What's the harm with Grammar Schools.

tim_wand

Time for me and Frank to fall out.

I don't really see what harm Grammar Schools will present if any. As long as entry is based on Academic Achievement rather than Financial means, how is it not a good thing?

I have both received and delivered a decent level of Secondary education. My period in Schooling was Late 70's to the Mid 80's and although not a Grammar School , there was a degree of " Streaming " , i.e kids deemed to be of a higher ability in certain subjects put in higher sets than others.

More recently I ve taught at cover level in Secondary Schools, and other than which Level Paper the Kids sit in Maths and English GCSE. theres no such " streaming " . All education is inclusive.

The problem with this is you spend 75% of your time and effort trying to engage with or at least include the 2-5 % of Kid in your lesson who are either struggling or just plain not interested . to the detriment of the others who wish to progress.

And I ll be honest that 2 -5% which are struggling would be better served in a different class, but you cant do that.

So if Grammar schools do return, What real disadvantages are there!

I suppose one argument is if they are not accessible to all on an equal economic footing ( I.e prohibitive travel costs ) compared to dispatching Johnny or Jayne to the local comp. Then indirectly there is going to be some form of discrimination.

But fundamentally what is wrong with pushing the brightest to excel, rather than levelling the playing field to the Lowest Common Denomonator?

Stevo_666

I posted something on grammar schools in the Labour party thread and ruffled a few leftie feathers
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13030866&start=2620

Don't you think this is a bit sensible for BB?

tim_wand

Don't you think this is a bit sensible for BB?

I m waiting for the usual suspects to arrive Stevo ( Call them the 2 -5% I referred to ) so I can exclude them!

Stevo_666

tim wand wrote:

Don't you think this is a bit sensible for BB?

I m waiting for the usual suspects to arrive Stevo ( Call them the 2 -5% I referred to ) so I can exclude them!

What's up Tim? Has a week in Norfolk made you less tolerant of thickies?

tim_wand

What's up Tim? Has a week in Norfolk made you less tolerant of thickies?

Your favourite choral society was in the Nelson at Burnham Thorpe again, and it bloody well Piddled it down last two days
Other than that the local populance was quite conjivial. Especially when I found out the Victoria at Holkham does a happy hour. Never paid £6,50 for a round of drinks in Norfolk before.

tangled_metal

Hmmm! Check out the Labour party thread started by Stevo. It's been talked about for possibly 6 pages.

Where to start? How about BBC news this morning. The reporter or expert, said there's already selection according to some government report. The selection is down to money. The report said housing in the catchment area for good schools costs 75% more than equivalent houses in other catchment areas. That's selection by wealth.

Any grammar school system will result in a higher proportion of kids from middle classes/income levels and above. According to research into an area in the south east which still has a grammar school system of a decent size the proportion of grammar school kids from middle to higher income levels is significantly higher percentage than lower income households. Basically something like 60% of middle class kids end up in.grammar schools but it drops to 10% for low income lower class kids. Those aren't the figures I used them to illustrate the gist of the that report. See the Labour thread for details,

So there's nothing wrong with grammar schools if you're comfortable and come from good areas. However those same areas are probably already benefiting from having a good school nearby.

You mentioned streaming. That is my personal view since if done well could allow kids to get a kind of tailored education. Good at maths high stream, bad low stream with extra support needed. Good at the arts high stream, bad low stream or not at all but doing science or another subject instead. Plus there's the opportunity for the streaming to be adjusted each year as kids develop academically at different rates. None of this writing off kids at 10 or 11 due to one selection test.

Deprived kids are generally at a lower developmental and academic level through school I believe. If you've got no supporting parents, no suitable place to study and many other.disadvantages then you'll not get the best out of yourself. Add in the likelihood your parents are not educated and do not value education. That passes on to the kid.

So selection fit a good school needs to be ended. It's a real shame you can't uplift good schools from good areas and drop them staff, buildings and other facilities into the sites of failing schools. Then put the failing schools in the better areas and see what happens. If you follow what I mean. Take the good schools from better off areas and.give them to deprived areas. See if deprived kids perform and watch the richer kids suffer like deprived kids do.

I'm not seriously suggesting that BTW. I'm only being extremely provocative or argumentative to labour a point. I believe all kids should be given the best opportunities to improve their lot. Social mobility if you like. Grammar schools don't do that. Perhaps streaming within comprehensive school systems could if funded. Grammar schools will just suck up funding which then just goes to people already benefiting the most anyway.

BTW my primary school had streaming within classrooms. I got moved to the top table/stream and it woke me up showing my capability in the process. That lead my parents to struggle financially by funding my independent grammar school fees.

There's no grammar schools where I lived only a poor underperforming comprehensive. I was.not a church goer so couldn't get into a former grammar school that became a CodE school. There wasn't anything else around apart from an independent 1 hour away that I went to. Ultimately it resulted in 2 degrees. I bet I'd have come out without even A levels and possibly poor GCSEs if I'd gone to the local high school.

squired

If it can be a way to develop talented kids, then great. These days kids seem to have to travel quite a bit to get to school anyway, so it won't just be dealing with people directly on its doorstep.

I remember back to my school days. My brother and I (twins) were seen as the most talented in our year and they knew we would get A grades. Ours was a school that was closed shortly after we left because it was ranked in the bottom three in the country, so had a lot of difficult kids. Towards the end of our time there one of the teachers was having a frank conversation with me and told me how there had been a discussion in the staff room about us and the overriding conclusion was to just leave us to it because we would get top grades without any input from them. Now ok, we did and career-wise we have both done pretty well. However, if that sort of attitude gets replicated at schools across the country there could be many talented kids who never reach their full potential. One thing I can say for certain is that the attitude of the teachers meant we were never pushed. When I ended up at medical school I realised how that lack of pushing by my teachers left me at a disadvantage to the kids that had been at decent private schools (most of my year). So, if grammar schools can help us to not fail our talented kids, then I'm all for it.

apreading

Yeah - I am all for equal chances for all as a concept but the current way of trying to achieve it, bringing down more able children by denying them the chance to do bette, does not inherently bring up the ability of the less able.

Let them have the grammar schools, stop neglecting the more able and take the pressure off the comprehensives of trying to cater for such a wide range - let them focus on improving for the masses and the less able. Bring back streaming in schools so that classrooms can cater for similar ability children and be more focussed.

While we are at it, I think we should convert all of these new 'Universities' back to Poly-technics. I DONT think everyone should have the right to get a university degree, otherwise it ceases to become a differentiator and becomes devalued.

tangled_metal

Tell you what let's take money from the stupid kids to spend more on the bright kids write off more kids to get the top 5% performing better.

BTW the figures show that something like +35% of kids from affluent areas in the authorities with grammar school system go to grammar schools. It drops off to 6% from deprived areas. Significant drop off. Is it down to poor kids being less clever or something else? If it's the "something else" then that will need sorting out to make it a fair system. Without being able to find those most able kids from all backgrounds it's going to be no better than what's happening now. Selection by wealth. Social mobility isn't affected and the wealth gap grows.

Streaming in schools, if effective, could be a better option. Of course there isn't a level playing field now. Look at the catchment of the best state schools in your area. Are they near inner city sink estates or privately owned housing estates in the 'burbs?

sungod

tim wand wrote:

...I don't really see what harm Grammar Schools will present if any. As long as entry is based on Academic Achievement rather than Financial means, how is it not a good thing?...

i think they could a good thing if they can be done fairly, but i don't think they can

'academic achievement' at the entry age still will be gamed by the more affluent parents, aside from making sure their kids are in the 'good' primary school, they'll be getting extra private tuition to fill in any gaps, plus of course the lifestyle/study benefits their children are likely to enjoy

humans do not all have the same potential in every area of knowledge/skill, that's not good or bad, it's reality, the entire education system needs to reflect that

i'd rather see streaming introduced in every state funded school, at least for the critical subjects like maths, physics etc., then as long as a school is well run and has the guts to resist objections from mimsychops the third if her sprog is relegated, the kids with potential have a chance to develop

tangled_metal

Streaming in funded comprehensives is a better answer but that's not to the Tory tastes. Better to have a system their supporters can game to their advantage.

We'll be ok because our lad shows a lot of promise, my partner used to teach and we've got 4 degrees between us. I have science, maths and a few other subjects well covered. My partner has the others such as English, languages, etc. Perfect grammar school material. BTW there's already one in our area that's the best school in the area. We'll be moving slap bang into their catchment area before our lad is old enough to go for it.

But then we're the sort for whom the Tories made this policy for. However it'll get us both voting elsewhere if it goes through. Labour majority in the hundreds. The Tories need few votes here but that policy won't get them. More voters are leaving the Tories up here and it's been the drift for quite some time.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

But then we're the sort for whom the Tories made this policy for. However it'll get us both voting elsewhere if it goes through. Labour majority in the hundreds. The Tories need few votes here but that policy won't get them. More voters are leaving the Tories up here and it's been the drift for quite some time.

Yeah, right.
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14258267_1119207678116126_7574297247584058150_o.jpg

They said that would happen over BREXIT - and quite a few other things over the years. If you fancy a bet on the next election....

BTW GS catchments are huge - my kids school has a 9 or 10 mile radius which in SE London is a long time travelling and takes in probably a couple of million people. Point is you avoid the selection by postcode which is less fair than what is being introduced.

Flâneur

Full disclosure before my chaotic logic kicks in. Product of a Grammar School (which I left at 16 to be a ski bum) and from what most would call a middle class family (not going to delve into the logic that I am not or what constitutes such a thing). Mother was in education and the Date is a teacher at a very good comp within an area loaded with good independent and grammar schools, neither agree with them, the latter is against them.

1. The current school system is a mess with, academies, free schools, religious schools, regular comps and then selective schools. judging a child at 11 is a pitfall but one our system demands (Primary to High School) - The system will never allow for the all are equal, add in that not everyone is equal (I am far superior to Stevo as I wear both lyrca and body armour)

2. this is all fed by again a vastly ranged and mixed base of primary schools. Those in areas with selective schools will often "coach" children for those schools. Some are better than others, some have better years.

3.Parental support and engagement - and this isn't about the money yet. Children whose parents are actively involved in the education of a child make a massive difference. This could be pressure on the school to perform along with the demand for homework and ensuring it is happening (learning spelling etc from a young age and spending the hour on X night doing it with the child)

4. Parental support is often better from those who are educated themselves (according to several journals) often because they have a different level of expectation and are willing to be involved to achieve it. They also have the intelligence (not always and not say others don't) to help with the homework

5. Grammar Schools are a mixed bunch, they provide results due to having bright pupils. The quality of teaching is often poor (go look at the Ofsted reports). These are often pupils who will get by with a teacher just lecturing them rather than the need for engagement you may see at other schools. (Sound like squired above)

6. Results, all schools care about results, and these are measured in such a different way to when I was at school, never mind Ballys. Different exam boards, different marking criteria and objectives, progression not just overall output. Value added students, the list goes on

7. Grammar schools are an investment to get in. House prices, tutors and hours spent enriching education
a) House prices, areas with grammar schools have a higher (and possibly safer) value. Christ the vermin that are estate agents will tell you how great it is and worth the money. In many areas which have grammar schools this is a problem (take Clitheroe) Parents will have to sacrifice X to move into Y. Benefit, they could sell on without loss (reasonable expectation, ignoring big bubble problems)
b) Tutors - cost money/investment of time but also limit the places from the bright to the coached and are a negative problem. No solution here to change the exam to a format which can't be coached at 11. The USA SAT system is not the solution

8. I lived in an area with essentially 6 selective schools in an area of 9 by 9 miles give or take with some of the most affluent areas of the country beside the poorest (according to some indexing of the time). Now these schools were generally populated from those within the more affluent areas, however those outside what many would call the GS feeder zone were still obtaining the grades and going to the same schools. Ok the numbers show a bias, but they don't show the back story (parents helping, the type of primary school etc).

9. I would argue that it is wise to set children within ability, this isn't to say a child can't outgrow that set, but simply it allows a teacher to teach in a manner that is relevant to a class and not sweep through, hoping to engage the top and bottom but really just hitting the middle. This does require a teacher to still challenge the limits of children. Can this be done in any state comp, yes. is it easier if the school has been setted? Probably.

Moving forward
10. Should a grammar school be put into an already affluent area? probably not. Should one be placed say in the middle of Accrington, Bradford, all of S, London (cough I'll remove my tongue from my cheek). Possibly, but I wouldn't be sure that it would help the area beyond an immediate boost of house prices
- the children initially recruited, are they the pupils who can achieve 95% A-C in 12 subjects? Are they better off taking 8 more selective subjects?
- If a GS doesn't get 95% A-C is it the type of school people are expecting? No, doesn't make it a bad school, grades could be getting better (a jump from a D to a B is better than an A- to an A)
- The primary schools would need to adapt in order to provide the education required for selective schooling, this doesn't mean a good education, it does mean a good tester (it can be both IMO)

This would suggest that for a GS to work it requires the correct foundations which are far beyond just the income of a family (see parental pressure and expectation)

11- Social Mobility - a good education provides this, does it have to be via a GS, nope. Do parents need to be involved yes.

12 - is this all a waste of time? education and politics is a mess, even if it was working the next party would scrap it.

Summary.
I think Grammar Schools are a good thing, far from perfect but beneficial but the education system is flawed to such a level that one of the biggest influences are what parents are willing to invest themselves, and the sacrifices they are willing to make (see post above, parents funding an independent school).

If we removed all selective schools would the private sector see a resurgence? Parents with ambition for their child will always seek a better education, hence the equal for all will never be achieved in the ideological way people seek

No idea what I've written between meetings as I started this at 9am

florerider

I think the concept of selection needs expanding, for example to healthcare, where the few selected on the basis of a health test at 11 go to better hospitals and have better GPs and surgeons for the rest of their lives.

drlodge

Good post Flâneur

I've got mixed feelings about Grammar Schools. What I can't my head around is whether its a zero-sum contest. I.e. if grammar schools are introduced to benefit the more able, will it detract from those who are less able?

Stevo_666

A well considered post by Flan :shock:

Two things I want to add as the parent of a kid who goes to our local GS:
1. The results are bloody brilliant. It came in the top 30 state schools in England for GCSE's and I think A levels as well this year and has been up there for some time. I am sure but obviously its hard to prove that she will do better there than if she had gone to the local comp which isn't bad in itself.

2. This catchment area argument for grammars is a red herring. GS catchments are huge compared to comps - my kids schools takes anyone in a 9 mile radius if they pass the test. In the SE London 'burbs that must cover 1m - 2m people. There's no postcode selection as there are in non-academically selectives which typically select on catchment only and are small - the local comps here have approx. a 1 mile radius and I know people who have done the house move thing to get their kids in. I know which one I think is fairer.

pinno

florerider wrote:

I think the concept of selection needs expanding, for example to healthcare, where the few selected on the basis of a health test at 11 go to better hospitals and have better GPs and surgeons for the rest of their lives.

Nonsense metaphor.

I had an IQ test prior to going to secondary school in Scotland as I was 11 and in Scotland they go to S1 at the age of 12 and we had moved from England. My mother insisted that I go a year early and was intelligent enough. So they gave me an IQ test and a was way above average. In hindsight, as I knew no one and was chucked into the huge monkey house of 1700 pupils, it was a mistake - my mother, of all people (a teacher, then lecturer in education) should have known better.

7 years later (after also repeating 1st year), I came out of school with barely nothing. I had to contend with prejudice from both kids and teachers, bullying (until I learnt that they were mostly gob shytes and you could punch them in the mouth) and the anonymity of Johnny foreigner; amusing and quirky at best but never 'one of us'. Whilst I was always looking over my shoulder because of the disruptive one's, I wasn't getting on with work.

Had I gone to GS on the back of that IQ test, things might have been very different. Despite everything, I managed a diploma in Engineering and a Degree later on.

We have a shortfall of technical abilities. Yes, bring back a two tier system where everybody gets tested at say 12 and then we send lot A to be more academic and lot B to fulfil the skills shortages in technical fields. Bring back Poly's as said before. Take education out of political hands and have it run by committee for the benefit of the country rather than point scoring politicians.

We actually need a 3rd tier split into two - Special needs and the highly disruptive one's who take up too much time of the teachers/staff and they distract and disrupt everyone, not just in the class room but in the playground. It's as important to prevent the highly disruptive pupils from crashing the Comp schools.

We are going to struggle to make up for the shortfalls in parenting and the foundations for good numeracy and literacy are put down in the primary years. So, providing the government allow for legislation and finance to support as best as possible the sink areas to achieve the potential of those inhabitants, then we should support a two tier system.

Get rid of faith and secular schools, right across the board.

apreading

Pinno wrote:

Get rid of faith and secular schools, right across the board.

Amen to that!

drlodge

apreading wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Get rid of faith and secular schools, right across the board.

Amen to that!

Surely schools are either faith or secular, so getting rid of both gets rid of all schools!

pinno

drlodge wrote:

apreading wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Get rid of faith and secular schools, right across the board.

Amen to that!

Surely schools are either faith or secular, so getting rid of both gets rid of all schools!

You're right, It's been a long week. I could edit the post but it's a bit late now.

fat daddy

Pinno might be on to something though

If we got rid of all Schools and just made Wales one giant school for every child, then everyone would have the same chances, the roads around Britain would be clear at 8-9am and 15:30-17:00 no youfs anging around causing trouble. with all the mountains we would have a new generation of climbers to hold on to the grand tours for the next few decades.

I cant see the downside

Flâneur

Stevo 666 wrote:

2. This catchment area argument for grammars is a red herring. GS catchments are huge compared to comps - my kids schools takes anyone in a 9 mile radius if they pass the test. In the SE London 'burbs that must cover 1m - 2m people. There's no postcode selection as there are in non-academically selectives which typically select on catchment only and are small - the local comps here have approx. a 1 mile radius and I know people who have done the house move thing to get their kids in. I know which one I think is fairer.

Regarding point 2. In areas such as SE London (which Stevo is attempting to convince me has good schools ;0 ) is similar in a fashion to a location such as Trafford. the catchment is massive and reaches a wide scope of children, it is the provision of those children prior to the selection which is an issue. Furthermore some GS allow (most do and have a quota) for students from out of area, however this often requires a real dedicated input from parents and teachers to take the exam as it is not the norm. Often the pass requirement is higher than the bottom line of that years intake - the latter is the real unfair point of it

Further disclaimer to my S.London. I lived north of the river for a chunk of my life (within the m25 before those comments come out) so north/south is fair game even if all my comments are fibs.

RE Wales, I like the quite roads for cycling on thank you

veronese68

I don't agree with grammar schools, I agree with streaming in comprehensives so that kids can be changed and moved with time rather than having their entire education based on an exam they sat at age 11. My son sat exams for 2 grammars, got accepted for one with a result that put him in the top 5%, screwed the exam for the other and failed to pass muster for that one. He's the same kid but he had a bad day, should he be penalised for the rest of his life for a bad day when he was 11? We decided to send him to a local catholic comprehensive in the end anyway, not for any reasons of faith though. He's doing really well at that school passed his GCSEs with As and A*s and is just starting the upper 6th as a house captain. He's on track to get As in his A levels if he carries on as he is and keeps working. I genuinely believe the broader mix in the school has been better for his personal development. I agree with most of Flan's post, especially about parents getting involved.
Additionally if my daughter was in a grammar school we'd be struggling a lot more than we are now. She's a clever girl that's got quite bad dyslexia and she's missed most of the last year through being ill and is still unable to manage a full day at school. The school have been very helpful and supportive throughout. She's been given some work to do at home and over the summer she had stuff she needed to catch up on. She's now going into year 10 so starting her GCSE coursework, this is an important year for her, but the school are still supportive and she can work more flexible hours according to what she can cope with. She's no longer in the highest set for maths, but she's still on the higher level so won't lose out. If she can't cope this year she has the option of dropping one or more subjects. Were she in a grammar school I'm not sure they would be as accommodating, the pressure to perform would be higher and that wouldn't help her current situation.
Finally, although both my kids are in catholic schools I will be a complete hypocrite and say that I do not agree with faith schools. I was in a position that I could use them to our advantage and I did so as it meant getting my kids into better schools. But that's the current system we have and I played the deeply flawed system to my advantage.

pinno

Veronese68 wrote:

...Were she in a grammar school I'm not sure they would be as accommodating, the pressure to perform would be higher and that wouldn't help her current situation.

That's an assumption.

veronese68

Pinno wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

...Were she in a grammar school I'm not sure they would be as accommodating, the pressure to perform would be higher and that wouldn't help her current situation.

That's an assumption.

I said "I'm not sure they would", not that I knew they wouldn't so agree it's an assumption. However, I worked with a girl that was at a grammar school and she was pressured to leave as she was falling behind so would have made their stars look bad. That was over 20 years ago and there was far less focus on league tables then.
Also pressure to perform undoubtedly adds to stress. Tiffin Girls is one of the highest performing girls schools in the country. It's also a top performer in terms of eating disorders. How much of that is connected to pressure to perform?

pinno

You must admit that there had been a seismic shift in educational attitudes since Pink Floyd.

veronese68

Pinno wrote:

You must admit that there had been a seismic shift in educational attitudes since Pink Floyd.

Thought of something else and added to my post, there are still problems with grammar schools. There has been a shift but some would have us shift back. The changes to GCSEs for example.

pinno

Veronese68 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

You must admit that there had been a seismic shift in educational attitudes since Pink Floyd.

Thought of something else and added to my post, there are still problems with grammar schools. There has been a shift but some would have us shift back. The changes to GCSEs for example.

Isn't that part of the 'common denominator' problem? O Grades changed to GCSE's and there was universal agreement that GCSE's were easier. That's the political meddling in education by governments who want to prove that their policies were/are the right policies and that changes to the education system were working. Despite the fact that real outcomes can only be assessed years later.
Most of educational changes in my opinion are to appease the middle classes (majority vote), not for genuine advancements in standards.

Stevo_666

Flâneur wrote:

Regarding point 2. In areas such as SE London (which Stevo is attempting to convince me has good schools ;0 ) is similar in a fashion to a location such as Trafford. the catchment is massive and reaches a wide scope of children, it is the provision of those children prior to the selection which is an issue. Furthermore some GS allow (most do and have a quota) for students from out of area, however this often requires a real dedicated input from parents and teachers to take the exam as it is not the norm. Often the pass requirement is higher than the bottom line of that years intake - the latter is the real unfair point of it

The two grammars in Bromley borough came 14th and 22nd out of all state schools in GCSE's this year. Given my kid is in one them, I can't complain about grammars.

The biggest problem is that there aren't enough of them. If there were more, this issue about availability and getting in would reduce. Which is exactly what TM is doing. With the additional proviso of 25% of places reserved for low income families and the possibility to get in at points other than year 7.

I also agree with Pinno and V68 on faith schools even though we did like Veronese and put our kid into a good catholic primary on account of Strifey being a left footer. That said it was only a few hundred yards from our house and we moved there without taking that into consideration before kids were on the cards. ('Father Jack' was none too pleased when we put Stropteen into a GS rather than the nearby Catholic comp, but stuff him, I'm still waiting for the lightning bolt).

Flâneur

I think the point to take is there are not enough of them.

Them could be anything but until there is the same system across an entire country there will be an argument regarding equality

Stevo_666

Flâneur wrote:

I think the point to take is there are not enough of them.

Them could be anything but until there is the same system across an entire country there will be an argument regarding equality

We aren't created equal and have different needs. Why pretend otherwise when it comes to education: one size does not fit all.

Too many people on here confuse equality and fairness. Hence a lot of the bleating on the Labour party thread.