![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As I was getting yesterday's Economist, I had a flick through the Spectator (a magazine I don't buy, but occasionally glance through). It had an article moaning about David Cameron's "betrayal" of selective education. (And the author was moaning that because Suffolk doesn't have grammars, he "had" to pay £13K for private education. Oh, the shame.)
I will say at the outset that I am vehemently opposed to selective education and believe in the forcible abolition of all remaining grammar schools, so I may be slightly biased. Nonetheless, a few points:
1) The assumption is that a child will do better in a grammar than a comprehensive. This is unproven (and may even be untrue). In order to test this, you need to compare the results of children of equal ability and background, one group at a comprehensive and one at a grammar. The aggregate results are irrelevant, because the grammar is only teaching the clever children.
2) This also assumes that the 11+ is a reliable way of sorting children. It isn't. In Northern Ireland the transfer test is being abolished because the margins are so thin that they're meaningless. And children can be and are coached for the tests (so much for a "route for poor children".)
3) It is impossible to have more than a few grammar schools without also having secondary moderns. And here we have the gamble: if you want the chance of going to a grammar, you must also take the risk that your child will fail the exam. There must be losers as well as winners. This means that 75-80% of children will be sent to inferior schools, as secondary moderns are and always have been. Only well-off parents will take this chance, because they can afford the consequences--if their child fails, they can pay to go private. Poor families can't. So talk of a "route out for the poor" is nonsense, as it always has been--most grammars have traditionally been in middle class areas. Even if you have comprehensives as well (which also means fewer grammars--you can only take so much cream before you get skim) it is impossible to have a loser-less system. Someone has to go to the secondaries. If you let children have 2 bites at the apple, allowing them the chance to choose a comprehensive after failing the 11+, you create double losers: children who choose not to take the 11+ then run the risk of being shifted to a secondary modern anyway.
Is it right to condemn 80% for the sake of 20%? I would argue not, and certainly from a votes point of view not. Proponents of selective education focus on the 20%, and don't realise or want to realise that we can't all be winners. People have to lose, but no one wants to think it will be them.
Selective education perpetuates classism (and this is openly mentioned in debates, talking about middle class parents who would otherwise choose private education--because G-d forbid their little babies should have to go to school with the riff-raff).
The answer now, as it has been for decades, is genuine, high quality comprehensive education. This does not mean "one size fits all". It simply means providing different varieties of education under the same roof, and not condemning children to an inflexible system that creates winners and losers at the age of 11.
There are some things that grammars still do better than comprehensives, such as increased opportunities for triple science, Latin, et cetera. I don't see why comprehensives can't offer these opportunities if there is the desire and funding to do so. I grew up in an area that was entirely comprehensive. There was one local school per area (fixed catchment areas, no enrollment caps), and that's where you went--no pretence of choice. If you didn't like it, you went private (usually religious) or you moved. Yet Long Island has the best public high schools in the country. Comprehensive does not mean mediocre and it pisses me off no end when our so-called Labour government denigrates "bog standard" comprehensives.
I will say at the outset that I am vehemently opposed to selective education and believe in the forcible abolition of all remaining grammar schools, so I may be slightly biased. Nonetheless, a few points:
1) The assumption is that a child will do better in a grammar than a comprehensive. This is unproven (and may even be untrue). In order to test this, you need to compare the results of children of equal ability and background, one group at a comprehensive and one at a grammar. The aggregate results are irrelevant, because the grammar is only teaching the clever children.
2) This also assumes that the 11+ is a reliable way of sorting children. It isn't. In Northern Ireland the transfer test is being abolished because the margins are so thin that they're meaningless. And children can be and are coached for the tests (so much for a "route for poor children".)
3) It is impossible to have more than a few grammar schools without also having secondary moderns. And here we have the gamble: if you want the chance of going to a grammar, you must also take the risk that your child will fail the exam. There must be losers as well as winners. This means that 75-80% of children will be sent to inferior schools, as secondary moderns are and always have been. Only well-off parents will take this chance, because they can afford the consequences--if their child fails, they can pay to go private. Poor families can't. So talk of a "route out for the poor" is nonsense, as it always has been--most grammars have traditionally been in middle class areas. Even if you have comprehensives as well (which also means fewer grammars--you can only take so much cream before you get skim) it is impossible to have a loser-less system. Someone has to go to the secondaries. If you let children have 2 bites at the apple, allowing them the chance to choose a comprehensive after failing the 11+, you create double losers: children who choose not to take the 11+ then run the risk of being shifted to a secondary modern anyway.
Is it right to condemn 80% for the sake of 20%? I would argue not, and certainly from a votes point of view not. Proponents of selective education focus on the 20%, and don't realise or want to realise that we can't all be winners. People have to lose, but no one wants to think it will be them.
Selective education perpetuates classism (and this is openly mentioned in debates, talking about middle class parents who would otherwise choose private education--because G-d forbid their little babies should have to go to school with the riff-raff).
The answer now, as it has been for decades, is genuine, high quality comprehensive education. This does not mean "one size fits all". It simply means providing different varieties of education under the same roof, and not condemning children to an inflexible system that creates winners and losers at the age of 11.
There are some things that grammars still do better than comprehensives, such as increased opportunities for triple science, Latin, et cetera. I don't see why comprehensives can't offer these opportunities if there is the desire and funding to do so. I grew up in an area that was entirely comprehensive. There was one local school per area (fixed catchment areas, no enrollment caps), and that's where you went--no pretence of choice. If you didn't like it, you went private (usually religious) or you moved. Yet Long Island has the best public high schools in the country. Comprehensive does not mean mediocre and it pisses me off no end when our so-called Labour government denigrates "bog standard" comprehensives.
(no subject)
I was in good sets for Maths, Chemistry, Physics etc, and crap sets for English, French etc.
This meant I got taught to my ability in all the subjects that I did maning I got better grades than if I'd been selected by any subject.
From the bits I've seen about Cameron he's thinking of introducing that in schools.
So why did we go private? Well all the schools in the area are some of the worst in the country, where I think 20% of people going there got 5 gcses. When faced with that kind of choice private education looks tempting.
(no subject)
Many schools already do ability setting in many subjects. it's controversial and some researchers claim that it doesn't lead to better results, but in my experience it's helpful. Teachers will, as a general rule, teach to the middle 50% of ability in a class. If the spread of ability is too large, the extremes get lost. If kids are lost, not only will they achieve less, they're more likely to misbehave. So even if it doesn't directly translate into better test scores, sets can mean happier students and happier teachers (who can target their lessons more effectively).
(no subject)
(no subject)
Obviously, the Comprehensives in this country are often underfunded, and failing as a result. I'm not seeing where "abolish the Grammar Schools" solves this problem.
(no subject)
Grammar schools are quite clearly viewed as superior - or people wouldn't fight to get their children into them and secondary moderns wouldn't be treated as dumping grounds as they have been and still are. Most secondary moderns don't even have sixth forms. Hardly a good way of doing things. In addition, creaming off the top has detrimental effects for everyone: higher achievers lead to a culture of achievement that helps encourage others to do well too. Contrast with sink schools, where no one does well, thinks they can do well, or tries to do well.
In addition, while different approaches may suit different children, that doesn't equate to the 11+ being a good way to decide what those are. All the 11+ does is separate the kids who can pass the test from those who can't. It's a crude method and a lousy one.
(no subject)
Where children are poorly served is when they are taught in failing schools - your so-called "sink" schools, which you mention as if they were some part of official education policy. Failing schools occur where discipline collapses, staff morale and retention sinks to a low, and where good education cannot be delivered - to anyone. Your answer - to throw some high-end students into that kind of a situation, by shutting down the grammar school the go to. That's not an education policy, that's criminal.
It's true that comprehensives don't generally have sixth forms anymore. I don't see that as a bad thing at all. My school didn't have a sixth form. We all went to a sixth form college, which for my money is a much better proposition for the 16-18 crowd. The teachers are, generally, those with a preference and strong track record for teaching that age group, a far broader range of subjects can be taught, funding goes further because resources can be spent on materials specifically suited to sixth form study, timetables suit the kids better. Your first paragraph implies a strong support for shared resources, and concentration of teaching expertise in centres of excellence. This is exactly what is intended by a sixth form college.
As for the 11+ - yes, it's poor. That's why it was phased out in the seventies. With the secondary moderns that bother you so.
(no subject)
Second, _comprehensives_ have sixth forms (though in some areas they use a centralised sixth form college--Harrow does, for example); secondary moderns don't. And it is a problem, because it allows more kids to drop out at 16. It's one thing when you've got everyone transferring at 16, but in these areas, the grammars have sixth forms but the secondary moderns don't. You do not get large, viable sixth form colleges in these areas. (And BTW, attached sixth forms often get better results than specialist colleges.)
Secondary moderns do still exist in areas with large numbers of grammars--NI and Kent, predominantly. You can't have grammars without them. That's how it is. If you take the cream off, you get skim. Some were abolished in name, but not in practice. You can call a school comprehensive, but if the local grammar's getting all the clever kids, it's a modern. Grammars still select by 11+ in those LEAs that have them (such as mine, Barnet--though thankfully we only have 3, they're small, and 1 is Catholic). How do you think they choose pupils--flip a coin?
A "culture of achievement" (OK, that's edu-new-speak) doesn't require that all children be taught the same things, at the same time. it's about the overall aims of the school. It means you don't have the culture of low expectations that pervades a lot of underachieving schools. Which are effectively part of education policy as long as the system continues to obsess over middle class parents.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Also some kids benefit from the continuity and atmosphere; some kids aren't ready for the relatively unstructured atmosphere of a college, and do better with another 2 years at school.
(no subject)
Selective schooling is only a problem if you can show that there are clever kids who are not getting into schools capable of bringing out their potential. To my mind, if that is the case, it is an argument for more selective schools, not fewer. If it is not the case, then what you're asking for is more spots in grammar schools for kids who will not be well served by a grammar school.
What is needed is an improvement in standards in failing schools. This is not achieved by abolishing selective entry. Your milk analogy is a poor one because it suggest that the lower tier in some sense needs the upper tier to be complete. Which is not true. What they need is decent teachers. That can only be achieved by providing a sufficiently attractive standard of living to prospective teachers. A second-tier entry school, with quality staff atuned to the needs of those children, is in my opinion something to strive for, and something which I believe better serves the needs of those students.
Grammars principally select by internal entrance exam these day, or at least that is my understanding.
(no subject)
Given that children in secondary moderns achieve worse results than children of equal ability in comprehensive schools, I think the case against them is well made--and it's not possible to have grammars without secondaries. What's wrong with secondary moderns is not just bad teachers; it's the fact that these kids are, and have been, consigned to the heap as the result of a single test. These kids don't get an appropriate education; they just get a watered down version of the same thing grammar school kids are getting.
And yes, the 11+ still exists even if it's not always called that. In areas with multiple grammars, they use a standard exam.
In any case, selection at 11 doesn't work. It assumes we can separate kids into 2 groups, and that these groups are meaningful. They're not. Far better, IMO, to educate them together and allow children to develop and obtain the right education as they go along.
(no subject)
This, essentially, I completely disagree with. It is possible to test children at 11. Your very argument implies it is, since you claim that there is data which suggests comparison between children of equal ability sent to different schools. If this data exists, then the baseline must have been drawn prior to their starting secondary education.
Your proposal to educate children in streams, within the same institution is fine as far as it goes. However, it would require an intake of sufficient size that the differentiated streams are sufficiently narrow that each class actually contains students who are appropriately close in ability.
The ideal here is to provide each child with a place in a class which will best suit them, in as wide a range of subjects as possible. I believe we appear to agree on that. I just don't think you're going to to achieve that, or even come close, in a generic comprehensive system, for purely logistical reasons.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I am in agreement that testing a child at 11 is perhaps a bit early yet, i certainly thrived at a grammar school and know many people that felt that a comprehensive school was the best option for them.