Social mobility and grammar schools

sarah either you have a short memory or you haven't been paying attention. Primary school classes used to be much larger- 40+ was common. The Blair government limited numbers to 30, this was dropped by the coalition gov, but is part of the Labour party policy. labourlist.org/2015/02/primary-school-class-sizes-to-be-capped-at-30-under-labour/
Many of us have campaigned for smaller classes for donkeys years. Yes it is a left-wing policy but obviously one you agree with.
The conservatives couldn't keep it up because Gove pledged too much cash to Free schools.

Sarahc446655 - I am truly amazed that you have never heard of people protesting about the size of classes. One of our children was in a class of 41 in her last year at primary school. Our County Council had the worst pupil teacher ratios in England, This may have been because none of the Tory councillors on the education committee sent their own children to county schools.

Not only did we complain, we campaigned and eventually booted out the Tories. When the Liberals took control of the county they invested in our schools and made a huge difference,

You don't have to be "left wing nazi" - whatever that is - to want all children to have the best oossible chance of a good education.

Left wing nazi's - how very rude ! I'm glad you didn't teach me, my children or anyone I love.

£20 is a sizeable sum for many people, particularly if it's a regular spend.

I teach piano and I often wonder how many youngsters miss out on instrumental lessons due to lack of funds. There is certainly an "us" and "them" vibe in education these days. Grammar Schools worked, to some extent in the past to address social mobility but now? No, I don't think so.

I was GS educated and I found the system narrow and uninspiring. The teaching was poor, depending on rote learning and regurgitation of remembered facts. Some pupils thrived; many did not.

Nowadays I think teaching is much better; more inspirational and targeted at the needs of the individual student (within the confines of the system). I think students have to engage in their learning far more effectively; in my day all you had to do was perform well on the day of the exam, having stayed up all night to cram.

Im glad I'm in Wales, where a return to the GS is highly unlikely (at present and under our present Govt, at least.).

Mind you, we have Welsh Medium Education, which is another can of worms....

"Left wing nazi's - how very rude !"

Sorry. But that sounds so sniffy!

I was quoting Iam64 btw.

I'm not sure about rude, but a 'left wing nazi' sounds like an oxymoron.

I agree with you, gettingonabit, about instrumental lessons. It was the first thing which had to go (for my children) when I lost my job. The instruments themselves had been expensive.

I charge £30 an hour for private GCSE tuition, which is beyond most people. I try to give discounts if I know that a family is struggling, but I'm not a charity and rely on tuition for my own income. I have pupils from all sorts of schools - comprehensive, grammar and independent.

My rate is towards the top of the range for my area, but tutors in London can earn £60 or £70 an hour for coaching towards entrance exams for private schools and the partially selective state schools.

Someone once said you needed just one teacher to light the light and then you can make immense progress.
In my grammar school we were taught by dowdy spinsters and the lessons were boring. But we had huge sports grounds and tennis courts and the name was snough to get a job interview afterwards.

When you are coaching a young person you sometimes get the chance to really interest them in the subject and there are several people I coached in my town who went on to specialise in English in their Abitur (leaving certificate) at 18.

And there you have it! A 'good' school on your CV can get you job interviews in a way that Chavsville Secondary Modern won't. It worked for me, despite the fact that I was uninspired at school and can't honestly claim to have made much of an effort.

I'm not against Grammar Schools per se but I don't think they suit every intelligent child. I went to one when I was at school and a lot was made of the fact we were the top 8% of the country but when you are at the bottom of that section, you don't half lose confidence quickly. I was so unimpressed with my education I actually became a teacher in order to change things...naive or what!
When my very conscientious, bright boy started at the local comprehensive I truly believed that he'd get by in any school. However, after the first term we started to have doubts when he no longer wanted to go to school as it took 15 minutes at the start of each lesson to attempt to settle the class and because worksheets weren't handed out until they were settled, he couldn't get on with his work. When he told me of the antics of his classmates, I couldn't believe it so I got him to take video/audio footage. It was absolutely dire. We knew other parents in other schools and none of them sounded much better. We considered giving him additional tuition to keep him flying but then thought, why should he give up his spare time because others won't let him work? We moved him to a private school and the difference is amazing. No inverted snobbery about being intelligent and wanting to do well. Friendly and sociable kids from the top to the bottom. They don't only take academia as their starting point but give opportunities in Sport, Drama, Music, Community Work, etc. I'd like to see all children offered these opportunities but I can't see it happening whilst we have such disruption in the classroom and teachers are forced to do more stressful crowd control than teaching.

There is very little if anything to show that working class children became socially mobile - the argument often made and the one repeated now.

Of course we all want the most talented to be able to make use of those talents but there is no real evidence that the Grammar Schools actually achieved this. The Grammar School system was not as popular as some make out in the 1950s/60s. The Crowther Report, commissioned by Conservative Secretary of State David Eccles, stated in 1959 that the rapid rise in school rolls after the war "has largely increased public clamour against a competitive element in grammar school selection, which seems to parents to be contrary to the promise of secondary education according only to "age, aptitude and ability"

"In the grammar school period, while 33% of those whose father's profession was "higher professional" got onto a degree course at university, only 2% of those from a skilled manual background did so and just 1% of those from a semi-skilled or unskilled background." (Robbins Report)

We must, must, must ensure a good education for all as the economy hollows out and very few of the typical well paid blue collar or lower level white collar jobs that took people into a life their parents could not have contemplated, disappear with technology. The middle class is feeling squeezed because of this and because they are becoming aware that their children will find things more difficult and, as always, they want the system to work for them - understandably. But as we will either be offering low-paid, insecure work or high paid, highly skilled work and those in the highly skilled jobs must be able to continue learning and change direction of learning through their lives. For the country to succeed and bring in those highly skilled jobs every one needs the best possible education, not just a few.

I agree with you, gracesgran. The grammar school system was set up for a specific social hierarchy with about 20% or so in white collar jobs. It's been predicted that about 40% of jobs will be lost over the next couple of decades through automation. The future is going to be in intellectual property and we need more than a minority to have a stake in that.

I also agree with you, icanhandthemback. I did much the same as you. I became a teacher, because I thought I could change things. Everybody assumed I would go into independent schools, but I was determined I wanted to work in state schools.

The biggest problem in schools is not the organisation, but the discipline, and that can be bad in some independent schools too. Some headteachers deny there's a problem and are far too keen to blame bad teachers (as are some parents). The truth is that pupils aren't punished consistently for bad behaviour. I'm not talking about bringing back the cane, but zero tolerance of not having the right equipment, being late, having mobiles in class, talking out of turn, etc.

I think teachers have been so ground down by constant criticism and not being supported with unruly pupils that they give in too easily. My personal view is that schools which tolerate poor behaviour aren't doing anybody any favours, not even the pupils who misbehave. If the government wants to tinker with school structures, I would rather it found some way of removing pupils who constantly disrupt others' learning.

fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/

You've no need to read it, obie, as it's by Fullfact.
A lot of fuss really, as there are only 163 grammar schools in England.
How can anyone base a policy on such a small number?

'But while some pupils may benefit, experts also say that grammar schools generally widen the gap in attainment between rich and poor pupils.

“There is repeated evidence that any appearance of advantage for those attending selective schools is outweighed by the disadvantage for those who do not”, says Professor Stephen Gorard of Durham University. “More children lose out than gain, and the attainment gaps between highest and lowest and between richest and poorest are larger”.'

From the fullfact article.
Why is it that a system that advantages the rich should be pushed by Theresa May? She wanted to be the leader of everyone in the country, but seems to espouse more divisive policies than Cameron did.

One of the reasons I am against reverting to better funding for a very small elite (which is what Grammar schools were) is because of people like me icanhandthemback. We, as a family, are great a using the system because we believe in education. So my son went to an independent prep-school for a year to prepare him for the entrance exam and then won a full scholarship (which strangely paid half his fees ). He thrived. Interestingly, when I asked him what he liked after the first half-term he said "everyone is quiet when we have to do our work" dd

My daughter went to a church school with a very good reputation for working with dyslexia (she is severely dyslexic). I promise we were already a "church family" before she went but it still gave us the opportunity of a church place at that school which she would not have had otherwise.

I feel about education a bit like I feel about my mother. I keep asking myself who would get another little old lady of 95 with dementia the benefits, her £140 off her electricity bill, or even her doctor to come out to visit her, etc., if she didn't have a 'me'. In the same way what happened to the children whose mothers weren't slightly obsessed by education; I don't believe it should be down to that.

This discussion was going on earlier in the year. Not many were really positive about grammar schools maybe remembering the initial secondary modern/ grammar system.
There were lots of children (us} who did get on despite being written off at 11 as not clever enough, who have done well.

The numbers going into grammar schools showed more to do with how many places were actually available in those schools and if those pupils had the money to pay for the then expensive uniforms. For heavens sake keep schools comprehensive. So all chidren can find their own educational level.

Keep schools comprehensive and fund them properly Nelliemoser

And make sure that all pupils can get on with their work! It's not just the very bright ones who have the right to be able to make progress.

Did anyone watch "Educating Yorkshire" when it was on? I thought that embodied what education should be. They did their best for every pupil, sometimes in the face of great difficulties. They didn't always succeed but they always tried.It showed comprehensive education at its best. I don't believe a selective system could do better.

Trouble is, comprehensive schooling doesn't always serve children well. You get the ones who don't want to learn in with the others, and they can be disruptive.

I think children should be entitled to an education to suit their abilities. Grammar schools are the best for this.

That's a sweeping statement,any evidence? A child with real ability from an underprivileged background is unlikely to get in, a child of average ability who has benefited from professional tutoring will get in. Which deserves the best education? Answer of course- they both do, but under the grammar system one won't get it.

Not in our comprehensive jingle . Each child is tutored according to their capabilities , you support schools ehere children have the same capabilities but some have parents who can pay for private tuition and so they succeed st the 11+

jinglbelffrocks,

Not true! The vast majority of comprehensive schools set pupils by ability. It's true that the top sets tend to be better behaved, but not always. A clever, disruptive child is a nightmare!

What about the ones who aren't that bright and want to learn, but are in low sets with disruptive children? That will happen in secondary moderns and comprehensives. Surely they deserve a chance too.

Many teachers would probably say that the biggest problem in schools is behaviour. They don't like admitting it, because it looks like failure and headteachers are the worst at cover ups. I did supply teaching for a while and there's a huge difference between schools regarding behaviour.

I also think it is interesting to look at the progress data of lower-ability children in grammar schools. Is the differentiation as effective as it should be?

What do you mean by 'lower ability'? If the 11+ has done its job, there shouldn't be any lower ability children in grammar schools.

However, as I pointed out before, there are children in grammar schools who are little better than average, with a CATs/IQ score of about 110-115. They are much closer in ability to the average in a secondary modern than they are to the real high fliers in a grammar school.

I suspect the differentiation in grammar schools isn't that good.