Only 38% agreed the Government should encourage more schools to select by academic ability and build more grammar schools, the latest
Times Survey by
YouGov found.
20% said existing grammar schools should remain but no more should be built while a further 26% said existing grammars should become comprehensive. 17% weren’t sure.
Support for increasing selection and more grammar schools was greatest among the over 60s (51%). However, support fell with every successive generation. Only 29% of 18-24 year-olds, many of whom will vote for the first time next year, support more selection. 29% of this age group would allow existing grammars to stay open but would not support the setting up of any more.
45% of those polled would support building new grammars in areas where they already exist if population growth meant there weren’t enough places for local children who passed the 11+. 36% of 18-24 year-olds agreed with this but slightly more, 38%, opposed.
The setting up of new ‘satellites’ linked to existing grammars but in a different location was supported by 47%. 24% opposed and 29% weren’t sure.
Although only 38% supported the building of new grammar schools, 54% said they would support a new grammar in response to a ‘demonstrated local demand’. This figure was used by
The Times to justify its
headline,
'Parents say yes to more grammar schools'.
The article (second paragraph) made it clear this would be in response to local demand but the first paragraph said:
‘A new generation of grammar schools across Britain would be backed by more than half of voters, a poll for
The Times has found.’
But if
The Times had used the figure of just 38% being in favour of the Government encouraging more selection and grammars then this paragraph would have to be rewritten as:
‘A new generation of grammar schools across Britain would be backed by fewer than 40% of voters...’
What the poll didn’t ask, of course, was how many would be in favour of a different kind of education for average/below-average ability children: first tier for the above average and second tier for the majority. But second tier, or secondary moderns, for the 75% doesn’t quite have the same
electoral appeal.
If you pick the 54% figure and ignore the lower 38%, calling for a return of selection at 11+ might be seen as a vote winner. But it flies in the face of evidence. The OECD* found school systems which don’t segregate children by ability tend to do better in PISA tests.
Research published in March showed that while selection might help those selected, it also increased the effect on socio-economic background. And the earlier selection began, the greater was the difference between schools.
But that wouldn’t matter, grammar school supporters might say, if it gives the brightest children a chance to fly. But when grammar pupils reach university,
research found they are likely to be outperformed by their equally-qualified peers from comprehensives.
If instead of asking about grammar schools, the poll had asked if pollsters were in favour of sorting 11 year-olds into bright and middling/dim, then there might not have been much support. But that’s what selection at 11 means.
*OECD Education at a Glance 2011
UPDATE 5 December 12.12 Professor Chris Husbands outlines the case against selection at 11
here.
UPDATE 5 December 12.17 Five reasons why a return to grammar schools is a bad idea
here.
And
here is the 'demand' for a change of law to allow expansion of grammars. The reason given? It increased social mobility for the bright working class. But it didn't. And it will increase chances for the 'less privileged', the site says. But the existence of a grammar school in Skegness, one of the
top three deprived seaside towns, hasn't helped the 'less privileged' there. Only 4.6% of pupils at Skegness Grammar School in 2013 were eligible for free school meals (FSM). But at Skegness Academy, 28.6% were FSM. The Lincolnshire average for secondary pupils is 17.8%.
Comments
Blackpool fully comprehensive and not near a selective area, as you say 2/6 below average or failing and 2 results missing, I wonder why?
Nottingham comprehensive, as many require improvement or inadequate as good or outstanding, of course academies were originally conversions of schools with the worst results
But this was not always the case - sponsored academies which grew from previously independent schools or those which had been City Technology Colleges weren't underperforming. And some of the early sponsored academies, eg Mossbourne, were brand new schools with no predecessor.
The latest batch of sponsored academies contain schools which are not necessarily in disadvantaged areas but were picked because they were ripe for academy conversion (ie they were previously underperforming or had been judged Inadequate but Ofsted monitoring reports showed they were improving - this meant academy chains could take them over and then claim subsequent improvements. See here.)
Really? Ask anybody and see if they talk about the 11+ in terms of pass or fail. I took the 11+ in 1961, pass or fail was very clear. Twenty years later I started teaching in an area with selection at 11. Pass or fail was alive and well. I suspect it still is.
Beyond PISA, the strength of Chinese economic growth shows the high standards their schools are producing and if some of those parents send their children to UK or US boarding schools then so be it
And, to complete the trio, ascribing China's economic success to its school system is simplistic in the extreme. I suspect a huge workforce and low incomes might have something to do with their competitive success. I know only one director of a company which relocated manufacturing to China a few years ago. Academic excellence didn't come into it. Costs did.
'China’s industry-oriented economy relies on these migrant workers who make up the majority of the workforce. There are approximately 150 million internal migrant workers in China who, because of their status, do not receive any state benefits or protection.'
'Internal migrants' are those who migrate from China's countryside to cities. For example, Shanghai's internal migrants are thought to comprise up to 40% of the city's 23m population. It's suspected children of these internal migrants weren't in school and therefore couldn't take part in the 2012 PISA tests.
You ask why some Blackpool Ofsted reports are missing. You'll have to ask the Department for Education that because it was the DfE who said in its School Performance Tables that no Ofsted report was available. It could be the schools have recently become academies and haven't been inspected as academies.
Beware of judging an area with a small number of secondary schools on the basis of a small sample (see my thread re Trafford for how misleading percentages can be). For example, until last week 100% of Rutland's secondary schools were Good or better (66% were actually Outstanding). Surely comprehensive Rutland was one of the best LAs in the country? A vindication of comprehensive education, then?
But today, just 66% of Rutland's secondary schools are Good or better and 33% are less than good. Shock horror - Rutland's secondary schools are worse than 'stagnating' - they're deteriorating! A damning indictment of comprehensive education, surely?
Except there are only three secondary schools in Rutland.
Migrants, even internal migrants, are still a minority of China's population as you state and I notice you use the statement 'suspected.'
As you correctly state figures can go up and down, nonetheless most selective areas have above average GCSE results
China's gdp is growing rapidly and that is filtering down to gdp per capita, by 2050 the OECD has forecast it will be a developed country with a higher gdp per capita than many western nations, negative the effect you describe
' In 2013 the county's grammar schools said they were introducing a new test that would be more resistant to coaching, to counter allegations that selection was stressful, unfair and disadvantaging poor children. The promise was of less worry and expense, along with wider access to grammar schools, which currently take far fewer children eligible for free school meals than the proportion in their local areas.
But a detailed analysis of entry patterns, pass rates, ethnicity and family backgrounds of pupils who took the test last year has been shown to the Guardian. It suggests that, if anything, the new test may have made things worse.'
Still not sure why you keep mentioning plumbers who didn't pass the 11+ as a good reason for selection at a very young age. Are you suggesting they became wealthy plumbers because they failed the 11+? My brother was expelled from two grammar schools, no qualifications and is now a millionaire. Is that a recommendation in support of getting expelled?
No, and of course on average the more qualifications you have the more you earn. However, outside of graduates in the high earning professions or the private sector I was pointing out that some non-graduate less academic traders and small businessmen could well earn more than some graduates in the public or not for profit sectors if they build up a successful business.
When I took the 11 plus it was only the "top" ten per cent who were selected. Howver one of the things that sank the 11 plus was that it was simply not reliable enough. It produced too many "false positives" people who passed but then struggled later on, and certainly too many "false negatives" although exactly how many we will never know.
However it was noticeable that when the OU started it was full of students who were 11 plus failures.
… voters have been on our side. Most people want to keep their local hospital and want to keep their local schools open to everyone. Most people didn’t want the Royal Mail sold off and didn’t much like the look of either Labour …
Pages
Add new comment