Survey shows head teachers are against selection and grammars

The Kent Education Network (KEN), assisted by think tank LKMco, surveyed head teachers in the three largest fully selective local authorities in England: Kent, Buckinghamshire & Lincolnshire. The survey highlights widespread dissatisfaction with the grammar school system, with 71 per cent of respondents preferring comprehensive schooling to a selective system.

Among the problems highlighted by heads were the increasing use of test tutoring to win grammar school places; the stress that children suffer due to the pressure of the 11+ test; and the impact on children’s self-esteem and future ambition.  Head teachers also expressed concern about the impact of grammars on surrounding schools. A ‘secondary modern’ effect was described, alongside concerns that non-grammars in selective areas discourage academic aspirations and are perceived as lesser schools.

Joanne Bartley, chair of KEN, said: “As the government seems intent on expanding grammar schools, we thought it useful to survey head teachers in selective areas to seek their experiences of working under a selective system. These heads know how the 11+ impacts their pupils and have their own insights into the ways secondary schools are changed by the presence of grammar schools.

“I was particularly struck by the mention of pressure and tears around the 11+, while at the same time head teachers observe that the test itself has problems. I feel children trust their schools, and trust us as adults, but we are deciding their suitability for schools based on a test that is itself seriously flawed. The heads also suggest that the age of taking the test is inappropriate, while it appears that the most vulnerable pupils find the test significantly harder to pass.”

Sam Baars, Director of Research at LKMco, said, “LKMco feel strongly that an expansion of grammar schools is not the way to support the achievement of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. While grammars do support a very small number of disadvantaged pupils to do well, the evidence remains clear: they have a negative impact on the vast majority of disadvantaged young people who don’t take, or pass, the 11 plus.

We are delighted to have been able to support the Kent Education Network’s research, which shows that even teachers in selective areas are broadly sceptical about the benefits of grammar schools and their capacity to make our education system fairer. We hope this research will help to encourage greater scrutiny of the government’s proposals.”

Key survey findings about 11+ problems

  • 78 per cent of heads believe that the age of ten or eleven is an inappropriate age to judge children’s ability;
  • 59 per cent of heads think that failing the 11 plus impacts upon a pupil’s ambition or aspiration;
  • 92 per cent of heads believe that failure can impact negatively on a child’s self-esteem;
  • 96 per cent of respondents believe that test tutoring has a significant impact on pass rates.

Heads were invited to submit comments anonymously and many expressed worries about the test process. One head said: “The pressure to pass the 11+ from parents when pupils are in year 4 and 5 is causing a huge amount of anxiety in young pupils. Some children who could do very well at a grammar school in terms of ability are denied the opportunity due to the stress and pressure of completing the test. Many pupils mature and grow in year 6 following the test.”

Another head teacher claimed that: “The selection process can be soul-destroying for children.”

One head described how their school was expected to respond to the 11+. “As a primary school, we have many families who believe that our sole purpose is to get their children through the 11+… Failing the test has social implications – particularly in middle class and aspirational families. Some children are tutored for two years before their 11+ and placed under enormous pressure by their friends and family.” 

The emotional impact of the 11+ was highlighted by many school leaders: “Parents discuss the 11+ throughout their child’s time at primary school. The pressure on children is immense and seeing the tears and stress of these children reveals how damaging the system can be.”

One secondary school head said, “The culture of some children being superior to others at the age of eleven is horrific. It damages the students and we spend the first three years rebuilding their self-esteem. It damages communities with ‘us and them’ attitudes, and it damages the profession:  teachers want to work with all abilities – or at least great teachers should do.”

KEN asked heads if any specific groups of pupils were disadvantaged by living in a grammar school area. They said that children from low income families, dyslexic children and those with Special Educational Needs were most disadvantaged.

Key findings about pupil groups disadvantaged by the 11+

  • 80 per cent of heads feel children from low income families are disadvantaged by the 11+;
  • 78 per cent of heads feel dyslexic children are disadvantaged by the 11+;
  • 79 per cent of heads feel Special Educational Needs (SEN) pupils are disadvantaged by the 11+;
  • 71 per cent of heads believe pupils who speak English as an additional language (EAL) are disadvantaged by the 11+.

One head said: “Grammar schools clearly take fewer children from vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. They encourage tutoring to “pass” a selection test which more wealthy parents can afford; they therefore discriminate against lower income families, regardless of ability. Grammar schools teach a minority of where they are situated.”

Another said, “It penalises children from disadvantaged families who can’t afford tutors or who pass but then can’t afford the travel to school.”

The impact of the test on the balance of pupils in non-selective schools was also mentioned in the comments: “Huge numbers of SEN and children with challenging behaviour attend the non-selective schools and this has an impact on all children within their schools.”

KEN sought the heads views on how grammar schools impact the surrounding schools:

Key findings about the impact of grammar schools on other local schools

  • 79 per cent of heads feel parents hold grammar schools in higher regard than other local schools;
  • 57 per cent of heads state that staff recruitment is a problem in non-selective schools in grammar areas;
  • 83 per cent of heads agree that non-selective schools in grammar areas manage higher proportions of Special Educational Needs pupils as well as children who do not speak English as a first language;
  • 32 per cent of heads think non-selective schools in selective areas offered less traditionally academic subject choices and/or sixth form options;
  • 47 per cent of heads feel a child in a comprehensive school was more likely to reach university than a child of similar ability in a non-selective school in a grammar school area.

One head commented: “Children don’t value their non-selective school as they are only there because they failed, rather than by choice.”  Another said: “Children in non-selective schools can feel second best. The existence of selection creates a social divide between communities.”

One head worried about the lack of ambition potentially caused by divided schools: “It removes breadth of ability across all schools; this lowers the aspirations of non-selective pupils.”

Our survey also sought head’s views on the government’s plan to expand grammar schools.

Key findings on plans to expand grammar schools

  • 69 per cent of heads do not believe new grammar schools should be permitted, while 20 per cent support grammar school expansion;
  • 51 per cent believe grammar schools impact negatively on social mobility in their area;
  • 45 per cent agree that grammar schools should adopt fair access strategies such as prioritising, or setting aside places, for pupils of lower household income;
  • 42 per cent of heads disagree with the idea that grammar schools can successfully create non-selective school places, with 25% of heads unsure.

The idea of expanding grammar schools was criticised by a few heads. One said: “It would be a tragedy for education to extend selection, which has been the blight of state education in Kent.” Another said: ““There are no advantages to grammar schools – they are a privilege for the privileged.”

Dr Michael Collins, KEN’s head of research, said: “We hope the results of this survey will assist the current debate about the possible expansion of grammar schools. It is clear that the teaching profession sees little benefit in an 11+ system. We hope politicians will listen to advice from experts rather than expanding the use of a pseudo-scientific selection test that clearly gives a greater chance of a pass to the wealthy and educationally advantaged.”

The full survey report is available on the Kent Education Network here:

ken-grammar-area-heads-survey-report

Please follow and like us:

KCC TURNS BLIND EYE TO RULE BREAKING BY PREP SCHOOLS

While Kent County Council forbids state schools from practising for the Kent Test, it ignores the fact that most independent prep schools openly admit to coaching for the test

KCC sends junior schools in Kent a clear instruction: “Coaching is not required or permitted. If we receive evidence that a school is coaching, we reserve the right to ‘unlink’ it from the 11 plus process and no longer to send test materials to the premises.”

Despite this instruction, private schools openly advertise their successes in coaching for the Kent Test; yet KCC has never taken action to stop the practice.

Kent Education Network has approached 18 independent primary schools to ask what level of coaching for the Kent Test was offered in each school. Of the ten schools that responded, only one, Chartfield School in Westgate-On-Sea, pointed out that 11 plus coaching was not allowed in any school, saying that the practice was “not ethical.”

The majority of schools admitted to 11 plus coaching, with some, like St Lawrence College Junior School, even boasting on its web site that: “Thorough preparation for the Kent Test is a significant priority at SLCJS. In Years 4 and 5, TLS lessons concentrate to a greater extent on the Verbal and Non-Verbal Reasoning skills that candidates need to polish in readiness for the Kent Test.”

Kent Education Network believes that the significant amount of time prep schools spend on coaching pupils is not only unfair, it undermines any notion of social mobility. A study of the results for schools which admitted to coaching, showed that these schools were achieving 90 -100 per cent success rates at sending pupils to grammar schools. While the 11 plus pass rate in state schools which do not coach is generally between 25 – 45 per cent.

Dr.Michael Collins, KEN’s head of research, said: “State primary schools stick to the council’s rule and no child is prepared for the test, while prep schools appear to think they can do what they like and ignore the rules. KCC recently undertook a four-month study of grammar schools by a commission appointed to examine ways of increasing social mobility

“The commission failed to consider that around 14 per cent of grammar school places are given to children from prep schools; it’s clear that coaching is denying grammar school places to children from poorer families. We believe that KCC should act immediately to ban any prep school that undertakes coaching from entering pupils the Kent Test. There should not be one rule for parents who pay for education, and another rule for parents who cannot afford it.”

Kent Education Network have presented Kent County Council with their evidence and will raise the matter with the Office of the School Adjudicator if no action is taken.

 

Please follow and like us:

Cheating, £1000 appeals advisors, and lying prep schools, the reality of grammar school Kent

212px-theresa_mayOn Friday Theresa May has announced her plans for new grammar schools. Although these are schools for high achievers she didn’t once say the policy was to solve the problem of poor results for bright pupils in mixed-ability schools. If that was the point then she would find many ideas that would work just as well. If that was the plan, then she would find evidence that many good comprehensive schools get great results for bright pupils already.

I would love a straight answer on exactly what problem this plan is fixing. Does Theresa May believe high achieving children can do well in mixed ability schools? If so then there is no point going ahead with this and denying schools to families for no reason. If she thinks they can’t educate these children succesfully then she should be fair to all high ability children and turn the clock back to a widespread eleven-plus and grammar schools for all who are ‘suited’ to them.

As there is no obvious problem solved then this is a pointless ideological crusade. She is changing education to offer grammar schools as a prize to a certain sort of voter. She holds aloft an opportunity of a better school to those who deserve this, and they deserve it if they have a better than average child. And of course every parent believes their child is better than average… ‘Not like the lazy ones, stupid ones, or the ones who mess about in class,or get pregnant at fourteen*.’ So of course this is a popular plan, it offers a premium school for everyone’s special son or daughter. It would also win votes if you offered better NHS hospitals to some, all you’d need to do is convince those who might benefit that it was morally fair – it’s a vote winner!

May mentioned ‘house price selection’ but if this is really the problem there are many better solutions. If she worries about the wealthy buying the best school places, the wealthy win the best school places in every grammar school area there is. So she’ll go from school admissions favouring the wealthy and needing a fix, to grammar school admissions that favour the wealthy and certainly need a fix.

This week a report listed the schools with the greatest difference in price between the postcode of the school and the surrounding area. They were all grammar schools. It proved what everyone in grammar school areas knows, most grammar schools have house price selection too.  It’s not enough to pay for a tutor to win a pass, if the school is oversubscribed then you need to live as close as possible to the school and buy the right house.

And all the children who are not selected for the new grammar schools also need to live on the right street to attend popular non-selective schools. To add to the oddness of this policy to ‘fix’ school admissions, more faith schools are also part of the plan.

If you wanted a method to create sink schools for poor children then I’d suggest the following:

  • Deny children access to good schools based on a test result, a test many children will not even take because their parents don’t engage with it
  • Deny children access to good schools because parents don’t go to church or have faith.
  • Deny children access to the remaining good schools, because they can’t afford a more expensive house on a nearby street. Kent estate agents talk up prices near any oversubscribed school.

There may be one or two schools left with poor reputations, those are the ones the poor kids get. This is what happens in Kent. It’s why our county’s results for disadvantaged children are so bad.

cqxkusnwiaeztq4The clamour for grammar school places is worse than any house price selection nonsense. A few weeks ago I saw a bus driving around Canterbury advertising a prep school by saying more than 94% of children passed the Kent Test.  I Googled the school, and found a Mumsnet discussion where a mum  described it as, ‘An eleven-plus factory.’ The lovely school was promoting the savings made if you paid its £2865 termly fees as ‘an investment’ because you wouldn’t need to pay for a private secondary school with a grammar school pass. They even suggested that a child of any ability could make it to grammar school. Stupidity not a problem.

The school actually had just a 54% pass rate in the Kent Test. They did the usual prep school thing of winning many places through appeal, but even then it was 84% not 94%. I reported their ad to the ASA who upheld the complaint and the school said they would change their adverts. Only in a grammar school area is there this sort of marketing around school admissions.

This week I also noted some minutes from Kent County Council’s commission on social mobility in grammar schools. I was staggered to come across a head teacher telling a council meeting that he knew cheating was going on. He explained that no one checked the identity of the children taking out of county tests.  The poor administration of the test is one thing, but what shocked me most is that there are parents desperate enough to get a grammar school place that they get an older brother or sister to take the test in place of their ten year old. One head joked that some children taking the test had beards.

It is almost funny, but also sad. Parents are desperate to win a good school place and grammar schools have a reputation that inspire this kind of desperate action. I don’t know how Theresa May intends to combat these side effects of two tier education. When you have ‘better schools for clever children’ no one wants their child to be proven ‘not clever’ so a fight for places ensues. I am sure some parents will quit jobs so they will qualify for the low income criteria. I’m sure some will be keen to claim benefits to get in the pupil premium way. As less regular school places will be available the house prices in streets near grammar schools will go up. May’s plan won’t fix ‘house price selection’ one bit, grammar schools still have catchment areas. Parents with money will find new ways to increase their chances of a place.

People should also be prepared for a host of new grammar school services. In Kent we have grammar school appeals advisors. It costs £300-500 for a letter, or £1,000 for an appearance to convince a panel a child should get a grammar place. It is a dubious profession but apparently it works. Parents get the school they want, and I suppose they’re happy because it is much cheaper than moving house.

One Mum emailed me this week to say she had spent £2,000 on tutors because aside from the excellent local grammars in her area the only choices were faith schools or one school rated ‘Requires Improvement.’ She wasn’t religious and said tutoring was the only way, everyone did it, and if she didn’t pay the tutor fees her child was likely to get a poor quality school.

I will be surprised if Theresa May can put a grammar school plan in place that fixes all these ridiculous side effects of grammar school admissions. She appeals to voters with a ‘premium school’ for their child, but I don’t think she knows the lengths parents will go to win that prize.

I hope this plan will be defeated, I we will never find out.

Joanne Bartley

* Genuine reason for supporting grammars I’ve heard from parents, who all quite honestly admit they want schools that keep their child away from a certain ‘type’ of child. It’s not about the exam results for everybody, and the comment about teenage pregnancy came from a retired teacher.

Please follow and like us:

Kent head on the problems facing non-selective schools in a test focused education system

Thanks to Phil Karnavas, head of the Canterbury Academy, for sharing this article about measuring results in a non-selective school.

phil karnavasIt is that time of year again. We hope all students have got their fair reward for their hard work during Key Stage 4.

English education seems to value that which it can measure and what it appears to be measuring, through traditional end of course examinations, is an increasingly narrow academic curriculum. Thus, under this model, it must follow that students whose abilities are academic and/or who are good at examinations will do better than students whose abilities lay in other areas and/or who are not good at examinations.

In Kent’s fully selective academic system it must also inevitably follow that schools that pick students precisely because their abilities are academic will do better than schools that do, and can, not. Thus, some students will be judged to do well because of the system whilst many others have to do well in spite of it.

Does this mean that the students, and the schools, that do better under this model are to be valued more highly, and judged to be more worthy, than those that do not ? Does it mean that those students who do not do well academically in terms of 5, or 8, GCSE grades A*-C, and their schools, are to be cast into the darkness ?

 One hopes we are more enlightened.

There are many inherent dangers of this system. One is comparing schools and forming a misjudgement that one is necessarily better than another. Another is that non-selectives feel the need to become watered down grammar schools and offer an educational  experience which is inappropriate for a significant proportion of their students.

This generation of students is the most tested in history and they are also the most messed about. They have experienced examination syllabus change – in some cases mid way through a course, the removal of qualifications that count, the reduction in the value of qualifications that count, the restriction on combinations of qualifications that count, the ending of coursework and a series of pass mark increases in subjects that count.  To raise standards more students must ‘fail’. It is more difficult to get a grade A*-C and this year, nationally speaking, the percentage attaining these ‘good’ GCSE grades has gone down dramatically. In Kent this will disproportionately hit the non-selective schools.

This year’s change is Progress 8, which few people will understand, and which was introduced after many students had started their GCSE courses in Year 9. At The Canterbury High School it meant that approximately a quarter of the year did not do 8 qualifying subjects upon which this measure is based. Next year’s change will be the replacement of grades by numbers in maths and English and then, the year after that, in other subjects. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that all of the present, and the future, accountability measures favour grammar schools and disadvantage non selectives.

 This must make it hard for parents to follow and who may well, understandably, be uncertain as to what any of it now means. This uncertainty will be compounded by the various ways that school leaders may manipulate, or present, their statistics.

Being as straightforward as possible, then, we can say that The Canterbury High School did better this year than last. We know our maths and English GC SE ‘good’ grades have gone up. We know our specialisms in Sport and Performing Arts were very successful. We also know there are some areas to work on. We know that the percentage of students attaining 5A*-C, including maths & English, has gone up. It will not be less than 45/46%. We would have liked it to be higher. We believe that our Progress 8 score has gone up from what it would have been last year and is now fractionally positive. If we are right then this is remarkable given nearly 25% of the year group will not be measured on 8 qualifying subjects. We know this year group had their exams disrupted by the bomb scare.

At The Canterbury High School some students have done extremely well, some have done well, some will get what they expected and some will be disappointed.  However, as far as we are concerned, none have failed and the ‘door of life chances’ has not been slammed irreversibly shut in anyone’s face.  Different students have different skills, abilities, aptitudes and interests and just as there are different types of success there are  different ways to achieve it.

 

Please follow and like us:

100 Tory MPs back scrapping the ban on new grammar schools – KEN’s response

convoiceThe Telegraph recently reported that Conservative Voice, a Tory activist group, will formally  campaign to allow new grammar schools. This open letter is a response to their campaign.

Dear Conservative Voice,

The Kent Education Network is a community campaign group seeking to end the divisive eleven plus system in our county. On hearing the news that you wish to change the law and bring back grammar schools we wanted to point out the problems of academic selection in Kent.

Kent is a fully selective county, with more than 15,000 ten year olds judged by the eleven plus every year. Around 33,000 children attend Kent grammar schools while 86,000 children attend ‘high schools.’ High schools are not comprehensive schools as you would find in other areas, they do not teach pupils of all abilities, they are effectively secondary modern schools. Just 2,000 disadvantaged children gain places in Kent selective schools while more than 23,000 disadvantaged pupils attend the high schools. Kent County Council recently commissioned a committee to look at the problems of social mobility in grammar schools. We find it odd that your group wishes to expand this form of schooling when the largest selective local authority admits grammar schools are rarely an option for disadvantaged children. We don’t know of any other council that needs to review social mobility problems caused by its own school admission policy.

There seems to be no research, and no evidence, involved in your wish to expand grammar schools. We would invite MPs who support this campaign to visit Kent to see for themselves how a two tier education system really works. We would point out the advertising on local buses promoting prep schools by boasting of 93% eleven plus pass rates. We would suggest a trip to a Saturday morning eleven-plus tutoring centre, to understand that paying for coaching is commonplace. We would like MPs to tour one of our many ‘inadequate’ secondary moderns, with limited academic subjects offered at sixth form, and teacher recruitment problems caused by teachers choosing to teach at grammar schools.

We would suggest MPs talk to Kent primary school heads and ask them how accurate they think the eleven plus is at judging our children. We would suggest MPs seek the views of parents of dyslexic children, or children for whom English is not a first language, who believe children have less chance of an eleven plus pass. We would advise MPs to speak to Kent County Council, to query how fair the system is when an appeals process gives 7% of grammar school places to children who do not even reach the pass mark. We would ask MPs to meet one of our county’s school appeals advisors, to find out about their £1,000 fee for representing a child in their grammar school appeal case. We would suggest MPs talk to Kent children, too. Our children learn perfectly well in mixed ability primary schools, but then they are told they must be taught in separate buildings for secondary school.

Any call for more grammar schools should be backed up with facts, not nostalgia that grammars were a good thing, or, “I went to one, it worked for me.” Kent, Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire all operate an eleven plus system, and show worse results for disadvantaged children, and no clear results advantage overall.

The recent White Paper promised the government would hold schools to account for ensuring each child reaches their full potential. We support this aim. There is rigorous testing in schools already, so an eleven-plus is unnecessary. If any school is fails to educate their most able children to their full potential then the problem lies with the individual school, not the system of education.

In Kent children’s potential is too often wasted because we assume a a two hour multiple choice test is an accurate judge of our county’s ten year olds. Department for Education statistics show there are more bright disadvantaged children in Kent high schools than there are in Kent grammar schools, yet one in four of those high schools is rated by Ofsted as requires improvement on inadequate.

Perhaps the 100 MPs who support grammar schools would like to undertake one final research task? They could each take an eleven plus test and let us know their scores. The 28 with the highest points could sit in a different building from the rest, and the lower scoring 72 might learn how it feels to be judged lesser than their peers. They might even wonder if it’s right that their worth is based on a number, a simple statistic, that takes no account of hard work, interests, ambition or any character strengths that make us who we are, and influence learning too.

Kent is stuck with the awful eleven plus, but we hope no more children will ever be subjected to this old fashioned, unscientific judgement. Dividing children with a test is no way to create ‘one nation Britain’ it creates a rift in our schools. It’s a backward step that aims to please parents but unthinkingly harms children.

Regards,

Joanne Bartley, KEN chair
Dr.Michael Collins, Lecturer University of Kent, education researcher
Alan Bainbridge, Senior Lecturer, School of Childhood and Education Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University
Jim Parish, grandad, KEN press officer
Amy Haslam, 16, high school pupil
with the support of KEN members.

Please follow and like us:

KEN’s submission to the Kent County Council commission on social mobility in grammar schools

By Dr. Michael Collins

Last February, we, the Kent Education Network (a cross-party, voluntary think-tank of Kent parents, teachers and academics opposed to selective education), were invited to submit evidence to KCC’s investigation into Social Mobility and Grammar Schools. The evidence report was authored by Joanne Bartley (mother and education activist), Dr. Alan Bainbridge (Senior Lecturer at CCCU), Pippa Doran (retired local authority officer) and myself (a parent and Lecturer at The University of Kent). It was 24 pages long and can be read on our website.

Drawing on cutting-edge scientific, social-scientific, and policy studies, and quoting a body of evidence from over 50 years of educational and demographic research, it systematically illustrated the failure of 11+ selection to provide any meaningful, positive impact on social mobility. The Kent Test is a hybrid of IQ testing methods – based on the Stanford-Binet model – and subject-specific knowledge that overwhelming benefits middle-class children and those who undertake the now-systemic practice of tutoring.

In our report we demonstrated that such testing methods are pedagogically, politically, economically and developmentally nonsensical and have not, since their implementation by the 1944 Butler Act, produced significant levels of social mobility. Most counties in England, and countries in Europe, have long rejected this selection model as a discriminatory form of social engineering. Many of our failing schools do so because they compete with grammar schools. This reduces the average success of students in Kent.

If Britain is to compete educationally and economically with the rest of the world, we must join the 21st century by ending this horrid regime of biological selection based on an arbitrary designation of a person’s “intelligence” at 11. We offered KCC 10 suggestions for possible improvements to the secondary admissions system that would aid social mobility. None of these suggestions were considered or responded to in any meaningful way in the subsequent KCC report.

The admission of the need for the Kent County Council Select Committee on Grammar Schools and Social Mobility in our current moment points to the escalating problem of failing social mobility through grammars. KCC’s own statistics show that 27% of the pupils in non-selective schools are from disadvantaged backgrounds, versus 6% in grammars. This is based on grammars constituting a third of all secondary schools in the county, and the Kent Test itself being designed to admit an equivalent number of the total population. 57% of the children from disadvantaged backgrounds that achieve the highest scores in the SATs do not pass the Kent Test. 79% of advantaged children with high SAT scores do. The KCC report admits that access to grammar schools is at least in part related to the income of a child’s parents.

We believe that the reason for the failure of grammar schools to produce social mobility is the Kent Test itself. The commission’s report fails utterly to address this basic fact. Given the increasing academisation of schools, and the diminished role played by local government in shaping school policy, the absence of any consideration of the failings of the Kent Test by the commission is doubly absurd. KCC’s responsibilities for schooling extend to admissions policy. One of the only remaining powers our elected officials have over education is the power to abolish the Kent Test. The failure to consider this possibility in their proposals amounts to an acceptance of the increasing powerlessness of our LEA over education and an unwillingness to develop policies that truly benefit the poorest in our society.

Grammar selection is socially divisive, has historically created no significant upward social mobility, exposes children to unprecedented levels of stress and anxiety, and redirects significant teaching and economic resources away from those most in need. Grammar schooling is effectively a state benefit with an entry system that results in that benefit being most-often handed out to those who are already socially and economically secure. It is still within our power to oppose this injustice.

We ask that readers help us put pressure on KCC to consider the abolition of the Kent Test. Our children are already tested relentlessly. Why burden them with another test that produces no socially-beneficial outcomes and disadvantages able people who already labour at a disadvantage?

 

Please follow and like us:

On the history of “IQ” and aptitude testing – with specific relation to the Kent Test

By Dr. Michael Collins, University of Kent

1          Background to establishment of Tripartite System

1.1. Following the conclusions of the Butler report, the subsequent 1944 Education Act established a Tripartite model of education in Britain, with secondary-level schooling divided into grammar, secondary- modern and technical strata. According to the Act these schools were designed in response to the needs of an increasingly diverse British workforce to be separate but equal, teaching curricula specific to the “aptitudes” of each child. Pragmatism dictated that schooling would be divided between primary and secondary at 11, despite no compelling scientific evidence for the choice of this age rather than any other. Unsurprisingly, however, measuring these “aptitudes” was a difficult task. In 1944 neither psychometric testing according to the Stanford- Binet intelligence quotient (IQ), nor curriculum-specific, knowledge- based tests were understood to be wholly acceptable and infallible models of selection. Nonetheless, the 11+ was established as the standard model of educational selection until the late 1970s, when the rise of comprehensive schooling models began to challenge the older “ability” tiers of the Tripartite System in Britain.

1.2 In Kent, grammar schools remain a major element of the educational landscape. In response to Kent County Council Select Committee on Grammar Schools and Social Mobility’s request for responses to their inquiry into getting higher numbers of children on FSM into selective schools I wish to offer the following history of the 11+ plus test, its aims, objectives and outcomes in the hope that the KCC will seriously consider the implications of selective testing at 11. Towards the end I offer some suggestions about how social mobility might be better served. In this paper, I would like to show with specific reference to the Kent Test how the assumption underpinning this model of assessment – that the measurement of “ability” or “intelligence” at 11 is possible and desirable – is a fundamental fallacy that represents an outmoded inheritance from an earlier model of science that has been largely debunked. To do this I will focus on two key areas:

  1. The history of the 11+ and its relation to debates about fixed “intelligence”;
  2. The role of such a measure in the age of a national, as opposed to differentiated, curriculum.

2         The idea of “intelligence”

2.1 To explain why measurement proved so difficult in the early years of the

11+, we must look deeper into the origins of the idea of “intelligence” as a fixed, reified entity. By the late 1910s tests designed by Alfred Binet for the purposes of locating what the influential psychologist and U.S. school reformer Henry Goddard called “feeble- mindedness” in discrete populations (ostensibly for the purposes of specialised local education policies for those with learning difficulties) had been fused with Francis Galton and James McKeen Cattell’s eugenical studies into “hereditary genius” and applied to increasingly large data sets. The rise of demographic studies that allowed for the collection of such data was made possible by the mass- mobilisations of troops during the First World War in Europe and America, but was extended in the post-war era through the consolidation of the welfare state from the 1940s. The Stanford-Binet intelligence test designed by Lewis Terman is the most famous model of this synthesis of disparate areas of inquiry.

2.2. The first IQ tests were measures of neural dexterity (Cattell’s tests were of speed of comprehension), but, throughout the 1910s, the tests became synonymous with academic potential. However, these are fundamentally different measures, as was frequently pointed out and can be seen in public debates in the 1914 issues of Science between Dr. David Heron and Dr. Charles Davenport. The effect of this synthesis of studies in mental disability with studies of “hereditary genius” was the production of a standard-deviation model of intelligence in a population, which seemed to suggest that individuals had fixed “intelligence” and such abilities conformed to a standard bell-curve distribution through a population. However, as Lelia Zenderland has shown in Measuring Minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of American Intelligence Testing, the precise nature of this “intelligence” was the subject of serious debate.

2.3. Since the beginning of intelligence testing in the late nineteenth century scientists have continually questioned whether IQ tests actually measured “intelligence” (a quasi-mystical “state of nature” that could express itself free from an individual’s social milieu and training) or “scholastic ability” (a measure that would comprise such things and be derived largely from their impacts). Indeed, in the social sciences, hard sciences and humanities, debate continues as to whether something called “intelligence” (free from upbringing, social context and training) is a real, material and measurable entity. Major psychologists and evolutionary biologists working in the last 30 years, such as Stephen Jay Gould, have questioned the validity of the data around innate human intelligence and demonstrated that it has often been misinterpreted for political aims throughout its history (see Gould, The Mismeasure of Man). This has led to a state where, according to a 2012 longitudinal study of IQ in Britain after the 1944 Butler Report and Education Act, “Schooling in Adolescence raises IQ scores”, which was published in the National Academy of Sciences of America and verified by Harvard University, it is possible to state with some confidence that “a growing consensus points to the major role that early childhood environment and interventions play in the development of economically and socially relevant cognitive skills…” (Brinch and Galloway, 425).

2.4 Furthermore, it is also now possible to argue that “education occurring even as late as in the middle teenage years can indeed have a statistically significant effect on IQ scores” (425), questioning the assumption that any model of academic ability or intelligence is fixed at 11. What current academic studies show with reference to a considerable body of research in the years since the Butler Act is that the “intelligence” is neither fixed at 11 nor universally measurable in a manner that is free from education, parental support, financial background and other factors etc. even through to the middle teenage years and beyond.

2.5 This is not a new story. As early as the 1910s, scientists were unsure that “intelligence” was a historical absolute that was measured simply by a test. By the 1950s heyday of the 11+ it was even less certain. A 1954 study conducted by Alice Heim and published by the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, The Appraisal of Intelligence, concluded that social class and upbringing shaped significantly the potential likelihood of an individual achieving a high IQ score. It was well documented in the middle decades of the twentieth century that IQ and knowledge-based testing at 11 discriminated against those in the lowest socioeconomic brackets, while actively benefitting middle-class children. Nonetheless, the 11+ continued to be administered in Kent, maintaining the fallacy that policy was built on a certainty. As a 2012 study by Hart, Moro and Roberts at The University of Stirling notes of the 1950s and 1960s:

a view emerged that the nature of IQ testing under the 11 plus exam was itself not independent of family circumstances. Criticisms of the methods of measuring intelligence began to emerge… with sociologists pointing out ‘the influence of intelligence tests in discriminating against working-class children at eleven-plus’ (Simon and Rubinstein, 1969) (10)

2.6 Indeed, the lack of firm scientific evidence of fixed human intelligence was considered when the 11+ was first implemented in Britain, but governmental will to establish an “intelligence”-based model triumphed for reasons of political and economical expediency. The idea that “intelligence” is innate, fixed and real remains a truism – put down to common sense by many – despite overwhelming contemporary evidence to the contrary. Precisely because of the uncertain facticity of “intelligence”, the initial version of the 11+ test was composed of a mixture of Stanford-Binet IQ reasoning tests with scholastic knowledge that was deemed pertinent to the specific curriculum the child would follow in secondary education. The desire to stratify according to labour need trumped the uncertainty of the science on this issue.

2.7 Early formulators of the test included a knowledge-based component in assessment at 11 (grammatical skills, punctuation, knowledge of famous Shakespearean soliloquies) not out of a wish to specifically select middle-class children for grammar schooling, but precisely because IQ was so uncertain a measure that other elements were deemed necessary to justify the test’s assessment. Despite the best intentions of some of the framers, the effect of this fusion of IQ and knowledge-based testing in the model of the 11+ was that the test served to ultimately reinforce existing class hierarchies. Far more than measuring “intelligence”, or being child-centred in its intentions the 11+ test was designed to hierarchically differentiate by labour demand. Hart, Moro and Roberts note that:

Soon after the reforms became operational, evidence emerged that children with middle-class parents performed especially well in the 11 plus exam (see Simon and Rubenstein), Not only did middle-class children appear to have higher probabilities of attending grammar schools compared to their working-class contemporaries but that the also seemed to be better suited to the aims and objectives of grammar school education” (9)

2.8 Some social mobility did occur through grammar schools, a significant boon for those that benefitted, but this was roughly equal to that which had occurred at a national level in the years prior to the implementation of the Tripartite System. Consequently, there was little overall effect to the tests bar a systematisation of resource allocation at a national level. As Hart, Moro and Roberts expressed this:

The biggest gainers from the free education provision were children from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds who gained competitive entry into the grammar school system. These constituted only about 15 per cent of all children attending tripartite schools. A further 20 per cent were from more advantaged backgrounds and a high proportion of these may well have received a grammar school education in the absence of the new education policy. For the large majority of the remainder who were required to attend secondary modern schools, the policy served generally to stifle educational and post- educational development and this in turn was reflected in relatively poor subsequent labour market outcomes” (25)

2.9 Overall, even in the presumed heyday of the Tripartite System in the late-1950s and early 1960s, the percentage of relatively disadvantaged children who attended grammar schools after passing the 11+ was only 15 per cent nationally. This was in spite of the intention that the 11+ test select approximately 30 per cent of the population for grammar schooling. Given the high numbers of families in the working class than the middle class in the immediate post-war era, this is shocking. For working-class and low income families grammar schooling in the middle decades of the 20th century failed to create significant movement into the middle class. Indeed, the unequal provision of resources and teachers in the secondary-modern schools meant that a significant result of the Tripartite System was “relatively poor subsequently labour market outcomes” – in other words, growth and upward social mobility.

2.10 Following these sociological observations, advocates of the 11+ test attempted to modify it to be more IQ-based in the 1960s, responding to criticism that the test was aimed at cultivating what Pierre Bourdieu would call “bourgeois habitus”, the knowledge, culture and habits of being peculiar to middle-class life. These reforms towards an IQ-based test were similarly unsuccessful. By the 1970s it was quite possible to claim that grammar schools had failed to produce social mobility on any significant scale. The problem lay not in the curriculum per se but the assessment that allowed entry to grammars. The 11+ was neither an IQ test in a clear sense, nor a test of knowledge.

2.11 The existence of the Kent County Council Select Committee on Grammar Schools and Social Mobility in our current moment points to a similar pattern of poor social mobility through grammars. KCC’s own statistics show that children on Free School Meals constitute a significantly lower population in grammar schools than in other types of school. The reason for this is the Kent Test itself. Alternatives are not easy for advocates of grammar schools to envisage. A pure IQ test would be discriminatory, since IQ itself is socially conditioned and can (as Brinch and Galloway have shown) be tutored for. A pure knowledge-based test would also benefit only those who can be tutored, have excellent primary schooling, and/or stable, economically secure and supportive family backgrounds. A combination of both IQ and knowledge-bases assessment would serve no clear positive purpose in altering rates of social mobility, since both models benefit the middle-classes unfairly.

2.12 Increasingly, selective grammar schools offer free education of the kind given already by private schools to children whose parents could often afford private schooling or tutoring, while cutting out large percentages of the population from access to equal resources and provisions. The Kent Test allows for the further accumulation of capital in the middle and upper-middle classes off the back of the state, since the cost of schooling is retained by the middle classes and not spent, while resources are placed into high quality schooling of the already wealthy. The evidence of extensive tutoring and the use of private primary schools indicates that middle-class parents are more than willing to pay for their children’s schooling at junior level in order to qualify for free secondary school. In essence this transforms selective schooling into a benefit offered to those who are least in need of that benefit. A government that wishes to cut social welfare provision should think hard about offering that welfare vicariously to the middle classes through educational capital when doing so is clearly prejudicial to those without sufficient social, economic or cultural capital to successfully qualify for support.

2.13 Much evidence now suggests that IQ itself is not a measure free from social environment and training. However, the pattern of static or diminishing social mobility outlined above is powered through the setting of the Kent Test that attempts to evaluate IQ and knowledge simultaneously. Furthermore, neither one’s IQ nor one’s knowledgebase is unaffected by tutoring, background and class. This brings me to my second area of inquiry.

3          The new curriculum

3.1     In our current climate of the national curriculum, the existence of the 11+ no longer indicates a test of a person’s ability within the terms of a specific curriculum (as it did in the days of the Tripartite System), since this curriculum is now universal. Consequently, children who fail the 11+ are not now taking courses that the test would claim are suited to their interests and abilities, but taking the same curriculum as those in grammars, albeit from the perspective of having been told that the cannot excel at it. This de-motivation at 11 could have long-term impacts on the educational attainment of those who are not selected for grammar school by the Kent Test. I would suggest that KCC commission research into the achievements of those who take the Kent Test and are not selected for grammars. Little evidence is extant on these individuals, yet they serve as an important test case for the effects of the Kent Test on social mobility. Given the voluntary nature of the test, the decision to take the Kent Test often registers as a marker of one’s expectation that they will pass it. This suggests that there are two groups within the cohort who take the test, those whose teachers, parents and other individuals have deemed naturally gifted enough to excel, and those that have been tutored. Since we know that tutoring occurs and has a demonstrable impact on the pass rate of the Kent test, KCC should also consider a study of the psychological impacts upon students who pass by tutoring but subsequently struggle in grammar school environments.

3.2 It is notable that the official language testifying to what the Kent Test actually assesses is vague and this is unsurprising given the distinctly political nature of the test and its history of representing a rejection of science in favour of social engineering by labour need. I have outlined this history above and am happy to expand on any further points the Commission may have. What demonstrates the unclear the nature of assessment in the Kent Test is the fact that the official rhetoric of the test has moved away from the IQ-based descriptions of the 1940s/50s/60s, towards a language of “reasoning skills” and “ability in English and maths” (Kent Test Familiarisation

Booklet, GL Assessment, p.3) in recent years. These two forms of assessment are fundamentally different, suggesting that the test is uncertain as to what it means to assess beyond being designed to select 30 per cent of its sitters for the benefits of a vaguely-defined model of schooling. Indeed, far more than this, the recent discourse is based in the neoliberal language of “choice”. This seems to deliberately imply that success in a tutorable, or even an IQ-based assessment, is a matter of preference to the individual when – according to its own logic – it is either a matter of biology or of resources. The familiarisation booklet suggests that the test “assesses whether grammar school is a suitable option for you”. (p. 3). This language obscures two facts: that the Kent Test is clearly tutorable, and that for significant portions of the population it is not an “option” available to them. The assessment model of the Kent Test is a fundamental paradox. Given the disincentivisation to take the test among working-class parents that KCC has already noted, the language of “choice” (“a suitable option for you”) only further serves as a marker for some that the test is not for those in the lower socio-economic brackets. This language of choice and options serves as a rhetorical gatekeeper of middle-class habitus.

3.3. Overall, the Kent Test remains an historical hangover from a period in which the political will to establish Triparite education meant that policy was forced through that was based on dubious, or pseudo-scientific principles.

KCC has a number of options if it wishes to continue to provide selective grammar schools. Firstly, the Kent Test must clarify, rather than obscure, its aims behind the language of choice and options. Is it an IQ test? Is it a knowledge test? What is the purpose for doing both simultaneously? KCC should also seriously consider the recent studies into the fluidity of intelligence, which challenges the underlying logic of grammar selection policies as they currently stand. As I have said above, “intelligence” has never been understood to be unproblematically defined as innate and fixed. This is even more the case than ever.

4           Suggestions

4.1 Administer a selection test at multiple points of entry. In addition to the test at 11, a test may also be available at 13 and 15 with grammar schools also open to non-tested admissions based on GCSE results into the A-Level programme.

4.2 Adopt a means-tested mixed admissions policy, in which the Kent Test is one means of entry for reserved pupils from families in a higher socioeconomic bracket, with significant affirmative action policies governing entry of children on Free School Meals.

4.3 Abolish the Kent Test and select for grammar-school based on teacherbased assessments or from SATS testing in primary.

5          References

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Trans Richard Nice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984.

Brinch, Christian N. and Taryn Ann Galloway. “Schooling in adolescence raises IQ scores”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of America Vol 109, No.2 (Jan 10, 2012), pp. 425 – 430.

Hart, Robert A., Mirko Moro and Elizabeth Roberts, “Date of Birth, Family

Background, and the 11 plus exam: short- and long-term consequences of the 1944 secondary education reforms in England and Wales.” Stirling Economics Discussion Paper, May 2012.

Heim, Alice. The Appraisal of Intelligence. London: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1954.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York and London: Norton, 1981.

Zenderland, Leila. Measuring Minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of

American Intelligence Testing. Cambridge: CUP, 1998

Please follow and like us:

Response by Kent Education Network to the report of the KCC Commission on social mobility

Kent County Council created a commission to review social mobility in Grammar Schools. The commission’s draft report has now been published and shows the extent of the problem with Kent’s divided schools, it can be read in full here. 

While we welcome KCC’s recognition of the unacceptable social divide in Kent secondary schools, we do not believe the Commission’s draft report goes anywhere near solving the problem.

The issue is clear. On average, disadvantaged pupils make up 27 per cent of the total number on roll in non-selective schools, while the equivalent figure in grammar schools is six percent. The fact that a Commission was needed to examine the problem itself disproves the myth that a selective system improves social mobility. The report is a refreshingly honest at-
tempt to examine the problem, and we agree with its conclusion that: “current access to (grammar) schools is not solely based on academic ability but is impacted by family income.”

While recognising that family wealth determines the future of most of our children, the Commission admits that it can only make suggestions, lacking as it does the power to impose any meaningful solutions. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that all 16 of the Commission’s recommendations were to be adopted, there would be only a slight increase in the number of disadvantaged children going to grammar schools.

The Commission does not face up to the problem of widespread coaching: while independent schools are permitted to train children in taking the Test, coaching is forbidden in state schools, and recent attempts to make it “un-coachable” appear to have failed.

In the meantime, as the government pursues plans to turn schools into academies, the county council is losing its powers to enforce anything on schools whatsoever. Ultimately, KCC’s only power will rest in the administration of the Kent Test.

Kent grammar schools educate 28 per cent of all secondary school pupils, but only 21 per cent are awarded a place based on a pass mark in the Kent Test. The other seven percent are nominated by head teachers as “suitable for grammar school” despite their fail mark, or by parents appealing a result. The judgement of grammar school ability is clearly not a sci-
entific process, and nor is it open and accountable.

The commission did not look at how many disadvantaged children reach grammar school via the Head Teacher Assessment panel. We feel it is fundamentally unfair that some children who fail the test get a “second chance” while others do not. Some primary schools routinely recommend 90 per cent of their “failed” pupils for a result reassessment, while others recommend no children at all. The Head Teacher Assessment process only highlights the inadequacies of the Test itself. It costs KCC £348,000 a year to commission the Test, but they choose to select seven per cent of grammar school children another way.

Kent Education Network submitted detailed evidence to the Commission, including an assessment of the science and history of intelligence testing by Dr Michael Collins, our head of research. The evidence defined the problem of accurately dividing children of primary school age; it stated: “If Britain is to compete educationally and economically with the rest of the world, we must end this outdated selection process based on an arbitrary designation of “intelligence” at 11.”

Dr.Collins says, “Most counties in England, and countries in Europe, have long rejected this model as a discriminatory form of social engineering. The reason why many Kent schools fail is because they must compete with selective grammar schools, reducing the average success rate of students overall.” In Kent students are less likely to achieve three A levels than children of other counties, and 55 per cent of our poorest pupils get GCSE results in the bottom 20 per cent nationally.

Kent disadvantaged
30% of Kent disadvantaged pupils achieve 5 GCSEs compared with 37% nationally.

We now hope Kent County Council will take the next step and consider the impact our school system has on disadvantaged children in Kent’s non-selective schools. A wider debate on the Kent Test is needed – the harm it causes social mobility is not only reserved to grammar schools. Kent has more schools failing to reach government targets than any other county. The children of Kent are depending on action being taken.

Kent Education Network’s evidence to the Commission may be read here:  EVIDENCE TO SELECT COMMITTEE ON GRAMMAR SCHOOLS FEB 2016

Please follow and like us:

Approval of Sevenoaks grammar annexe was flawed

KEN believe government guidelines were flouted over plans for a grammar school annexe in Sevenoaks. Our group has evidence that consultation was inadequate and that Kent County Council is acting irresponsibly in allocating millions of pounds of local taxpayers’ money to the project.Kent Education Network – following a request in January under Freedom of Information rules – has finally received information suggesting that the consultation procedure by the Tonbridge-based Weald of Kent school was flawed.

A report going to the next meeting of members of KEN spells out how national guidelines calling for consultation with the community, including local schools, were ignored.

Instead of the required four-week period seeking the views of staff and parents, only two weeks were allowed.  Worse, only 59 parents backed the annexe proposal, with 46 against; that is, only 105 responses were received out of a total of 1,168 girls on the school roll.

The KEN report also spells out KCC’s carelessness with taxpayers’ money at a time of local government cuts. There is a large projected surplus of secondary places in Sevenoaks in the 2014 report of the Provision Planning and Operations section at KCC. It is irresponsible of the county council – with the support of only 59 parents – to set aside £19.1 million from the general council budget (rather than the £167 million ‘schools basic need funding’ from central government); this for an annexe to an academy for which it has no direct responsibility.

Kent Education Network believes that expansion of a school by these means must be absolutely transparent in every way – given the precedent it could set for the attempts currently under way from Milton Keynes to Maidenhead to widen selective education. KEN has made a formal request to KCC’s auditors for a Review of Expenditure in respect of the planned annexe.

We do not know precisely what the Weald of Kent told the DfE to gain approval for their annexe because our application under FOI rules for information has been denied. However, KEN believes that it is becoming clear that those guidelines may not have been followed.

Approving the proposals on 19th October, 2015, Nicky Morgan said: “I assessed the proposal in line with our guidelines on making significant changes to an existing academy, which were published in January 2014”.

It is not credible that the Secretary of State could have approved this scheme if at the time she been aware of the facts that are only now being revealed.


Kent Education Network Report 

Update on the Weald of Kent grammar school’s annexe in Sevenoaks

Much of this report uses information obtained from a Freedom of Information request submitted to the Wield of Kent Academy Trust on January 24th 2016. The consultation results have taken 118 days to be provided, with some key information still missing. The FOI response can be read here.

  • On October 19th 2015 Nicky Morgan announced that the Weald of Kent annexe was allowable as a genuine expansion and said, ‘I assessed the proposal in line with our guidelines on making significant changes to an existing academy, which were published in January 2014.’ Her speech in Parliament is here.
  • The ‘making significant changes to an existing academy’ guidelines of January 2014 state various stakeholders must be consulted for a minimum of 4 weeks. Guidelines here.
  • The school clearly offered an inadequate consultation. It ran a 2-week consultation with no full proposal, just an A4 letter outlining a plan for a girls-only and sixth form annexe in Sevenoaks. The consultation took place from September 8th – 22nd.  Letter here.
  • The school admit they only consulted parents and teachers, and did not consult other schools or the local community as they were required to in the 2014 guidelines.
  • We feel the Weald of Kent school did not fulfil the consultation requirements of the ‘Significant changes to academies guidelines, January 2014’ referred to by Nicky Morgan in parliament.
  • The results of the Weald of Kent’s September 2014 consultation were as follows:
  1. Do you support the view that Weald of Kent Grammar School Trust should offer more local provision?

Staff
22 yes, 1 no.

Parents
64 yes, 42 no.
60% yes 40% no.

  1. Do you agree that Weald of Kent in its present structure should offer additional Grammar places in Sevenoaks?

Staff
21 yes, 1 no.

Parents
54 yes, 51 no.
51% yes, 48% no.

  1. Do you support the Weald of Kent Grammar School Trust proposal to open an Annexe in Sevenoaks?

Staff
21 yes, 1 no.

Parents
59 yes, 46 no.
56% yes, 44% no.

Only 59 parents supported the school’s annexe plan. The consultation was inadequate in length and there were few details. There were no open meetings or discussions regarding this plan.

  • It appears that the school presented the Education Secretary with details of their 2013 consultation in their business case for the annexe expansion. The 2013 plan was for a co-educational annexe offering 6 forms of boys and girl’s provision in Sevenoaks, the plan now approved is a 3 form entry girl’s annexe with sixth form. The co-educational annexe plan was refused by Michael Gove in December 2013 on the grounds that a girl’s school could not educate boys in an annexe expansion. The community of Sevenoaks have a greater need for boy’s grammar school places and we feel this consultation should be discounted as a a girls-only annexe is not meeting local need. Many parents also prefer co-educational education and it is feasible they supported this school plan for this reason.
  • The Weald of Kent attempted to turn into a co-educational school in February 2014 in order to fulfil the need for boy’s grammar school places locally, but parents wished the school to stay girls-only. The school had to offer a girls-only annexe in their revised plan in autumn 2014.
  • The Weald of Kent’s co-educational annexe consultation in 2013 offered 4 questions. 2 questions were based on demographics, and 2 sought views on plans for the annexe. In response to our FOI the school provided a response only to consultation question 3, but NOT question 4. Question 3 was: ‘Do you agree with Kent County Council’s assessment that there is a need to commission selective education provision in Sevenoaks via an Annexe to an existing Grammar School? This question received a positive response. Question 4 was, ‘Do you support the Weald of Kent Grammar School Trust proposal to open an Annexe in Sevenoaks?  We have not been provided with the results of this question. The school responded to our FOI on May 20th to state,  ‘The school does not hold a record of the responses to question 4.’  We feel the school should hold this information, and to have lost information on a key consultation question is highly unusual.
  • We question whether the communities response to question 4 was likely to have been favourable. In 2013 the Sevenoaks Grammar School Campaign told their supporters to say ‘No’ in response to question 4. The Sevenoaks Grammar School Campaign did not support the Weald of Kent’s annexe plan. The campaign’s blog posts at the time were dismissive of the Weald of Kent annexe and many articles have since been deleted. We retrieved deleted posts from an internet archive eg. http://web.archive.org/web/20130627110238/http://sevenoaksgrammar.com/cast-your-votes-here/

vote no to question 4

    • We are concerned that Academy Trusts are NOT held accountable when they submit proposals for changes to the Department for Education. Our FOI request to see the business case proposal submitted by the Weald of Kent Academy Trust was refused by Kent County Council, the Department for Education and the Weald of Kent Academy Trust. We feel that it is in the public interest to release such information, which in this case will certainly contain details of the public consultations as described by the school. If such information is open then decisions can be properly scrutinized, and it ensures any Academy Trust must present accurate facts in any case to the DfE. Our FOI request refusal can be read here.

 

    • It is particularly important that this school expansion is above board in every way because this approval has set a precedent that has led to selective schools seeking to expand in Maidenhead, Milton Keynes, and other counties bordering grammar school areas.

 

    • The school consulted on admissions changes later than required by the Admissions Code, and after its expansion proposal was accepted. This means no one had any factual information on how a school with 2 buildings 9 miles apart would manage admissions. The code’s statutory guidance states consultation on admission changes must take place between 1 October and 31 January of the school year before those arrangements are to apply, and states admissions must be ratified by 28th February in the determination year. The Weald of Kent school offered an admissions changes consultation much later than these dates, from April 4th – May 13th.

 

    • Controversially the school is using a location of equal distance between their two buildings (in a field) to decide future admissions. The admission changes appear to disadvantage potential pupils based in parts of TN8, and parents are contacting local press about the problems of this admission policy. Despite the lateness of the consultation this policy is expected to be in used in September 2017 when the annexe opens.

 

    • The DfE’s academy changes guidelines state, ‘A condition of funding for any future capital funds is that the academy trust has conducted a consultation, that responses have been taken into account, and that any consents required have been given. Changes will not be agreed unless appropriate consultation has taken place.’ We feel that a full review of the consultation evidence presented by the Weald of Kent school in its application should be undertaken by the Education Funding Agency.

 

  • There is no need for secondary school places in Sevenoaks, particularly as the Trinity free school opened in 2014. The Weald of Kent annexe will cost Kent tax payers £19.1m, with the funding unable to be provided from ‘basic need’ government funding, because there is no proven need for these school places. There is a larger surplus of secondary school places in Sevenoaks than in any other area of Kent, as the council figures below show.

http://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/16236/Commissioning-plan-for-education-provision-in-Kent-2015-2019.pdf

districts

Secndary Sevenoaks

  • Kent County Council offers a school consultations portal on its own website. Yet despite the council funding this grammar school, at no time did it use its own facility to offer an online consultation on this grammar school expansion.  We feel that this plan should be open to consultation to all Kent ratepayers as it is academy expansion funded entirely by council budget. http://www.kent.gov.uk/education-and-children/schools/school-consultations
  • We feel it is irrational that Kent County Council are spending £19.1 million of Kent tax payer’s money on a school building supported by just 59 parents, without other local schools or the community having any say on this plan.
  • On May 23rd 2016 we contacted Kent County Council’s auditors to ask for an Audit Review of Expenditure on the Weald of Kent annexe expansion, under section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 in respect of the County Council’s accounts for 2015/16. We believe that the expenditure of the County Council to fund a satellite grammar school by Weald of Kent Grammar School in Sevenoaks may be unlawful in that the Council (i) did not have the power to make the expenditure or (ii) has acted irrationally in so doing. We asked for a review of the decision and a public interest report by the council’s auditors.

Kent Education Network

24th May 2016

Please follow and like us:

Herne Bay grammar school annexe does not meet the needs of local parents

A grammar school expansion is proposed for Herne Bay, despite a critical need for non-selective school places in the Canterbury district. The closure of Chaucer Technology School in Canterbury has led to a shortage of school places for children who do not pass the Kent Test. Popular local schools such as Canterbury Academy, Herne Bay High School and St Anselm’s Catholic were all over-subscribed this year, meaning parents could not send their child to their chosen school.

Joanne Bartley, from the campaign group, Kent Education Network, says, “Kent County Council will be making entirely the wrong move by expanding a grammar school when there is a shortage of places locally for children who do not pass the Kent Test.

“I founded KEN in part to protest against the inequality of the school system. When my daughter failed the Kent Test, I realised how unfair the system could be.  There’s a wide choice of good or outstanding grammar schools available with an eleven-plus pass, but only oversubscribed schools or schools rated ‘requires improvement’ with a fail; I believe that our children should be entitled to a good school whether or not they pass the eleven-plus.

“I can’t believe there is a plan is to build a grammar school when the real need is for a great new school open to any child. If Barton Court wish to expand to Herne Bay, they should open a school with a grammar school ethos, open to children of all-abilities, but the same high academic standards. This would avoid the legal problems encountered when grammar schools expand by using an ‘annexe’ and it would solve the problem of a lack of school places locally.

“Herne Bay High is one of the best non-selective schools in the area, but it is oversubscribed and this year some pupils failed to get places. More than 500 children travel from the town to non-selective schools in Canterbury and Whitstable, and as the town grows this problem will only get worse. If there were a second, excellent, school in Herne Bay, it would please all parents. There are countless examples of high quality, mixed-ability schools with good provision for able children. If a school like Barton Court, with excellent teachers, feels it cannot educate a child like my daughter, then they are clearly not the fine school they claim to be!

Kent Education Network has been investigating the controversial plans for the Weald of Kent grammar school in Tonbridge to expand by means of an ‘annexe’ in Sevenoaks.

Joanne Bartley said: “It’s against the law for new grammar schools to open and so, to get around this problem, the grammar school annexe in Sevenoaks must be part of ‘one school’ – the proof being that arrangements are in place for pupils to use both sites.  Children must be transferred between the two sites on at least one afternoon a week, and teachers are required to teach on both sites. Parents have no guarantee which site their child will be allocated. To remain within the law, this proposed Herne Bay annexe would need to follow the same arrangements.”

Kent Education Network believe that the Department for Education and Kent County Council have been extremely remiss in refusing requests for information about the proposed Weald of Kent school annexe.

Mrs Bartley said: “To date no plans for operation of the school in detail have been revealed – despite requests under Freedom of Information law from three organisations, including our group. We appeal to Barton Court and Kent County Council to be more open on this occasion. If it is indeed a good plan  there should be no need for any secrecy.

“The aim of Kent County Council should be good education for all children in Herne Bay. If they were to create a great new school with a grammar stream, I believe everyone would be happy, offering the choice of two good schools for all parents in our coastal towns. If they exclude the majority of local children to create a grammar school for the few, it is likely that many of the places available would be taken by children from outside our area.  Also, a good mixed ability school would have no need to fulfil any legal requirements involving travel to Canterbury.

“It is wrong that Kent County Council supports a system which labels the majority of our children failures at the age of ten or eleven and prevents children from accessing the best local schools. All children have value, and our education system should show this by offering good schools to all.”

If you prefer a high quality mixed ability school in Herne Bay, the Kent Education Network suggest that you write to your MP and your Kent County Council councillor, or  join the group at KentEducationNetwork.org.

Please follow and like us: