Published on 12, July, 2020
There's been a lot of criticism of Theresa May's intention to re-introduce grammar schools in the false hope of making everyone 'equal', but why?
Every kid is different with different abilities and the socialist dream of dumbing down education in order to make everyone inclusive is holding back kids with talent who need to be stretched to develop their potential.
I never passed the 11 plus but I do not resent other kids who did and had the talent to go on to a grammar school. The fact is that you cannot 'Nanny State' people into achieving educational success if they are not commited themselves and the idea that we should all live in a society that does not discriminate in terms of ambition and ability is ludicrous.
I wish people would look into subjects rather than just accept the propaganda peddled by politicians and some parts of the media.
A Google search of 'grammar school research' will provide a list to help look into the subject of grammar schools.
I am not interested enough to have a continued discussion about the subject.
caretwo, Theresa May has made it clear that she wants able children from disadvantaged backgrounds to be represented as much as possible and not copy the exact model of grammar schools in the past.
Surely, a kid who is talented and gets to grammar school is presented with a golden key to success otherwise denied to them. Coming from a deprived background seriously hinders you in attaining a good education that others might be in a position to pay for.
Also, where are we going to get our talented people from in the future if we have a policy of 'one size fits all?'
Below is an extract of a blog I wrote some time ago but it is still valid as an example of why grammar schools are not the shining stars the propaganda would like you to believe.
---------
The Department for Education’s research gateway provides access to a variety of publications, one of which is the statistical bulletin The Composition of Schools in England. The data relates to 2006/07 but the document is the latest available version.
The document is 178 pages but chapter five, How Representative are Schools of their Local Authorities?, discusses the degree of segregation of pupils in Local Authorities and considers the extent to which deprived pupils are concentrated in particular schools. One of the chapter’s summary points is an indication that Tim Luckhurst’s assertion is incorrect:
Chapter six, How would the composition of secondary schools’ intakes change if all pupils were admitted to their nearest school?, discusses how representative schools are of deprived pupils in their local area. Again, one of the chapter’s summary points indicates Tim Luckhurst’s assertion is incorrect:
The parliamentary briefing Grammar school statistics is a more easily digestible read and one of its sources is the above mentioned statistical bulletin. The graph below (which can be clicked on for a larger image) has been taken from the briefing and the free school meals element of the graph is striking (please note: SEN means special education need).
The briefing’s text accompanying the graph included these statements:
While one might expect many types of SEN to limit a pupil’s performance at an entrance exam, the impact of free school meal status (a proxy for poverty/deprivation) is less direct. The rates were 1.9% at grammars, 11.3% at secondary modern schools and 12.8% across all school types.
The Department for Children Schools and Families has looked at the intake of grammar schools in comparison to that of their local area. This found that free school meal rates in grammars were not representative of their local areas. They were around one-fifth of the level in their local area in 2007.
This study [the statistical bulletin referred to above] also looked at the level of deprivation affecting children in the areas that different types of schools took their pupils from. In grammar schools in 2007 the proportion of pupils from the least deprived quartile was just over 40%, compared to around 25% in their local area. The proportion of their intake from the most deprived quartile was around 8%, compared to just over 20% in their local area.
A final extract from the briefing shows clearly that grammar schools do not take their share of more deprived children:
Research for the Sutton Trust which looked at the ‘social selectivity’ of secondary schools found that grammars were more socially selective than other schools and that they made up 17 of the top 100 most socially selective secondary schools, but 5% of all secondaries. This general finding should be little surprise given the lower attainment of pupils eligible for free school meals at the end of primary school. However, the report also noted that even among the brightest pupils (in the top quarter of performers at the end of primary school) free school meal rates in grammar schools were 2% compared to 5% across all schools. The authors concluded that grammar schools were enrolling ‘…half as many academically able children from disadvantaged backgrounds as they could do’ [my emphasis].