UP-DATED: The Kent grammar data that shows why David Willetts was probably right

UP-DATED: The Kent grammar data that shows why David Willetts was probably right

by Paul on Politics, by political editor Paul Francis Friday, April 27 2012

UP-DATED TUESDAY MAY 1/2012

A couple of developments since we published our original story about the number of private school pupils being offered places at Kent's grammars. First a story in which KCC underlines that coaching is not permitted and emphasising that schools (both independent and state) could face sanctions if they breach its rules.

And here, courtesy of KCC, is an extract from the rules sent to every school each year about the 11+. What intrigues me is that it is very evident from anyone you speak to that coaching and preparation takes place at many schools. Whether they are technically in breach of these rules is anybody's guess but it is hard to imagine, given the intense competition for places, that there aren't some who sail pretty close to the wind.

KCC - what it tells schools they can't do:

Back in 2007, the then Conservative education spokesman David Willetts made a keynote speech in which he had the temerity - some say bravery - to announce that a future Conservative government would not re-introduce selection or the 11-plus. 

Why? Because the party believed that grammars no longer offered a leg up to children from poorer backgrounds and the argument they enhance social mobility was not borne out by the evidence.

He said: "If the evidence were different and if grammar schools could still work as they might once have done, transforming the opportunities of many children from poor backgrounds then we would be obliged to look very seriously at the case for their introduction. But the fact is that grammar schools don't any longer work like that."

It is an argument that is reinforced by data we publish today detailing the impact - significant in many grammars in Kent - that fee-paying schools have in terms of taking up places.

In some senses, the statistics do not come as a surprise. There has always been plenty of anecdotal evidence around that prep schools are seen as a way, for those who can afford it, to secure a place at a top-performing state selective school.

But the figures, coupled with the strikingly low number of children on free school meals at grammars and the intensive private coaching culture used by parents to advance the prospects of their children passing the 11-plus, show David Willetts had a point.

Despite the hue and cry among those in the party who were aghast that the Conservatives were ditching a totemic policy, it is hard to advance an argument that there is a level playing field when it comes to the 11-plus.

Of course, the argument can be made that the way to counter the impact of private schools and improve social mobility would be to have more grammars. 

But unless they could somehow be ring fenced for pupils at state primaries, the likelihood is they would become vulnerable to the same phenomenon - and it will be interesting to see what will happen to the intake of the new satellite grammar school planned for Sevenoaks. I imagine the thriving independent sector in that part of the county will simply see the availibility of more places as something to exploit and there will be nothing anyone - least of all Kent county council - can do to stop it.

It's worth making the point that independent schools, unlike state primaries, are not encumbered by the key stage one and two tests meaning they have a further advantage.

So, given that the selective system is not going to go away in Kent, is there a solution? KCC has asked headteachers to examine whether there could be changes to the tests that would make them less susceptible to the coaching culture.

It is a conundrum that no-one has yet been able to resolve - the existing tests were said to be immune from coaching but that has long been acknowledged as a fallacy.  

It is hard to disagree, in the face of the evidence, with David Willetts' conclusion that "the uncomfortable truth is that our schools are not still spreading educational opportunities, they are entrenching social advantage."

Kent has plenty of challenges on the education front.

But if our politicians are to tackle the disadvantages faced by children from poorer backgrounds and wish to be able to claim that grammars do act as agents of social mobility, they will have to do much more to tackle the disparity between the intakes of selective and non-selective schools.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ever wondered what county councillors might do if they were forced by the public to debate a plan to reduce their numbers and cut the amount of money they cost the taxpayer?

Well, a petition demanding just that has appeared on KCC's website for e-petitions. It has a bit of a way to go before reaching the threshold for a debate but here's a thought: if our elected representatives are so sure of their value for money, surely the best thing to do would be for them to sign it so we can all hear their arguments?

Read the petition here:

https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=192&RPID=4216050&HPID=4216050&TPID=4216052

 

testsrules.doc (20.50 kb)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tags: , , , ,
Categories: election | Freedom of Information

Comments

Friday, April 27 2012 #

JOHNH


Young  people  sit  regular  exams  -   11+  ,  GCSE  ,  A  levels  ,  degrees  etc.
At  all  levels  those  who  do  best  are  those  who  bother  to  prepare  .  If  
somebody  is  not  willing  to  spend  the  necessary  time  to  help  their  children  prepare  for  11+  what  are  the  odds  of  them  being  willing  to  help  out  with  secondary  school  work  ?  There  is  a  misguided  notion  out  there  that  11+  is  all  about  identifying  "  natural  talent  "  .  In  reality  results  are  achieved  by  a  combination  of  both  talent  &  hard  work  . Those  who  can  be  bothered  to  prepare  deserve  their  places  ..
And  it's  not  all  about  money  as  some  like  to  pretend  .  I  can't  afford  a
private  tutor  for  my  kids  so  coached  them  myself  .  If  some  folk  are  unwilling  to  devote the  time  to  preparing  their  kids  for  11+  it is  not  reasonable  to  conclude  that  their  kids  have  been  treated  "  unfairly  "  or  that  the  system  somehow  favours  the  better  off  .
The  system  favours  those  who  can  be  bothered  to  find  out  what  the  rules  are  &  to  do  the  necessary  preparation  .  It  is  ,  in  short  ,  a  meritocratic  system  ..

Report Abuse JOHNH United Kingdom

Wednesday, May 2 2012 #

Nick Seaton

Paul Francis is not being realistic here. The evidence shows that David Willetts is wrong.
Also, the most probable reason why so many pupils from independent prep schools do well in the 11-plus is that they have received a better primary-level education than many of their peers from state primary schools.
Paul also ignores the obvious: that many aspirational families seeking the best education for their children can afford fees for primary-level prep schools, but find private secondary-level fees impossible, especially when there is more than one child.
Perhaps readers should ask themselves why Paul wants to shackle aspirational families and their children instead of offering more grammar school places?  How can this  help those who are less fortunate?  Nick Seaton.

Report Abuse Nick Seaton United Kingdom

Wednesday, May 2 2012 #

Paul Francis

Nick, I don't want to shackle anyone. I am interested in all sides of the debate but feel that debate has to be informed by full data and as much information as possible. The indisputable fact is that a thriving private coaching culture, coupled with the impact of places being taken by pupils from fee-paying schools, tilts the system in favour of those who can afford it - accepting that it is a variable impact.

If everything was really alright with the tests, why would the Conservative-controlled Kent County Council be so concerned that they have asked their own headteachers to come up with alternatives?

Is a grammar school really an agent of social mobility where 40% of its intake comes from the private sector and an unidentified number have got there with the help of private tuition?

Report Abuse Paul Francis United Kingdom

Wednesday, May 2 2012 #

Nick Seaton

Yes, Paul, I quite agree about as much information as possible to inform the debate.
But how, in a free society, can you ban children from private schools from joining the state system or taking the 11-plus, when their parents have paid their taxes to fund state schools?
Can you prove that falls in social mobility since the 1950s and 1960s was not largely caused by closure of grammar schools?
Surely you understand that poor performance in Kent is not due to the failure of grammar schools, but to the failure of some non-selective schools, both academies and secondary modern. These are the schools that should be monitored and improved and why hasn't that already been done?

Report Abuse Nick Seaton United Kingdom

Wednesday, May 2 2012 #

Paul Francis

Nick, I've never suggested that you can - or ought to - ban children from private schools from going to state schools. I simply think that it is interesting and important to note the impact they have on admissions. If you create more grammars, the phenomenon would continue - indeed, I imagine that private prep schools already are looking ahead to the opening of a new satellite grammar in Sevenoaks.

Are you saying that the selective system has absolutely no impact at all on the performance of non-selective schools (whose 'performance' is measured in the same way by the government's yardsticks)?

I can't 'prove' anything about social mobility other than point to the data available on things like FSM and offers being made to fee-paying pupils which to me suggests there are schools in Kent who could not really be described as being the agents of social mobility they are often claimed to be.

I'll give you another chance to ask the same question: Is a grammar school really an agent of social mobility where 40% of its intake comes from the private sector and an unidentified number have got there with the help of private tuition? Yes or no?

Report Abuse Paul Francis United Kingdom

Wednesday, May 2 2012 #

Nick Seaton

I'll answer your question first,Paul.
Of course grammar schools are agents of social mobility when 40% of its intake comes from the private sector. The other 60% doesn't and there would be little demand for private tuition if all state primary schools were more effective and competition for too few places wasn't so fierce. Private tuition didn't exist as far as I know in the 1950s and for many years afterwards.
On the point about grammars impacting performance in other nearby schools, please see what the research says:
• 'The majority of studies (and all of those we judge to be methodologically strongest) report that pupils who attend grammar schools do better than equally able pupils in comprehensives...In terms of raw KS4 (GCSE) results, it is clear that pupils in grammar schools do much better... The most socially selective state schools in the country are ‘nonselective’ schools...We have also failed to find any evidence of collateral harm to any other schools, arising from the existence of grammar schools. Overall, schools are just as likely to be performing well, whether or not they are ‘creamed’ by a grammar school.'
Evidence on the effects of  selective educational systems - A report for the Sutton Trust by Robert Coe et al, CEM Centre, Durham University,  October 2008.
In 2010, 72% of Waddesdon Sec. Modern School in Bucks achieved 5 or more A*-C GCSEs including English and maths. 70% of Wellington Sec. Modern School in Trafford achieved the same. Both surrounded by grammars! So why do so few all-ability comps in totally comprehensive areas achieve the same performance?  

Report Abuse Nick Seaton United Kingdom

Wednesday, May 2 2012 #

Linda Casey

Nick Seaton is definitely being 'selective' in choice of research. Research from the OECD(PISA) consistently shows that selective schools confer little, if any, benefit to overall achievement by those 'selected'. When ballots to end selection were
introduced Crook, Power and Whitty looked at the evidence and concluded
that research did not really support either side of the argument. Coe reviewed much of the research. He found that pupils in grammars did little better than similar pupils in other schools; a difference somewhere between zero and ¾ of a GCSE grade.

However, there is a great cost to local communities. Firstly financial (KCC in 2000 gave the costs of the 11+ process in excess of half a million) - it will be a great deal more twelve years on. What a waste of taxpayers money.

Secondly, the costs of social segregation. PISA 2003 said, "countries with greater socio-economic inclusion tend to have higher overall performance’. In other words integration, equity and excellence tend to go together. What we have in Kent is a socially divisive system, where passing the 11+ goes hand in hand with coaching, whether the coaching is at a prep school or with a private tutor. Most children in Kent attend secondary modern schools. Evidence shows that the best schools for the whole community are those with a broad social and ability mix. Time to get rid of this outdated and discredited system of dividing children at ten years old.

Report Abuse Linda Casey United Kingdom

Wednesday, May 2 2012 #

Nick Seaton


For the benefit of Linda Casey, I repeat an extract from the above:
'The majority of studies (and all of those we judge to be methodologically strongest) report that pupils who attend grammar schools do better than equally able pupils in comprehensives...In terms of raw KS4 (GCSE) results, it is clear that pupils in grammar schools do much better...
Does Linda know exactly how many schools in Kent still are secondary moderns? Very few now, I would guess, as there are only around 150 in all of England.
51% of Kent's 'high attainers' (at 11) achieve the EBac standard. Can Linda find a totally comprehensive LA where more than half its high attainers do the same?  
This doesn't mean the others don't matter. Sadly, too often, they don't get decent schools, but that's not the grammar schools' fault.

Report Abuse Nick Seaton United Kingdom

Comments are closed

Paul on Politics, by political editor Paul Francis

News, views, gossip and analysis on Kent's political scene, from County Hall to Westminster.

Welcome to my blog. As KM Group's political editor, I keep an eye on the county's corridors of power.

Let me know what you think - you can add your comments or views at the end of each blog entry. You can email me at pfrancis@thekmgroup.co.uk.

Or follow me at http://twitter.com/PaulOnPolitics

Subscribe to Paul on Politics, by political editor Paul Francis's Blog
My Social Networks

Got a bee in your bonnet?

Bloggy BeeIf you have a voice, and would like it to be heard, why not consider writing a blog for our site?

Click here to send us a message and let us know!

Welcome to our blogs!

Our Blogs

Tag cloud

Topics of Conversation