19th October 2001 - The
Daily Telegraph
"Further
evidence of the importance of Grammar Schools in Selective areas is demonstrated
by the latest research from N.F.E.R. - The impact of Selection on Pupil
Performance" by Ian Schagen and Sandie Schagen,
presented at the NFER Council meeting 19th Oct 2001. This endorsement
of selection in secondary education is being notably ignored by the anti-grammar
school lobby - and has not been deemed worthy of mention in the TES"
The following is an extract from the Daily Telegraph-John Clarke
- Education Editor - 19 October 2001.
Pupils do better
at grammar and secondary modern schools than at comprehensives, both overall
and in most ability ranges, the most authoritative study of its type showed.
The study's most striking conclusion was that children of average and
above-average ability at comprehensives fall a year behind those at grammar
schools because their teachers fail to "create a climate of high
achievement and aspirations".
Children of lower abilities also did slightly better at secondary moderns
than comprehensives, the study found.
Only among children of the highest ability was there any evidence that
comprehensives performed as well as or better than selective schools,
and even then it was not conclusive.
The report, published by the National Foundation for Educational Research,
which is funded by local education authorities, stopped short of recommending
the re introduction of selection.
Instead, it suggested that comprehensive authorities "may wish to
consider whether it is possible to replicate the 'grammar school effect'
in a totally different context."
Unlike much previous research, which claimed to show that the comprehensive
system was superior, this study measured the progress pupils made in different
kinds of schools over five years from 11 to 16.
Earlier research, often criticised for being politically biased, has effectively
ignored the first three years of secondary education.
Because the data does not yet exist to carry out a single analysis of
pupils' progress from Key Stage 2 to GCSE, the researchers, Ian and Sandie
Schagen, studies two separate groups - one from Key Stage 2 in 1997 to
Key Stage 3 in 2000, and one from Key Stage 3 in 1998 to GCSE in 2000.
They compared the value schools added in three types of local education
authority: those with fully comprehensive systems: those with up to 20
per cent of secondary pupils in grammar schools (low selection); and those
with more than 20 per cent in grammar schools (high selection).
Studying the progress pupils made from Key State 2 (age 11) to 3 (aged
14), the researchers found that the selective authorities achieved significantly
better results overall than comprehensive ones.
In particular, 14 year-olds in grammar schools were a year ahead of pupils
of the same ability who attended comprehensive schools, while those at
comprehensives did not better than those who went to secondary moderns.
"Selective systems obtain good results, particularly at Key Stage
3, because the grammar schools are remarkably successful in enhancing
the performance of their least able pupils - the ones who gain their grammar
school places by a relatively narrow margin," said the report.
"There is a common view that borderline pupils fare better at the
top of secondary modern schools, rather than struggling in grammar schools:
our research completely contradicts that assumption."
The main reason for the pupils' success was that the grammar school teachers
had high expectations. Comparing the progress pupils in the second group
made from Key Stage 3 to GCSE, the study found that those in low selection
areas - where the grammars are most selective - did slightly better overall
than those in comprehensive areas, while those in high selection areas
did slightly worse.
In this group, pupils of average ability performed significantly better
in grammar schools than they did in comprehensives, while those in secondary
moderns did not perform quite so well.
However, given that Key Stage 3 results formed the foundation of GCSE
work, the report said it was reasonable to hypothesise that selective
systems produce somewhat better results overall.
It went on:"It would be difficult, at present, for any local education
authority to completely change their system of secondary education. Authorities
which still have their selection can become comprehensive only if eligible
parents vote for change.
"While there is no equivalent legislation governing comprehensive
authorities, it is unlikely that they would be given permission to become
selective, even supposing they wished to do so.
"The challenge for comprehensive schools will be to create a climate
of high achievement and aspirations, so that their pupils of average ability
perform at the level reached by those in grammar schools."
|