The grammar school debate will ultimately always come down to whether you think it is acceptable or not to segregate those with high levels of prior attainment (or measured ability) at a given age from other pupils.

They’re segregated into streams in comps anyway. Different school or different classrooms, it’s still segregation.

They’re segregated into streams in comps anyway. Different school or different classrooms, it’s still segregation.

Only usually in maths, english and sci

LOL at people that think an Outstanding Ofsted school will be outstanding for their child.

This very much so. My daughter was failed by a school that was assessed as having a supportive non-academic side. It was up until you needed to use if for mental health purposes then they betrayed both this and their supposed Christian principles. There were others that suffered similarly in years above and below my daughter.

In the light of the above @weeksy your statement doesn’t really hold up. If you only get to see the superstar pupils at open days one cannot make an informed decision.

Only usually in maths, english and sci

It’s still segregation, *exactly* the same arguments apply.

If segregation for important subjects is desirable, I can’t really see how you can argue segregation for all the less important stuff is.

t’s still segregation, *exactly* the same arguments apply.

Not convinced by that – they still attend the same school and hang out together and are int he same other lessons.

But it also found that, “in areas with a high level of selection, pupils eligible for free school meals who did not attend grammar schools achieved 1.2 grades lower on average across all GCSE subjects.”

Correlation rather than causation. It’s not comparable, the grammar school may well have taken the brighter kids, the kids with more supportive parents etc. who are on free school meals. The kids who didn’t go to the grammar may have achieved those grades anyway, the grammar kids may well have pulled up the average attainment when included in the cohort. There’s plenty of bright kids on free school meals in the grammar system.

Anyway the reverse of your argument can also be made, if the brightest achieve more in a selective environment why penalise them to benefit others.

Outcomes should not be judged solely on the grade output of a school, you have to look at that and value add, either measure on it’s own isn’t giving a full picture.

It’s still segregation, *exactly* the same arguments apply.

Except the evidence doesnt show the negative effects of setting which areas with Grammar schools do.

Correlation rather than causation. It’s not comparable, the grammar school may well have taken the brighter kids, the kids with more supportive parents etc. who are on free school meals. The kids who didn’t go to the grammar may have achieved those grades anyway, the grammar kids may well have pulled up the average attainment when included in the cohort. There’s plenty of bright kids on free school meals in the grammar system.

You really havent read any of what I’ve posted or you do not understand it. There’s not plenty of bright FSM kids in Grammars, they are massively under represented. As for the correlation and causation argument, if you cant do an experiment you have to look at data and the data says the same thing in all the areas with grammar schools, is that coincidence?

Only usually in maths, english and sci

Nothing says “success” and “have a positive attitude” like being put in a lower maths set…

a full picture.

Yes. That is the totality of a school – exam grades, pupil attitude, pupil ability to problem solve, be flexible, social cohesion, emotional support, mental health of pupils and staff. Anything that happens between 9am-3pm, and then some, is how we should see our schools.

Yes I read what you posted and understood it, I’ve just drawn different conclusions that you dont like. Do you actually have any real world experience of grammar schools? There’s quite a lot on pupil premium at the grammar school my wife works at so I’d dispute what you said there from her experience. The school is also in a very mixed income area, and weights its admissions so those in the immediate area will be admitted with a exam pass in preference to kids bused in from 20 miles away. Many of the pupils are from lower income families but this doesn’t mean they are below average intelligence.

If you believe there is causation care to explain the mechanism behind it and why it’s the fault of the grammar schools?

Data can interpreted in many ways, you can formalize a hypothesis based on your interpretation but to blindly state the data backs your view in an area as complex as this is disingenuous. If you can’t show causation then you only have correlation.

The main reason our local comp is so bad is the only kids going there are the ones whose parents haven’t actively tried to get them somewhere else. It’s ended up as the dumping ground for kids with low aspirations. Couple that with very poor facilities and lots of politics and you’ve got an under performing school. It should have been closed years ago or a significant investment in staff and buildings should have been made. It’s recently been turned into an academy, whether that will make any difference I don’t know but it looks like the LEA have dumped it on the private sector to fix what they could not.

There’s quite a lot on pupil premium at the grammar school my wife works at so I’d dispute what you said there from her experience.

There may be quite a lot but they are still massively under represented in grammar schools.

If you believe there is causation care to explain the mechanism behind it

You could start by attracting better teachers and having a much more settled staff, you could then move on to removing role models from other schools, there’s all manner of potential causal mechanisms.

Data can interpreted in many ways, you can formalize a hypothesis based on your interpretation

Its not my interpretation it was this blokes, amongst others

“There is repeated evidence that any appearance of advantage for those attending selective schools is outweighed by the disadvantage for those who do not”, says Professor Stephen Gorard of Durham University. “More children lose out than gain, and the attainment gaps between highest and lowest and between richest and poorest are larger”.

It’s recently been turned into an academy, whether that will make any difference I don’t know but it looks like the LEA have dumped it on the private sector to fix what they could not.

You really do appear to be hopelessly ill informed about education.

Hopelessly I’ll informed, the school has been hovered up by a private academy group, it’s now effectively being run by a business. Maybe try and engage in discussion rather than arrogantly dismissing me as not understanding.

You still haven’t provided any mechanism for gramnar schools actively causing the issues you’ve gone on about. Rather than focus on the grammar school maybe look at why the comprehensivse are not performing. You also haven’t answered my question about personal experience of grammar schools. You’re clearly idealogical opposed to grammar schools and would rather see them torn down rather than address the issues prevalent in the comprehensives. All smacks a lot of whining it’s not fair so let’s bring the higher achievers down to a lower level, fantastic race to the bottom for all. Ideology and social engineering are what has resulted in the mess our state education is currently in.

Anyway I’m done, it’s not achieving anything discussing this further, I’ll let you get the last word in.

the school has been hovered up by a private academy group, it’s now effectively being run by a business.

You might want to ask why? If you informed yourself you’d maybe understand thats its very likely to be the opposite of why you suggested it happened.

You still haven’t provided any mechanism for gramnar schools actively causing the issues you’ve gone on about.

I have. You havent engaged with it.

You’re clearly idealogical opposed to grammar schools

Same as all the people showing the evidence for their negative impacts on the education of the majority like
Professor Stephen Gorard of Durham University?

We got the school we wanted, funiest thing is that we’re out of catchment and despite having two upper schools almost on our doorstep neither would have us. First one we’re not Catholic enough for, second one has a skewed catchment to hoover up the under-accommodated areas of the town which while we’re technically within catchment, they’re 4-5 times oversubscribed…

Also looked at the local girls “grammar” but it quickly became apparent that 1 my daughter didn’t really like it and 2 entry is pretty much sewn up by parents able to afford 12-18 months of tutoring…

Only other option was the school my missus went to and her verdict was a firm NO!

So it’s a local village school for child 1, which actually had a poor ofstead a couple of years ago and hence a “superhead” and some resources were flung at it. We really liked the place (went to two separate open evenings) little things about the culture of the school, the way the teachers interacted with parents and kids and most impressive were the actual kids, communicative, engaged, positive.
Of all the schools we went round it was the students there that were the most impressive. Recent exam results are much improved and ofstead apparently due back next year, it seems likely they will receive a better rating (if that really matters)…