Grammar Schools Evidence Pack #edforall. The Sutton Trust, 2015, Grammar Schools – Sutton Trust Fact Sheet Less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Rebecca Allen and Anna Vignoles Institute of Education, University of London and Presentation to Bristol Choice.
Advertisements

EALAW Conference 29 th March 2011 Newport Minority Ethnic Achievement: Myth or Miracle? What do the statistics for Wales tell us about Race Equality in.
Is Teaching a Vocation: The Distribution of Higher Qualified New Teachers by Challenge of UK High Schools Dr John Brown Institute of Education.
Deprivation and the Pupil Premium - what you need to know. After prior attainment, poverty is the strongest predictor of a child’s future life-chances.
Sue Rogers Director of Education KGA Presentation GCSE and Post 16 plus Closing the Gap.
Equalising Education Educational Divides in the UK.
What are the causes of inequality of income and wealth in the UK? To see more of our products visit our website at Tony Darby, Head of.
The Performance of Vulnerable Learners Somerset Schools Forum 20 May 2014 Agenda Item 5b Nicola Turner.
Wider Context Some Key Issues Demography Differential Performance ‘The Gap’
The Pupil Deprivation Grant
Compact Termly Primary Headteacher Briefing November 2012 Headline Performance Data 2012.
Salford Secondary Schools 2009 GCSE Results Bev Walker Strategic Universal Services Manager (11-19)
What’s new in the Child Poverty Unit – Research and Measurement Team Research and Measurement Team Child Poverty Unit.
‘Unseen Children: access and achievement 20 years on’ (Ofsted, 2013) ‘Unseen Children: access and achievement 20 years on’ (Ofsted, 2013) The background.
North East education - The State of the Region. North East education… not quite the big picture.
Presentation to Post-Primary Review Working Group – 19 June 2003 Features of the Current Arrangements.
Dr Diana Grice East Sussex Downs & Weald Primary Care Trust and Hastings & Rother Primary Care Trust An overview of East Sussex - Facts and figures.
Widening Participation in Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis Institute of Education Institute for Fiscal Studies Centre for Economic Performance.
Educational Standards Cabinet January Early Years Performance  The percentage of pupils achieving the target expectations in the Early Years Foundation.
© Crown copyright PPT-EN-05 Workshop 3S (Secondary) Analysing progress data.
Deprivation and the Pupil Premium - what you need to know. After prior attainment, poverty is the strongest predictor of a child’s future life-chances.
Hartlepool Education Commission Conference Tom Grieveson Senior HMI Ofsted North East, Yorkshire and Humber Region – May 2014.
The socio-economic gradient in teenagers’ reading skills: how does England compare to other countries? John Jerrim, Institute of Education 1.
1 United States Education at a Glance 2015 Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills Release date: 24 November 2015.
WHITE WORKING CLASS ACHIEVEMENT Dean Jackson, Assistant Director, Education Hartlepool Borough Council.
RAISEonline Data Analysis for Governors and Staff Beaver Road Primary School Clive Davies OBE Beaver Road (c)
Evaluation Institute Qatar Comprehensive Educational Assessment (QCEA) 2008 Summary of Results.
Updates Changes to the accountability measures for 2016 Pupil premium features in East Sussex secondary schools in 2013 Changes to RAISE for 2014 FFT developments.
Promoting good practice in tackling poverty and disadvantage INSET materials for secondary schools.
Standards report Standards Report CT Board 18 th March 2016.
Hertfordshire County Council The Role of the Secondary Assessment Co-ordinator Day One 5 th July 2005.
Hyndburn District Children’s Trust Education Performance Data Paul Dyson-Knight Nick Broome (Secondary Adviser)(Primary Adviser) May 2011.
Newcastle Learning Challenge Data analysis November 2014 Newcastle City Council.
#allchildrenmatter Grammar Schools Evidence Pack.
2016 Primary Assessment Update 27th September 2016
Attainment, progress and context by disadvantage / pupil premium
Progress 8 and Attainment 8:
Objectives To explore the data analyses that are available in RAISEonline and how they can be used to identify differences in progression rates To consider.
The Attainment Gap and CSR
Pennsylvania has a great future in STEM jobs
Head teacher presentation 2015
Education and Equality of Opportunity
Maximising Opportunities Conference
Who wants to be in the top 1 percent?
Governors’ Update RaiseOnline & Fischer Family Trust
Assessment without Levels
World Population Growth Through History
What do the data and research really tell us?
Sheffield Performance Overview
Will North Dakota seize the future?
Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings
Will Delaware seize the future?
Narrowing the Gaps? How are we doing?.
Patterns and trends in child obesity
Tim Coulson Regional School Commissioner
Workshop 2S (Secondary)
RAISEonline Data Analysis for Governors and Staff
Improving social mobility for able students
Health Inequalities: #PublicHealthHour
Apprenticeships for Young People in England. Is there a payoff?
Mathematics education 20
State support for early childhood education and care in England
Schools that work for everyone
Chris Belfield Christine Farquharson Luke Sibieta
Figures adapted from the TIEDI Analytical Report #8:
The Local Authority Perspective
Schools that work for everyone
What is Poverty?.
NatSIP Associate/Scrutiner Visiting Professor Derby University
The fingerprint of SWIMMING in Wales
Presentation transcript:

Grammar Schools Evidence Pack #edforall

The Sutton Trust, 2015, Grammar Schools – Sutton Trust Fact Sheet Less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals – an important indicator of social deprivation. The average proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals in selective areas was 18% Almost 13% of entrants come from outside the state sector, largely believed to be fee- paying preparatory schools. Children from wealthier backgrounds have a much greater chance of attending a grammar school than similarly high achieving more disadvantaged children (as measured by their Key Stage 2 test scores). For example, in selective local authorities, 66% of children who achieve level 5 in both English and Maths at Key Stage 2 who are not eligible for free school meals go to a grammar school compared with 40% of similarly high achieving children who are eligible for free school meals. Pupils are less likely to attend a grammar school if they attend primary schools with a high proportion of pupils from deprived backgrounds. Pupils attending a primary school with a large number of high-achieving pupils are also less likely to go to a grammar school, perhaps because they under- estimate their own ability.

Burgess, Dickson and Macmillan, 2014, Selective Schooling Systems Increase Inequality, University of Bath, University of Bristol and Institute of EducationSelective Schooling Systems Increase Inequality The average hourly wage difference between the top 10% and bottom 10% of earners born in selective schooling areas was £16.41 between 2009 and In otherwise similar areas that had gone comprehensive, the equivalent earnings gap was £12.33 The highest earners from grammar school areas are significantly better off (£1.31 per hour, on average) than top earners born in similar comprehensive authorities. High-earning men appear to gain most from selective school systems. The gap at the bottom of the income scale is most evident among women. The lowest- paid women from selective areas earn £0.87 less per hour than women from non- selective authorities. While average earnings in both types of area considered are almost identical (£8.59 in selective areas and £8.61 in non-selective) the inequality in earnings is very different.

Cook, C., 2016, Why not bring back grammar schools?, BBC NewsWhy not bring back grammar schools? There is no aggregate improvement in results in areas that are selective. The most important change is a clear distributional shift in who does well. In short, the minority of children streamed into the grammars do better. The remaining majority of children - who are not educated in grammars - do slightly worse. By the time that children take the 11 plus, there is already a large educational divide. In 2013, there were 1, year-olds in still- selective Kent eligible for free school meals. Of those children, only 2% had got Key Stage 2 results by the age of 11 that put them in the top tenth of results for the county. A Kentish child not on free school meals would be five times more likely to achieve that feat. So a test at 11 should, by design, select out lots of poorer children.

PISA, 2009, PISA 2009 Results: What Children Know and Can Do Systems that show high performance and an equitable distribution of learning outcomes tend to be comprehensive, requiring teachers and schools to embrace diverse student populations through personalised educational pathways. In contrast, school systems that assume that students have different destinations with different expectations and differentiation in terms of how they are placed in schools, classes and grades often show less equitable outcomes without an overall performance advantage.” “In countries where secondary schools are divided into different educational tracks, overall performance is not enhanced. The younger the age at which this occurs, the greater the difference in student performance by socio- economic background, without improved overall performance.” Research indicates that education systems that select at 11, such as Germany and Austria, are the most socially segregated. Whereas the higher performing jurisdictions are not selective. Selective education policies do not produce social mobility at scale. The evidence suggests that more selection will create a less equal society.

Allen, R., 2016, There is not yet a proven route to help disadvantaged pupils into grammar schools Education Datalab The chart on the right shows that overall the 55 grammar schools who had changed their admission policies to prioritise children on free school meals typically had more advantaged intakes than those who have not yet decided whether to modify their admissions.

Sibieta, L., 2016, Can grammar schools improve social mobility?, Institute for Fiscal Studies More recent evidence comes from the expansion of grammar schools in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s. This did raise average attainment over Northern Ireland as a whole, with a 10% increase in the number of pupils getting three or more A-Levels, driven mainly by improved performance amongst those newly able to go to grammar schools. However, the reform also widened educational inequalities with a decline in the performance of pupils not able to go to grammar schools. Around half of pupils eligible for free school meals in inner London, where there is no selection, achieve 5 or more GCSEs at A*-C, double the proportion outside London. Furthermore, inner London has been particularly effective for high levels of attainment, with around 15% of pupils eligible for free school meals achieving 8 or more GCSEs at grade B or above in inner London. This high level of school performance has been put down to a variety of factors, including improved past primary school performance, greater numbers of high-achieving ethnic minorities and improved practices within and across schools (e.g. greater collaboration, better leadership and extensive use of data).

Andrews, Hutchinson, Johnes., 2016, Grammar schools and social mobility, Education Policy Institute We find that positive grammar school effects on attainment decline as the proportion of pupils attending grammar schools rises. In the most selective areas, pupils attending grammar schools achieve an average of 2.3 grades (or a third of a grade in each of eight GCSE subjects) higher than similar pupils in non-selective schools elsewhere. But, for those in extremely selective areas, the positive impact of attending a grammar school reduces significantly as the proportion of grammar school places increases, falling to 0.8 of a grade (or 0.1 of a grade in each of eight GCSE subjects) in areas where the grammar school places outnumber the proportion of high- attaining pupils. In areas with large numbers of pupils attending grammar schools, poorer children are likely to be net losers from additional grammar school places - there are around 7,000 FSM pupils in the areas of highest grammar school coverage. Based on our estimates, 300 of these pupils could be expected to gain an average of 3 grades in total each, summing to a gain of almost 1,000 grades. But the remaining 6,700 FSM pupils would lose just over 1 grade each on average - summing to 8,000 lost grades. So this would amount to a net loss of around 7,000 grades for FSM pupils in areas of concentrated selection.