"New" Grammar Schools… Thoughts?

teamhurtmore – Member

(a minority of) my parents’ generation were able to seize the opportunity that grammars schools gave them…

fify.

what about everyone else? equally well looked-after?

You can lead a horse to water….

But no, I was lucky and have followed their example as hopefully will my children. I prioritise education over other things….too important to leave to others alone. Imagine relying on folk who downplay reading outside the curriculum. Why have government’s determine what you should learn. Bizarre concept….

but quite frankly you statement doesnt wash, because parents really can fill the gaps for the high achievers

They can indeed, as can the parents of low achievers. Not sure why it means my statement doesn’t wash though.

because, imo you can focus on the stragglers and help the parents to push the high fliers, so everyone gets the best out of education

The denial that it is partly a class thing strikes me as you having your head in the sand. Outcomes and socio economic factors are always linked and always have been. The children of the better off perform better than poorer peers. It clearly is a class thing

Class and wealth aren’t the same thing. You keep conflating them. It makes your argument confusing. Please try and decide which it is that you are railing against and go with that.

teamhurtmore – Member

You can lead a horse to water….

that’s quite an unpleasant thing to say.

Why have government’s determine what you should learn. Bizarre concept….

you’re the first to suggest it.

It’s also very insulting to lower (sic) classes to suggest that parents can’t/won’t prioritise education. It’s not a class issue per se.

because, imo you can focus on the stragglers and help the parents to push the high fliers, so everyone gets the best out of education

I agree, but you can just as easily argue the opposite, focus on the high fliers and help the parents get the “straggers” up to speed.

I guess I struggle to clear the idea of “education for all” with prioritising any level of kids about another.

The truth may be unpleasant, but hard work is the second most important factor determining success. That and motivation. Without either, you have a problem whatever type of school, background or class.

You can lead a horse to water….

That suggests that there was enough water at the trough for everyone to attend grammar school and there was not. We had a race to the trough where the richest disproportionately won the race. No one was led [ though you do like to try to mislead like AS there fella] they were invited to the race nothing more

It’s also very insulting to lower (sic) classes to suggest that parents can’t/won’t prioritise education. It’s not a class issue per se.

Can you back that view up with a reminder of class and academic achievement- why do you think more folk achieve from the higher classes if its not a class issue ?
If it was not a class issue we would see no bias so that is just an incorrect statement. Obviously you would not lie but you are very very wrong on this point. I am surprised an educated educationalist like yourself is unaware of this fact. Very surprised actually.

A better question is how can we redress this imbalance rather than deny it exists. The answer is unlikely to be by having grammar schools where the selection is skewed to the extent that even fewer working class folk do well. You know this so dont pretend you want grammar schools to help the working classes as its not very believable.
I am not sure facts can be insulting – well possibly in your hands they can be 😉

We all know that class is a factor in educational achievement as is parental income as is parental educational status. Its not just about hard work but no one, I assume, will deny that is also important.

Redressing the imbalance is what matters and we dont do that by insultingly pretending it is not there.

It must be so hard being trolled with the facts 😛

Why have government‘s determine what you should learn.

…by having schools teach grammar? 😀

Sorry. Hard to resist given the context.

teamhurtmore – Member
The truth may be unpleasant, but hard work is the second most important factor determining success.

im genuinely confused, what is the first?

John 😀

1. Parents

nah. 1st is a montage

but do parents not consitute background and class?

Without either, you have a problem whatever type of school, background or class.

do you mean the value parents at home place on education? because irrespective of class or not, if home places no value upon education, you are less likely to attain the results at school?

The truth may be unpleasant, but hard work is the second most important factor determining success. That and motivation. Without either, you have a problem whatever type of school, background or class.

Skirting the ‘nobody expects the spanish inquisition’ gag, I’d say access to opportunity is the most important factor. All this ‘hard work’ stuff is bollocks. I’m (relatively) successful but have never worked hard but have had good access to education, resources etc. To claim that somebody on minimum wage their whole working life busting their hump cleaning/digging/wahtever hasn’t worked hard enough is mince of the highest order. I reckon they’re likely in that position because they don’t know how to get on to courses/can’t fit change into their lives/aren’t aware of what’s available.

You Tory boys make me want to puke.

Sorry, I lost interest in contributing too much more to the thread once it got a little too insulting and circular for my tastes.

I will pick up this one though….

they have a negative impact on the education of the vast majority of pupils living in the areas blighted by them.

Kent – as said above, has only 6.5% FSM in the county – one of the lowest. Whilst I can buy the fact that good schools draw in house buyers of a certain type into their catchment I don’t think that extrapolates to a whole county. A county with so few folk (comparatively) in FSM poverty can’t be getting everything wrong educationally. Generations of grammar education in the county doesn’t seem to have generated a rotten underbelly of above national average proportions from the 90% who don’t get into the grammars of the county.

As I’ve said before I’m the product of grammar education, had a generally positive experience but recognise the negatives of the system. Like numerous other complex issues the answers are rarely as polarised between right and wrong or correct and totally flawed as many here like to profess. It would make the debating on here (which I guess is just a mirror of society itself) so much more intelligent if contributors were able to be more objective and less self righteous in their convictions.

I fail to see your point THM. The simple fact is more affluent parents are able to to better provide the resources that aid passing the 11 plus even when standardised for similar academic achievement so a high achieving kid from a poor family has worked hard, had parents support him as best they could but he’s beaten in the 11 plus by a kid who has achieved the same in school but his private tutor has helped him pass the 11 plus. I fail to see how either parent hasnt tried their hardest to support their kid. I also fail to see how anyone could see this as fair.

So Grammar schools make places wealthy?? I’m lost.

…anyway this discussion is actually about the reintroduction of secondary moderns. Evidence is that these reduce social mobility.

If you’re middle class (as in real middle class, hah) this is obviously a good thing.

The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others. Most people don’t want this for their kids (I personally tend to a more phlegmatic view, fwiw, as you would if you had my bloody kids.)

Oh, and no more of this “grammar schools supported social mobility in the 50s and 60s”. This time of economic growth, and change from a predominantly blue to white collar economy, used the output of the schools but this change was not driven by this output…

Well Im confused

I think we are all saying that the attitude of the parents to education are the primary factor in a child’s attainment

Children from poorer backgrounds* do worse at school

so it seems obvious that parents from poorer backgrounds care less about their kids education

* lets be honest poorer=lower class, right?

so ultimately grammar schools are pointless, apart from a few rare cases

So Grammar schools make places wealthy??

I not implying it makes them wealthy. More that if an area was so ‘blighted’ by them for so long why has there not been the production of a large morlock like underclass of generation upon generation of poorly educated serfs?

As I have said, I’m not a total advocate by any stretch but blighted a pretty emotive word.

Kimbers. The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars.

lets be honest poorer=lower class, right?

Can be, but not necessarily. Plenty of working class people around with stacks of cash though. Probably less common, but it is possible to be upper class and skint too.

We’re saying children from poorer backgrounds do worse where there are grammar/secondary modern schools, than where there’s less social stratification.

The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars.

Hang on, how does that work? I thought entry to a grammar school was based on achieving a certain level. I can understand if you said “less poor kids get into grammar school”, that may be correct but surely the poor kids who do well are just as likely to get in as the better off kids who do well?

The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars

There does seem to be evidence to back this up. Since I don’t have the ability to review or analyse data I did look for the widest ranging study on selective education I could find. This seems to be a good start with a considerable amount of previous studies being reviewed as part of the research: http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf

Their conclusions surprised me, especially reference to selectivity:

Fourth, we have identified what seems to be a significant issue of social selectivity occurring across all types of school. While it appears to be relatively straightforward to understand how this can occur for grammar schools, it is rather more puzzling to see it evident in supposedly non- selective schools.

I not implying it makes them wealthy. More that if an area was so ‘blighted’ by them for so long why has there not been the production of a large morlock like underclass of generation upon generation of poorly educated serfs?

ever been to Bacup?

or you could take the view that it made people socially mobile and they left the area leaving the underclass

The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others.

is not relative downward social mobility of the middle/upper class what you want?

To claim that somebody on minimum wage their whole working life busting their hump cleaning/digging/wahtever hasn’t worked hard enough is mince of the highest order.

Who is making that claim?

The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others.

is not relative downward social mobility of the middle/upper class what you want?[/quote]

Who cares what I want? An honest answer I suppose would be yes, as long as it’s others’ kids who are doing the downward thing.

Though actually I think feel this rather less than what seems to be the accepted norm in some circles ala ‘I’d do anything for my kids, trample over anyone…’ I genuinely do expect to see mine being downwardly mobile relative to me and my wife. I don’t relish the prospect and I get bugger all bragging rights over everyone else’s neophyte doctors/lawyers/bankers. I try to console myself that ours seem healthy, happy, well-balanced and independent (albeit not bloody financially.)

Surely what we should all want is an equal chance of success for all
What this debate should be about is the best way to achieve this

It seems that selective schools disproportionately help the better off and therefore it seems unlikely they achieve this goal

ang on, how does that work? I thought entry to a grammar school was based on achieving a certain level.

Stat schools do Sats at the end of KS2 to asses kids. Grammar schools get the kids to sit the 11plus. The two are, I am told i’ve never seen them, very different. You need training to pass the 11 plus even when doing very very well in sats. This is why many private primary kids get into grammar as they dont do the sats and just teach to 11 plus. It is also why better educated and/or richer parents have the resources to help or buy help for their kids. This is why poorer kids with less educated parent even when the brightest and tp achieving struggle with hetting grammar school places.

You need training to pass the 11 plus even when doing very very well in sats.

Neither Jr, his cousin nor their 2 friends had any kind of additional coaching or tuition.

Oh well thats that proven then. Wpuld you like a 20 min lecture about normal distribution and probability?

Much of the 11 plus has zero relevance to the subjects assessed via SATS. Fairly abstract puzzles using words, numbers and symbols make up the bulk of it in most cases. A good vocabulary and a bit of numeracy will help, but a lot of it is simple pattern recognition rather than anything academic.

Not proven, just that your statement is not necessarily correct.

Just as a snapshot, only one of the 6 kids from his school that passed the 11+ had tuition so, whilst he was not part of some great research programme, from my perspective the view that additional training is needed and that’s why poorer kids are disadvantaged is untrue.

I expect my anecdotal experience is irrelevant to the argument yet nobody has produced anything to evidence some of the viewpoints repeated on here.

The simple fact is more affluent parents are able to to better provide the resources that aid passing the 11 plus even when standardised for similar academic achievement so a high achieving kid from a poor family has worked hard, had parents support him as best they could but he’s beaten in the 11 plus by a kid who has achieved the same in school but his private tutor has helped him pass the 11 plus.

To be fair a_a has been making this point more coherently than others are still struggling to for about four pages on and off now, and it’s the bit I’m admittedly surprised to find the evidence supports – I know that the plural of anecdote isn’t data but my own experience mirrors some others explicitly stated on here as well – kids who weren’t tutored passing while the tutored ones didn’t. Maybe not all schools are doing this the same way – the one I know about (because my child got in) assure us that the tests are designed to test aptitude, which isn’t something you can tutor into someone. Maybe that’s rubbish, maybe not all schools test the same way, I don’t know.

But, setting all that aside, if the premise is true and kids from more affluent backgrounds with the same level of educational attainment at 11 are getting into grammar schools ahead of their less affluent peers and this is because of the buying in of extra tuition, then surely the problem that presents isn’t that the academically selective education that follows is fundamentally bad, or discriminatory, it’s merely that the manner of selection is faulty and they need to look at that and work out how to adjust for “richness” –

It’s the same problem they’re wrestling with at universities – Oxford know that, all other things being equal, the kid from Eton will apply with higher predicted A-levels, and probably a richer smorgasbord of extra-curricular stuff than the equally bright kid from Shitsville Academy. It’s a known issue, but a real one, and if the same thing is an issue at 11+ (and a_a has provided a link some pages ago to a credible source suggesting it is) then it needs to be taken seriously. But I don’t hear anyone suggesting that it’s wrong in principle for universities to academically select their intake? No difference, imo, with grammar schools – none of this seems to be an argument against the principle of academic selection, more that the practice of it currently isn’t fair or equitable.

Surely what we should all want is an equal chance of success for all

Well that’s what we’d all like.

But since the reality is some kids are academically better than others it makes sense to group & teach them by ability.

Nobody objects to selection in the workplace. Nobody objects to selection at University. Nobody objects to selection (streaming) within individual schools.

ely the problem that presents isn’t that the academically selective education that follows is fundamentally bad

Thats true. I expect we either need a shit load more grammar schools or none at all.

ut since the reality is some kids are academically better than others it makes sense to group & teach them by ability.

Which happens in every school every day