Grammar Schools?

[Joe Hutch]

Should have said not wholly reliable. I am thinking of my own experience of being sent to a being sent to the Scottish equivalent of a secondary modern* when I should have gone to a more academic school. Might have ended up writing for the NME or something like that.

*The place was full of nutters, but it was a laugh.

Meanwhile, it's good to know that one of resident class warriors went to public school. I expect we'll find out that Tony Parsons went to Eton and that Julie Birchall was at Cheltenham Ladies College.

 

[Joe Hutch]

So not a sparking example of serving 'low-income' families then?

Having said that, to some people, only being able to afford £30K for fees means you're basically destitute.

Stephen

I dunno; the fact that the average income of parents is below the annual fees suggests that some at least of the families must be low income and are being subsidised, and that CH is doing more in this respect than most other public schools.

But the argument isn't a new one. Back at the beginning of the 19th century there were complaints that CH was taking in the sons of rich families at the expense of poorer ones.

 

[lordsummit]

Having taught in a very progressive secondary modern, I can assure you that the 11+ is a bad thing, it labels children as failures, often stigmatises those who don't pass the exam, and leads children to be compared unfavourably with their siblings.

The biggest crime I see in education these days are coasting schools in middle class areas, who get reasonable results, that look good because of their intake, but could be much much better if they were battling to do well for the kids like schools in much more challenging circumstances are forced to do.

All that will happen is that middle class families will make sure their progeny are prepared for the exams, they'll do better than their underprepared, less supported peers from less privileged backgrounds, and all will be good apparently.

This is just the sound of May playing to the Tory galleries. I'm expecting a return to pre-decimalisation, the return of hanging, and steam trains back on the two remaining lines that are left in 2020...

 

[gassor]

.

All that will happen is that middle class families will make sure their progeny are prepared for the exams, they'll do better than their underprepared, less supported peers from less privileged backgrounds, and all will be good apparently.

This is just the sound of May playing to the Tory galleries. I'm expecting a return to pre-decimalisation, the return of hanging, and steam trains back on the two remaining lines that are left in 2020...

Agreed.

May's claim that "the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils is reduced to almost zero for children in selective schools" is not based on available evidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37320794

 

[gassor]

Meanwhile, it's good to know that one of resident class warriors went to public school. I expect we'll find out that Tony Parsons went to Eton and that Julie Birchall was at Cheltenham Ladies College.

Owen Jones went to Oxford Uni and it's hard to imagine any educational institute more elitist than that.

Yes elitism in education that's how to foment a revolutionary working class.

 

[ks.234]

It's been a busy week for me as a teacher, so I haven't been following this thread as close as I'd like, but it does seem to me that much of the arguments (in the wider world, not just on pfm) start from the 'when I was at grammar school....' or 'I knew someone who failed the 11+ and went on to.....' point of view.

But this misses the point. There is little doubt that selective education has benefits for those selected, the question is, is selection better or worse for those NOT selected? What about the unselected?

Currently Grammar schools select from the top 10% to 20% of the attainment range, that leaves at least 80% not selected. The question should not be about the benefits to the minority, but how selection affects the majority, the unselected.

In the last few days I've heard politicians and commentators saying that the answer is to make all schools selective so that all parents can 'choose' to send their kids to Grammar schools. This is literal nonsense. If all schools are selective, those not selected, the 80%, do not get an education at all, and if all parents can 'choose' to send their kids to a selective school, it's not, by definition, a selective school.

 

[stephen bennett]

Owen Jones went to Oxford Uni and it's hard to imagine any educational institute more elitist than that.

Yes elitism in education that's how to foment a revolutionary working class.

You can't help where you came from, but you can decide where your kids end up.

I admire those who have had an advantaged upbringing who fight against privilege (Tony Benn, for example)-unlike people like Cameron who just want to perpetuate it.

Stephen

 

[stephen bennett]

Agreed.

May's claim that "the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils is reduced to almost zero for children in selective schools" is not based on available evidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37320794

This is a post-fact, post-expert world.

We'll all be the grammar school-educated daughters of vicars by 2020.

Stephen

 

[gassor]

This is a post-fact, post-expert world.

We'll all be the grammar school-educated daughters of vicars by 2020.

Stephen

Don't know where the smiley things came from

 

[gassor]

You can't help where you came from, but you can decide where your kids end up.

I admire those who have had an advantaged upbringing who fight against privilege (Tony Benn, for example)-unlike people like Cameron who just want to perpetuate it.

Stephen

But socialist theory tells us that the elites in any society are supposed to only perpetuate their dominance and self interest and not look to undermining it.

In fact stratifying education is the main method of perpetuating the class system in this country. That's why us lefties are opposed to elitist education.

 

[Bob McC]

This is an important point which is partially muddying the debate.

Back when old farts like me and many others went to Grammar school in the 50s and 60s, the 11+ was universally applied. (Not sure compulsory is the word)

Those who got through were offered places at Grammar. (There were also Technical schools in Nottm., known as 'bi-lateral' schools)

The important point is that there were no fees and geographical location was pretty much irrelevant, so that 'poor' kids could benefit.

So, although it's arguable that the 11+ itself, or once for all nature of the selection, was flawed, it at least applied the flaws to everyone equally.

The present grammars appear to me to select both by entrance exams, but also by house price.

The BBC, as usual, is entirely missing this important distinction between phases of Grammar school.

Mull

In Altrincham anyone can apply to take the 11 plus for entry into their grammar schools.That's anyone even people who live outside the county.
My brother's kids, after much coaching, sat and passed and went to Altrincham grammar despite living near Manchester airport.
This must piss off the rate payers of Altrincham immensely.

I also suspect their are several people on here confusing the 11 Plus, a state exam used to select pupils for state grammar schools and the common entrance exam, used to select for public schools.

 

[stephen bennett]

In Altrincham anyone can apply to take the 11 plus for entry into their grammar schools.That's anyone even people who live outside the county.
My brother's kids, after much coaching, sat and passed and went to Altrincham grammar despite living near Manchester airport.
This must piss off the rate payers of Altrincham immensely.

If they are low-income kids (not implying your brother's are!) that would also really, really annoy the middle-class rate payers of Altrincham.

How are kids on free school-meals going to get to these Grammars anyhow? Back to the 5 mile walk? I assume May think's they'll all have SUVs albeit smaller ones.

Stephen

 

[stephen bennett]

In fact stratifying education is the main method of perpetuating the class system in this country. That's why us lefties are opposed to elitist education.

And righties are all for it until they find that their kids aren't clever enough to get in, but Johnny from the street sails the 11+.

I can see this being quietly dropped or modified so much it becomes something else.

Stephen

 

[Tony L]

Isn't this all rather going to rather piss off the Tory voting middle classes who's kids are currently in a nice successful high achieving comprehensive who find it has just effectively been stealth-demoted to a Secondary Modern role as some blurt ideologue such as Toby Young or an organised religion has opened a "Grammar School" up the road?

 

[Paul R]

Agreed.

May's claim that "the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils is reduced to almost zero for children in selective schools" is not based on available evidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37320794

Your link does not support your claim, nor does it rebut May's.

This is a problem with 'fact checking' condensed to a brief web page, it gives an appearance of authority but seldom delivers when questions are nuanced.

Paul

 

[ks.234]

Isn't this all rather going to rather piss off the Tory voting middle classes who's kids are currently in a nice successful high achieving comprehensive who find it has just effectively been stealth-demoted to a Secondary Modern role as some blurt ideologue such as Toby Young or an organised religion has opened a "Grammar School" up the road?

No, I don't think the high achieving schools will be demoted, they will just become selective thereby preserving and actually enhancing it's high achievement status. Some academies and Free Schools already can select 10% on ability, so there is no need for a policy change, just a change to the rules.

What will happen is that remaining State schools will become the reservoir for all those not selected. Due to academisation there will be fewer of those state schools, and due to expansion of grammar school, a larger number of the unselected to be squashed into them. The attainment levels of those schools will still be compared to selective schools (as they are now) and the teacher's blamed for the difference in those attainment levels (as they are now). You will therefore have State schools for the unselected that are underfunded, with high pupil teacher rations, and staffed by increasingly demoralised and harassed teachers.

 

[Paul R]

But this misses the point. There is little doubt that selective education has benefits for those selected, the question is, is selection better or worse for those NOT selected? What about the unselected?

Why is the question not about the overall outcome for the cohort in the presence of selection?

Is it not in the national interest to mine all of society for the brightest and exploit them maximally?

In Bucks the non-grammars are known as 'Uppers' and the house price effect applies to them as much as it does in the neighborhood of a good comprehensive. All the grammar schools are good, so it doesn't matter where in the county you live if you qualify.

I don't think the 11+ is the right answer, but OTOH a grammar style education is valuable to those to whom it is suited. I don't see why it cannot be offered in schools that aren't 'selective' in general admission.

Paul

 

[gassor]

Your link does not support your claim, nor does it rebut May's.

This is a problem with 'fact checking' condensed to a brief web page, it gives an appearance of authority but seldom delivers when questions are nuanced.

Paul

It does refute May's claim from the available evidence.

Looking at the rest, though, you can look at the headline measure: the proportion of pupils who get at least five GCSE between grades A* and C including English and maths.

On that measure, 96.4% of non-FSM (free school meal) pupils are successful, compared with 92.7% of FSM pupils. That gap of 3.7 percentage points is considerably lower than the gap across all schools of 27 percentage points, but is it almost zero?

An alternative measure is to look at what proportion achieved the English Baccalaureate, which requires candidates to achieve C grade or better in English, maths, history or geography, two sciences and a language.

On that measure 72% of non-FSM pupils achieved the EBacc, compared with 60% of FSM candidates. That 12 percentage point gap compares with the national 17 point gap.

 

[ks.234]

Why is the question not about the overall outcome for the cohort in the presence of selection?

Is it not in the national interest to mine all of society for the brightest and exploit them maximally?

In Bucks the non-grammars are known as 'Uppers' and the house price effect applies to them as much as it does in the neighborhood of a good comprehensive. All the grammar schools are good, so it doesn't matter where in the county you live if you qualify.

I don't think the 11+ is the right answer, but OTOH a grammar style education is valuable to those to whom it is suited. I don't see why it cannot be offered in schools that aren't 'selective' in general admission.

Paul

A 'grammar style education' is a selective education teaching pupils selected from the top of the ability range. Selective education cannot be applied to 'schools that aren't selective' because they're not selective, Selective means teaching the very top of the ability range, Non selective means teaching everyone else. The 'whole class' teaching style favoured by many Grammar schools simply would not work in, for example, a challenging inner city school and many of the teachers in a grammar school would not last very long in such a school.

 

[cooky1257]

I don't think the 11+ is the right answer, but OTOH a grammar style education is valuable to those to whom it is suited. I don't see why it cannot be offered in schools that aren't 'selective' in general admission.

Paul

Grammar Streaming; that would be too sensible. We don't care how bright or sensitive you are, in the interests of fairness and equality you have to sit in lessons dictated by Gripper Stebson's behaviour.