Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[Olive 10]

 

I guess it depends how you define 'as good as' but results wise, no they are not. Grammar schools gets 99% A-C passes at GCSE, the best comprehensives don't get near that.

 

 

That's not really surprising though is it? And it doesn't really tell us anything about the quality of teaching in those schools. How do we know that the brighter pupils in the comprehensive schools aren't getting the same results they would be getting if they were in a grammar school? Results only mean something if you're comparing like with like.

 

I have a question that no-one ever seems to address:

 

What difference does it make to syphon off brighter kids into a separate building than keeping them in the same schools but, streaming into separate classes?

 

I can't get my head around this obsession with creating separate physical sites for different abilities.

 

Say you created a grammar school, sited it next door to the comp and sent all the clever kids there. Why not just build some new classrooms, call it the same school and teach to ability?

[sgtkate 10]

I couldn't agree more. I actually cannot see the point in grammar schools, given that the education/exam system is the same in all schools. I guess the ideal thing is to have 'personalised education', but that would be prohibitively expensive. The classist ideology is writ large on both sides of the debate, but educationally it is clear that mixed ability classes are less desirable than similar ability classes. The best comprehensives stream their pupils for this exact reason.

 

The only question in my mind is whether delivering different kinds of education; vocational, technical, creative, academic/traditional (for want of a better description) requires different schools. It seems to be a more efficient way to organise it at least. Labour created a whole load of 'specialist' schools, but that doesn't seem to have achieved a good balance in terms of mixed model schooling.

 

That's a good question. Why do we need different schools at all? We don't, you are completely right!

[Olive 10]

I couldn't agree more. I actually cannot see the point in grammar schools, given that the education/exam system is the same in all schools. I guess the ideal thing is to have 'personalised education', but that would be prohibitively expensive. The classist ideology is writ large on both sides of the debate, but educationally it is clear that mixed ability classes are less desirable than similar ability classes. The best comprehensives stream their pupils for this exact reason.

 

The only question in my mind is whether delivering different kinds of education; vocational, technical, creative, academic/traditional (for want of a better description) requires different schools. It seems to be a more efficient way to organise it at least. Labour created a whole load of 'specialist' schools, but that doesn't seem to have achieved a good balance in terms of mixed model schooling.

 

I think we're on the same page - I was writing my post whilst you were posting yours!

[biotechpete 10]

That's not really surprising though is it? And it doesn't really tell us anything about the quality of teaching in those schools. How do we know that the brighter pupils in the comprehensive schools aren't getting the same results they would be getting if they were in a grammar school? Results only mean something if you're comparing like with like.

 

I totally agree, which is why I compared local authorities with similar "multiple indices of deprivation" and comprehensive systems vs those with grammar school systems. It is actually fairly difficult in my view to define a 'good school'.

 

I have a question that no-one ever seems to address:

 

What difference does it make to syphon off brighter kids into a separate building than keeping them in the same schools but, streaming into separate classes?

 

I can't get my head around this obsession with creating separate physical sites for different abilities.

 

Say you created a grammar school, sited it next door to the comp and sent all the clever kids there. Why not just build some new classrooms, call it the same school and teach to ability?

 

It's a question that occurred to me too. There are two aspects to the answer to that I can think of. One is that of school size. Children supposedly thrive in schools of 600-900 pupils. I suppose that equates to 4-5 classes per year group. The question is whether you can get sufficient separation within that year group to allow all abilities to be properly catered for. Two is that of the kind of education they receive. Under the current system, there isn't rationale for separation, but a different form of 'technical education' seems to be a significant driver behind separation. I also worry about the anti-intellectual bullying that is rife in many schools, but that is a broader issue than grammar/comprehensive. We have a backward and classist view of education throughout our country which in my view stems from idealogues on both sides of the debate, as well as our adversarial 'winner takes all' parliamentary system. Anti-intellectualism and being 'fed up of experts' is a great danger to our prosperity.

[Justin Smith 10]

Originally Posted by Justin Smith :

It may be unarguable that Grammar schools produce better results for those who attend them than the average comprehensive.

 

I guess it depends how you define 'as good as' but results wise, no they are not. Grammar schools gets 99% A-C passes at GCSE, the best comprehensives don't get near that .

 

I meant that the pupils of the same ability would do as well at a good comp. One obviously cannot expect a comp, however good, to get the same overall results as a Grammar when the latter has all the most able academic pupils and the former takes all levels of ability.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 13:27 ----------

 

The other aspect of this is that I don't accept that the least able and most disruptive pupils should receive much more resource than the most able, who are being equally disadvantaged by an integrated educational model, save for the cost benefit of crime prevention .

 

Crime prevention is exceptionally important. It isn`t just the cost of crime, which is massive, it`s the blight on people`s lives, both actual and imagined. Thus, if having extremely well resourced special schools improves the educational attainment of the excluded pupils, enables the kids in the other schools to study better without disruption, and reduces crime, it`s worth it, more or less however much it costs.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 13:29 ----------

 

That's not really surprising though is it? And it doesn't really tell us anything about the quality of teaching in those schools. How do we know that the brighter pupils in the comprehensive schools aren't getting the same results they would be getting if they were in a grammar school? Results only mean something if you're comparing like with like.

 

I have a question that no-one ever seems to address:

 

What difference does it make to syphon off brighter kids into a separate building than keeping them in the same schools but, streaming into separate classes?

 

I can't get my head around this obsession with creating separate physical sites for different abilities.

 

Say you created a grammar school, sited it next door to the comp and sent all the clever kids there. Why not just build some new classrooms, call it the same school and teach to ability?

 

Good post. The answer to the last point is it doesn`t play to many Tories. It also doesn`t play to many parents who don`t seem to have worked out that their kids, statistically, won`t be going to any Grammar school, they`ll be at the Secondary Modern down the road. On the latter point, it may be a long way down the road, literally, = more traffic congestion.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Justin Smith

[harvey19 541]

In the 1960s those children who had failed the 11plus had a chance to go to a technical school at 13 years.

I think those who had failed the 11plus also got the opportunity to transfer to a grammar school at 12 or 13 years.

I also think those who showed ability at a secondary modern had the opportunity to stay on an extra year and take G.C.E.s

It is all well and good to consider the less able but the most able should be afforded equal consideration.

An advantage of the grammar school is that the most able teachers will be able to maximise the brightest pupils achievements.

[biotechpete 10]

Originally Posted by Justin Smith :

It may be unarguable that Grammar schools produce better results for those who attend them than the average comprehensive.

 

 

 

I meant that the pupils of the same ability would do as well at a good comp. One obviously cannot expect a comp, however good, to get the same overall results as a Grammar when the latter has all the most able academic pupils and the former takes all levels of ability.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 13:27 ----------

 

 

I think it's a point pretty difficult to prove with the data available to any of us. You would need to be able to separate the top x%, I guess it's about 30% these days of a particular school or authorities marks.

 

I did find this, from a commons briefing paper which speaks some way to the point that grammars may do better for the most able pupils:

These headline results can be broken down by prior attainment bands

of pupils: Those assessed below level 4 at the end of primary school,

those at level 4 and those above level 4. In 2015 91% of pupils taking

their GCSEs at grammar schools had been above level 4 at the end of

primary school compared to 33% at comprehensives and 22% at

secondary modern schools. If we only look at this group then

attainment at GCSE are predictably much closer. 98% of these pupils

who attended grammar schools achieved 5+ GCSEs/equivalent including

English and maths, 91% did so who went to comprehensive schools

and 88% at secondary moderns. The proportion of these pupils making

at least the expected degree of progress in English and maths between

the end of primary school and GCSE was noticeably higher at grammar

schools at 93% and 95% respectively compared to 81% and 82% at

comprehensives and 77% and 78% at secondary moderns.19

It is important, however, to realise that there is still scope for substantial

variation within the ‘above level 4 group’ between different school

types. Given that grammars select on ability it is highly likely that these

pupils have higher levels of attainment, when finely graded, than the

‘above level 4 group’ at non-selective schools. There are too few pupils

who started at grammar school at or below level 4 to provide reliable

comparisons with ‘similar’ pupils at other types of school.

 

Crime prevention is exceptionally important. It isn`t just the cost of crime, which is massive, it`s the blight on people`s lives, both actual and imagined. Thus, if having extremely well resourced special schools improves the educational attainment of the excluded pupils, enables the kids in the other schools to study better without disruption, and reduces crime, it`s worth it, more or less however much it costs.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 13:29 ----------

 

 

Sorry, I don't agree. In my view it is just as important to spend extra resource on the most able pupils (note not the most well off), to enable better social mobility, and ultimately a more globally competitive work force.

 

Good post. The answer to the last point is it doesn`t play to many Tories. It also doesn`t play to many parents who don`t seem to have worked out that their kids, statistically, won`t be going to any Grammar school, they`ll be at the Secondary Modern down the road. On the latter point, it may be a long way down the road, literally, = more traffic congestion.

 

It is common in Buckinghamshire for grammar and secondary modern schools to effectively site share. However when I was at school, the start and end times of the schools had to be staggered, and school buses segregated, due to a number of pretty violent incidents. There isn't much data to support the argument that you need to travel further to attend a grammar school in a grammar school area. It is around 5km average travel distance for both grammar and secondary modern schools in selective local authorities. The national average distance to school for the 11+ age group is 5.47km.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2017 at 16:36 ----------

 

In the 1960s those children who had failed the 11plus had a chance to go to a technical school at 13 years.

I think those who had failed the 11plus also got the opportunity to transfer to a grammar school at 12 or 13 years.

I also think those who showed ability at a secondary modern had the opportunity to stay on an extra year and take G.C.E.s

It is all well and good to consider the less able but the most able should be afforded equal consideration.

An advantage of the grammar school is that the most able teachers will be able to maximise the brightest pupils achievements.

 

It's unfortunate that many grammar schools attract the least able teachers because the kids are bright enough and the parents engaged enough to get the kids to do well anyway.

[harvey19 541]

Ref Justin's point about crime prevention.

Surely this is the parent's responsibility and not the teachers.

[Justin Smith 10]

Originally Posted by Justin Smith :

Crime prevention is exceptionally important. It isn`t just the cost of crime, which is massive, it`s the blight on people`s lives, both actual and imagined. Thus, if having extremely well resourced special schools improves the educational attainment of the excluded pupils, enables the kids in the other schools to study better without disruption, and reduces crime, it`s worth it, more or less however much it costs.

Sorry, I don't agree. In my view it is just as important to spend extra resource on the most able pupils (note not the most well off), to enable better social mobility, and ultimately a more globally competitive work force.

 

So what do you think we should be doing with these disruptive pupils ? The question is even more relevant to anyone in favour, or at least not against, Grammar schools, because those kids going to a Grammar are much less likely to have to put up with the disruptive pupils.....

[sgtkate 10]

Originally Posted by Justin Smith :

Crime prevention is exceptionally important. It isn`t just the cost of crime, which is massive, it`s the blight on people`s lives, both actual and imagined. Thus, if having extremely well resourced special schools improves the educational attainment of the excluded pupils, enables the kids in the other schools to study better without disruption, and reduces crime, it`s worth it, more or less however much it costs.

 

 

So what do you think we should be doing with these disruptive pupils ? The question is even more relevant to anyone in favour, or at least not against, Grammar schools, because those kids going to a Grammar are much less likely to have to put up with the disruptive pupils.....

 

So now any kids that's not 'academic' is disruptive? I really think it's your view that kids who aren't getting A* at GCSE are somehow a problem that's the real issue here. I went to a grammar school. We had kids arrested for dealing drugs, arson and various serious assaults. Don't for one minute think that 'bright' means 'good' and vice versa.

[Mister M 1,605]

I couldn't agree more. I actually cannot see the point in grammar schools, given that the education/exam system is the same in all schools. I guess the ideal thing is to have 'personalised education', but that would be prohibitively expensive. The classist ideology is writ large on both sides of the debate, but educationally it is clear that mixed ability classes are less desirable than similar ability classes. The best comprehensives stream their pupils for this exact reason.

 

The only question in my mind is whether delivering different kinds of education; vocational, technical, creative, academic/traditional (for want of a better description) requires different schools. It seems to be a more efficient way to organise it at least. Labour created a whole load of 'specialist' schools, but that doesn't seem to have achieved a good balance in terms of mixed model schooling.

 

I think it's an incredibly expensive idea that was supposed to increase 'parental choice'. It does beg the question how many schools should an area have so that parents have full choice? Potentially their children could have interests in a wide academic area: Music, Art, Languages, Science, Sports etc....

Some may have their desire fulfilled, many won't - and not including the fact that many of the new schools set up, like UTCs (University Technical Colleges, we have 2 in Sheffield I believe), have closed down pretty quickly.

On a personal note, I would like to see an end to faith schools. I find them divisive (but that's just my own opinion).

The one area of public services that does need the 'choice' agenda is in mental health, especially because the whole idea of psychology/psychiatry is individual difference - yet people are lumped together as needing CBT. However for political reasons, I suspect that parents aspirations are considered much more important....

[Penistone999 10]

I would say yes.

Where else are kids going to socially integrate ?

I wouldn`t take this too far though. I think disruptive pupils should be excluded from main stream schooling and placed in schools specially set up for them. Those schools should have exceptionally low pupil /teacher ratios, and they should spend as much money on them as is needed to educate the disruptive kids, and, more importantly, try to prevent then falling into crime.

 

 

 

 

You cannot force people to integrate .