a dump and for the most part still is.

There are so many ways in which those statistics can be manipulated that it renders them basically useless.

I’m a teacher – there is some sucking of eggs in that statement 😉

let’s be honest, they’ll be dominated by kids whose parents can A) afford the coaching, and B) afford to buy a house in the catchment.

you can buy a house in this catchment

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-51327137.html

and a semi for the larger family
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54362558.html

I’m a teacher – there is some sucking of eggs in that statement

Well in that case you should’ve know better than to present such obviously dodgy statistics 😉

Just checked the GCSE results of the one I went to (all boys, girls school down the road, mixed 6th form)
At least 5 A*-C grades – not dropped below 99.6% in the last 5 years.
Percentage of grades that were A* or A – not dropped below 80% in the last 5 years.
They seem to be doing OK by their charges on that score at least.
Also sent a minimum of 6 students (Max 10) to Oxbridge each year too out of a year group circa 115- again, if you value those things.

As I said, so very disappointing…

You can’t compare 1 No. grammar school to 1 No. comprehensive…

You have to compare the grammar school against the entire area / region that it creams off the best kids from.
I went to a grammar in Plymouth, one of the few authorities that have maintained grammar schools. DHSB always used to get the best results in the West Country, and pretty much still does.

BUT, they are getting the best results by taking the best 5-10% of pupils from the entire city of Plymouth (and beyond).
Do those pupils get higher or lower grades than they would have achieved anyway, irrespective of educational establishment?

The remaining schools fall somewhat short of DHSB, but they do so without the top decile of pupils. DHSB takes the very best and provides them with good to excellent grades. The remaining schools take the poor – average – good students and turns them out with poor, average or good grades…

The proof? At sixth form (where I transferred to DHSB) a significant proportion of the DHSB intake is from “those other schools”, whose students have achieved excellent GCSE grades. A proportion of the “brightest and best” DHSB 11+ intake are “let go”, their grades not good enough to get in to their own sixth form – i.e. let down. The brightest students NOT GETTING the best grades that they personally might have been capable of.

gwaelod – Member

What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability?

middle class parents dont like their kids mixing with kids from council estates

POSTED 10 MINUTES AGO #

That’s precisely what the current system promotes.

Selection based on the parents mortgage , not the child’s ability.

you can buy a house in this catchment

I think you’ll find the type of folk who want to get their offspring into these type of schools, have very uncompromising standards when it comes to housing and who the neighbours are.

Its class war innit.

let’s be honest, they’ll be dominated by kids whose parents can A) afford the coaching, and B) afford to buy a house in the catchment.

in summary, they’ll be schools for the rich, paid for by the public.

There’ll be the occasional pop-n-crisps kid who’s held up as an example of social mobility.

This.

A grammar glimmer of light……

The proof? At sixth form (where I transferred to DHSB) a significant proportion of the DHSB intake is from “those other schools”, whose students have achieved excellent GCSE grades. A proportion of the “brightest and best” DHSB 11+ intake are “let go”, their grades not good enough to get in to their own sixth form – i.e. let down. The brightest students NOT GETTING the best grades that they personally might have been capable of.

I see that as actually quite encouraging. As I said in my first post some folks flourish later. One of the (huge) disadvantages of the 11+ testing is kids getting locked out of the grammar system because they were unable to prove their academic credentials at such a young age. To hear stories of those that missed out first time around getting a second chance at A level is really positive. That those that have not taken full advantage of their place academically don’t necessarily get to keep their place because of some test sat 5 years previously is also no bad thing. Has the school failed them – maybe, hard to tell without knowing the individual stories.

When I finished the 5th year (yr11) not all those in my year stayed – some went off to 6th form college. I don’t recalled them being booted out – it was more that they had made the decision that the very academically orientated (and quite limited) 6th form curriculum would not suit their future ambitions.

That’s precisely what the current system promotes.

Selection based on the parents mortgage , not the child’s ability.

I went to the only secondary school in town. Selection was purely on ability.

I see that as actually quite encouraging. As I said in my first post some folks flourish later. One of the (huge) disadvantages of the 11+ testing is kids getting locked out of the grammar system because they were unable to prove their academic credentials at such a young age. To hear stories of those that missed out first time around getting a second chance at A level is really positive. That those that have not taken full advantage of their place academically don’t necessarily get to keep their place because of some test sat 5 years previously is also no bad thing. Has the school failed them – maybe, hard to tell without knowing the individual stories.

Yes, that is encouraging for those that don’t get in at 11, but it is also telling about those that do…

When I joined the sixth form (too long ago to be directly relevant, but the concept, and stats? still apply), DHSB were taking 11 year olds with 120-140+ IQs. Half a dozen or so were getting 9 As at GCE level. BUT, the bulk were getting the same 7-8 A-C grades that the top set from my comp were getting.

The difference, the brightest at my comp were probably IQ 100-110 or so. Rather than being the failing comp vs the shiny grammar, our top set were arguably out-performing (or at least squalling) much brighter pupils that went through the grammar system.

So my central question remains, if the grammars are taking the very, very best, why aren’t they getting even better grades than they are?

Just out of interest have you got any links to that effect AA? i’m undecided at the mo.

No. Lady of radio 4 this am said data shows grammar school kids do a bit better than similar kids at comps but kids not at grammar schools in areas that have them do wirse and theres more of them.
Also middle class kids with same ks2 sats scores as working class kids do better in the 11 plus and are more likely to get in the grammar school so they dont help social mobility either.

Grammar schools are great my son went to one in Kent .Wish they were around when I was at school as I would not have had to mix with the CSE taking morons and bullies

To hear stories of those that missed out first time around getting a second chance at A level is really positive. That those that have not taken full advantage of their place academically don’t necessarily get to keep their place because of some test sat 5 years previously is also no bad thing. Has the school failed them – maybe, hard to tell without knowing the individual stories.

and there’s the rub, there would have been no second chance in a secondary modern.

Every education model is a compromise and in every system some will win and some will lose. A lot of this is down to your philosophy and what you want from an education system. Do you want to push the high level kids higher and accept that some of the low level kids may get left behind? Or do you push the lower kids up and accept that the high kids may no reach their potential due to lack of support?

Grammar schools are clearly aimed at the former.

Grammar schools are clearly aimed at the former.

So is streaming kids within the same school.

that have them do wirse and theres more of them.

Molesworth lives KO!!

So is streaming kids within the same school.

Correct, but grammar schools take it a step further by taking the higher level kids away from the lower level kids and throwing the kitchen sink at them. You’re also removing the ability to move between being higher and lower.

Some would say this is a bad thing as it stops the mobility as kids develop at different speeds. Other would say this is good as it means the higher level kids can concentrate on pushing on without disruptive influences.

Given that parents are the main determinant of kids performance, perhaps that is where the education needs to start?

Correct, but grammar schools take it a step further by taking the higher level kids away from the lower level kids and throwing the kitchen sink at them. You’re also removing the ability to move between being higher and lower.
Some would say this is a bad thing as it stops the mobility as kids develop at different speeds. Other would say this is good as it means the higher level kids can concentrate on pushing on without disruptive influences.

I’d say there is a little more to it than that.

By collecting together enough ‘bright’ kid it makes it financially viable to run say a Latin GCSE class which ‘might’ be a great thing for academically ambitious kids. To gather enough of the right sort of children together that might benefit/enjoy Latin you would have to have one of those huge comprehensives. I’m personally against the 2000+ pupil mega schools which might be the other way to make the logistics work whilst others disagree.

To mind this latest wheeze, of sneaking the odd new one in here and there as an “annex” of an existing one is the worst of both worlds – if there’s going to be grammar schools, there should be sufficient to accommodate all the kids who would benefit / qualify for one, or there should be none.

The situation now, with a few, but not many around the place means the lucky few get the benefit, and a larger number of kids who are there or there abouts don’t. Maybe I shouldn’t care, my lad got into the massively, massively oversubscribed one, and his classmate, of very, very similar ability and aptitude didn’t quite make the cut, so “I’m all right Jack”, but it does seem mighty unfair.

What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability?

Not the same thing, a couple of factors at play here.

Let’s think about facilities. My lad’s mate is at the local academy now, previously “high school”, previously “comprehensive”, previously, as it happens, “grammar school”. They’ve got a sports hall, they’ve got a library, they’ve got science labs and IT suites. They’ve also got a construction bit, where the kids who aren’t going to go to university can learn how to lay bricks etc. The grammar school my lad is at serves a narrower client group, so they have no need for the brick laying stuff. All other things being equal, that is more £ they can spend on science labs, IT suites etc etc.

Let’s think about talented, motivated teachers. I’m all for sweeping generalisations, but I realise this isn’t a universal, there are plenty of talented, motivated teachers who are driven by a social conscience, are committed to giving their best to most disadvantaged etc. BUT whichever way you cut it, selective grammar schools who can offer teachers the opportunity to be teaching exclusively to kids above a certain ‘level’ and those who are capable of engaging and learning, have their pick of very able, talented teaching staff wanting to work there.

middle class parents dont like their kids mixing with kids from council estates
…Selection based on the parents mortgage , not the child’s ability.

…you can buy a house in this catchment

…I think you’ll find the type of folk who want to get their offspring into these type of schools, have very uncompromising standards when it comes to housing and who the neighbours are.

…let’s be honest, they’ll be dominated by kids whose parents can A) afford the coaching, and B) afford to buy a house in the catchment.
in summary, they’ll be schools for the rich, paid for by the public.

…There’ll be the occasional pop-n-crisps kid who’s held up as an example of social mobility.

In my, admittedly limited, experience this is pretty much cobblers. The grammar school my lad goes to is in a far from affluent part of town. Those who want to play catchment monopoly can, and do – there’s lots of affordable cheap rental housing around – I know one family who moved there specifically for catchment reasons (then their kid didn’t make the grade on the exam, oops), but it’s not at all common or typical. The family in question are very, very much not “rich” or even “affluent”, in fact I reckon most on here would consider them “poor” and woudn’t envy them their back-to-back terrace, even if it is located very close to a very high performing school.

There are some posh / rich kids. There are plenty of not posh / not rich kids. There are lots of white kids and lots of kids of asian heritage. Pretty much the panoply of the area’s population you’d expect at any school round here are at my lad’s school.

The group of kids you don’t see though, are the the disruptive, the violent, the unable to conform to the standards of behaviour that should be expected in a school ones. If those kids are disproportionately from one socio-economic strata of our society rather than another, then blaming the school for being for “rich kids” is confusing correlation with cause. (You also don’t get, and this is an advantage over many fee paying private schools, the thick-but-rich ones…)

Yes, there’s coaching being bought, but the schools (or at least the one I know) aren’t stupid, and our one has put a lot of time, effort and money into working with academics to design their tests in order to test for aptitude (which you can’t really buy) rather than the kind of knowledge / technique stuff that you can buy.

Just to know that nothing is new, here’s an excerpt from the Yes Prime Minister episode “The National Education Service” (broadcast in 1988).

Bernard Woolley (BW): “That paper the Party Chairman had suggests the comprehensive system is breaking down.”

Sir Humphrey Appleby (HA): “Bernard, I never thought to hear such language from a loyal member of the Civil Service!”

BW “Comprehensive education ought to be validated.”

HA “Of course, but not invalidated.”

BW “But if it was introduced to improve standards…”

HA “Whatever gave you that idea?”

BW “You mean it was to get rid of class distinction?”

HA “Precisely!”

BW “So that all children…”

HA “Children? Who mentioned children?”

BW “I just…”

HA “The Department of Education never mentions children! No, no, no, no, Bernard. It was to get rid of class distinction in the teaching profession. Improve the living standard of teachers, not the educational standards of children. Bring the NUT teachers up to the salary level of their rivals in the National Association of Schoolmasters in the grammar schools.”

BW “But the…”

HA “When there is a Labour government, the Education Department says
comprehensives abolish the class system. When there’s a Tory government, they say it’s the cheapest way to provide mass education.

To Labour, we explain that selective education is divisive and to the Tories we explain that it is expensive.

That way, we have a happy relationship with the NUT and we educate our own children privately.”