DRAFT PAPER. NOT FOR PUBLICATION, REPRODUCTION OR CITATION.Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamsh...
Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamshire,EnglandAbstractWith education policies in England expan...
Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamshire     In the fifties, a golden age of opportunity, almost...
seen as elitist, perpetuating social class divides and limiting the educationalprospects of the greater number of pupils w...
Buckinghamshire on the probability of success at the GCSE level. (GCSE is aGeneral Certificate of Secondary Education, usu...
academically eligible pupils). Under the Butler reforms, the highest attainingquarter or so of children would attend a gra...
determination. The technical stream never really got off the ground.     Parents preferred their children to go to a gramm...
discover the true ability of pupils more effectively than the eleven-plus (Weeks,1986).   The introduction of a comprehens...
current Coalition government has acted to increase the complexity of theeducation system with an expanding array of school...
schools), to those who have affiliation to a particular faith group (used for faithschools) and/or who can demonstrate the...
teaching, a diminished learning ethos, and lower teaching expectations withincomprehensives have been cited as reasons why...
economic    status      and   non-British   ethnicities,   they   concluded   thatcomprehensives underperformed relative t...
comprehensive systems. However, for most students the type of school has littleeffect.    Galindo-Rueda and Vignole’s (200...
education systems provide better GCSE examination performance thancomprehensives.     In fact, he goes as far to say that ...
differential resourcing than the benefit of being in some ‘higher level’ learningcommunity (more wealthy parent associatio...
of their GCSE exams. The study, therefore, is of all pupils that entered any one ofthe most typical school types in Buckin...
Non-selecting         Selective                                                                   schools         schools ...
this graphically, showing density estimations of the distributions of the priorattainment scores for entrants into the two...
schools is shown as a circle. There are always significant differences between thetwo but a degree of overlap remains.Data...
departure from primary school but one group attends a selective school, and theother does not.Data modelling    Having mat...
variable, with pupils with a higher combined test score on leaving primaryschool more probably achieving the five GCSEs at...
The national trend for increased examination success is reflected in theachievements of the Buckinghamshire pupils. The pr...
Any five GCSEs                     Five include English and maths                                            Estimate     ...
Any five GCSEs                       Five include English and maths                                            Estimate   ...
Considering FSM eligible pupils further, there are 444 FSM such pupils thathave a Key Stage 2 combined prior attainment sc...
pupils in selective schools achieved any five GCSES at grade A to C, versus p =0.838 for the eligible pupils in non-select...
class breaks are those found using the Jenks (natural breaks) classification of thecombined KS2 score distribution for the...
correlations for the pairs of KS2 scores in English, mathematics and science are r= 0.993, r = 0.998 and r = 0.989, respec...
Any five GCSEs                       Five include English and maths                                       Estimate      s....
Any five GCSEs                        Five include English and maths                                       Estimate      s...
Our findings, therefore, are mixed. Consistent with previous studies, there isevidence to suggest that selective schools a...
but conjecture, although the overlap in the Key Stage 2 scores of those who or donot attend a grammar school certainly sug...
therefore is important is to ensure that those who gain less are notdisproportionately drawn from any one particular socia...
Conservatives,The, 2010. Academies programme opened up to all schools.Available at: http://bit.ly/9wx65C [Accessed April 1...
Jesson, D., 2000. The Comparative Evaluation of GCSE Value-Added Performanceby Type of School and LEA, Department of Econo...
Williams, S., 2010. Climbing the Bookshelves: The Autobiography of ShirleyWilliams, London: Virago Press.Yates, A. & Pidge...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamshire, England

1,810 views

Published on

This is a DRAFT paper and should not be quoted from without the permission of the author. A revised version (but producing substantively similar results) is due for publication in the Oxford Review of Education in April 2013.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,810
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
146
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamshire, England

  1. 1. DRAFT PAPER. NOT FOR PUBLICATION, REPRODUCTION OR CITATION.Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamshire,EnglandRichard Harris and Samuel Rose,School of Geographical Sciences,University of Bristol,University Road,Bristol.BS8 1SS.e-mail: rich.harris@bris.ac.uk 1
  2. 2. Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamshire,EnglandAbstractWith education policies in England expanding the range of secondary schooltypes available, some commentators have sought to defend and promote thehistorically older selective system where those pupils who pass an entranceexam are taught in separate schools from others. They do so arguing thatselective schools produce higher learning outcomes and aid social mobility bygiving some pupils from poorer households an educational opportunity theycould not otherwise access. Such a view is contentious; the selective system canalso be viewed as socially divisive with no decisive evidence of its educationalbenefits. However, the evidence tends to be dated, a commentary on the past.Instead, this paper focuses on an education authority where, unusually, theselective system remains. It looks at education data to consider the prevalence offree school meal (FSM) eligible pupils in selective schools, to match pupils ofsimilar prior ability, and to consider whether those who went on to attend aselective school achieved greater success at age sixteen examination.Comparison is also made with outcomes in a neighbouring authority that doesnot operate a selective system. The results suggest that although pupils inselective schools appear to have greater examination success, this ‘value-added’comes at a cost to those not in the schools. In addition, the low prevalence ofFSM eligible pupils casts doubt on the ability of selective schools to aid socialmobility.Key words: education policy, grammar schools, free school meals,Buckinghamshire, selection 2
  3. 3. Who benefits from grammar schools? A case study of Buckinghamshire In the fifties, a golden age of opportunity, almost 40% of those born to parents in the lowest social income groups grew up to join higher earners. By 1970 and ever since, only one-third achieved this. It cannot be a coincidence that, in between, Harold Wilson’s government abolished grammar schools (Hastings, 2009).1. Introduction For the last two decades, education policy within England has encouraged amove from a predominantly comprehensive system governed by localauthorities to a much more complex system of multiple school types withvarious subject specialisms and greater private sector, charitable and parentalinvolvement. Given this diversification some commentators have argued infavour of (a return to) an academically selective system whereby the highestattaining pupils – those that pass a set of entrance exams – are taught inseparate schools from others. They do so arguing not only for the educationalbenefits of such a system but also with appeal to social mobility, or rather theapparent lack of it in recent decades. Their claim is that the selecting schools(called grammar schools) allowed the most academically able pupils from thelowest income groups the life chances to move from those groups to otherprofessions instead. Without those schools, it is claimed, the opportunity forsocial mobility is curtailed. It is, however, a contentious claim that stands (deliberately) against one ofthe primary reasons most grammar schools were abolished: because they were 3
  4. 4. seen as elitist, perpetuating social class divides and limiting the educationalprospects of the greater number of pupils who did not attend those schools.Whilst various perspectives could be taken for or against grammar schools,many of which would be ideologically and politically informed, what isimportant is to establish the validity of the argument: do grammar schoolsimprove learning outcomes and do they do so to the benefit of pupils fromlower, today, income households? To consider it, the paper focuses on one of the few authorities in Englandwhere a selective system of education has been maintained fully:Buckinghamshire, a county adjacent to and to the North West of Greater London.To enter a selective (grammar) school there, a pupil must take a set of entranceexaminations in their final year of primary schooling. The best performing pupilswill then be offered a place. These examinations, known colloquially as the‘eleven-plus’, are separate from and taken earlier than the nationallystandardised tests of attainment known as the Key Stage 2 tests (KS2) thatpupils take shortly before leaving primary school (the Key Stages being periodsof education within schools). A data matching methodology is adopted, using data from the National PupilDatabase of pupils in state funded schools (seehttp://www.bris.ac.uk/cmpo/plug/). Balanced samples of pupils of near equalprior attainment at Key Stage 2 are constructed, amongst whom half entered aselective school, half did not. The probability that the pupils achieved five GCSEsat grades A to C is then modelled (with or without English and mathematics). Inthis way, the paper estimates the average effect of being in a selective school in 4
  5. 5. Buckinghamshire on the probability of success at the GCSE level. (GCSE is aGeneral Certificate of Secondary Education, usually taken as age sixteen at theend of Key Stage 4). Additional comparisons are made of the selective system ofBuckinghamshire with the neighbouring but non-selective authority ofOxfordshire. The results suggest that attendance at a selective school in Buckinghamshireincreases the prospect of passing five GCSEs at grades A to C. However, theeducational gains to those attending a selective school appear to come at a costto those unable to do so. In addition, the number of pupils from low incomehouseholds seems too few to claim that the group benefits from the selectivesystem. The paper begins with a brief history of compulsory secondary education inEngland and the UK, and a review of previous studies of the social andeducational effects of grammar schools.2. From selective to comprehensive (and back again?) Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, changes were made to the Britishsecondary school system, introducing comprehensive schools as a replacementfor the tripartite system of the 1944 Education Act. That Act, also known as theButler Act, created a national secondary education system of state-fundedsecondary schools, within which higher and lower academically attainingstudents were separated into grammar, secondary modern, and technicalschools at age eleven (Kerckhoff et al, 1996). (Many grammar schools pre-datedthis Act and many were private institutions offering state-supported places to 5
  6. 6. academically eligible pupils). Under the Butler reforms, the highest attainingquarter or so of children would attend a grammar school, having taken andpassed the eleven-plus. Grammar schools would also be the primary route intouniversity education (Pischke and Manning, 2006). Other pupils who failed ordid not take the entrance examination would attend a secondary modern ortechnical college, with less focus on academic achievement and a greater focuson vocational training as preparation to enter work at age fifteen (later sixteen,when the period of compulsory education was extended). Growing dissatisfaction with the tripartite system stemmed from concernthat it unfairly determined the life course of pupils based on, essentially, a oneshot set of examinations at age eleven. Increasingly the eleven-plus was viewedas an unfair and inaccurate measure of a child’s potential, with studies claimingthat even accurate tests misclassified ten per cent of the population (Yates andPidgeon, 1957). Unequal resource allocations and the resultant inequality ofopportunity were questioned, with secondary moderns and technical collegesgenerally viewed as having less qualified teachers and poorer facilities whencompared to grammar schools (Weeks, 1986). Grammar schools were perceivedas elitist, not only academically but also in regard to the social background oftheir intakes, reinforcing class divides (Ford, 1969). There was growing demandfor higher-level qualifications to be offered in secondary moderns (Kerckhoff etal, 1996). As one Minister for State at the (then) Department for Education andScience in the Labour Government of the late 1960s has written: The Butler Act took the concept of an academically segregated education system as far as it could go, and did so with dedication and 6
  7. 7. determination. The technical stream never really got off the ground. Parents preferred their children to go to a grammar school if he or she passed the eleven-plus, and without the necessary pubic support, the money that technical schools needed for qualified teachers and good equipment was not forthcoming. Underlying the stinginess was the old cultural distinction, moulded by the great public schools and the ancient universities that technical and vocational achievements were simply not on a par with the elegance of classical scholarship. […] The eleven-plus system was too rigid to allow for variations in children’s intellectual development, and this was its other great flaw. In theory a child who did well could transfer from a secondary modern to a grammar school. In practice less than 2 per cent of children even did so (Williams, 2010: 52). An alternative system, gaining support during the 1950s and 60s, was acomprehensive system – schools to which all pupils would be admitted (butwithin which pupils might nevertheless be streamed by ability). This wouldabandon the eleven-plus exam and even-out the distribution of school resources,motivated by the belief that everyone was of equal worth and equally deservingof help towards personal growth (Kerckhoff et al, 1996). Instead ofdifferentiation between schools, assessments by teachers could be used to movestudents between higher and lower academic classes within schools (Stevens,1980). It was hoped that continuous and evolving teacher assessment would 7
  8. 8. discover the true ability of pupils more effectively than the eleven-plus (Weeks,1986). The introduction of a comprehensive system was politicised by the Labourparty adopting it as a policy initiative in the 1960s (The Labour Party, 1965). Hiswife reports that the late Labour secretary of state for education, TonyCrossland, wanted to “destroy every fucking grammar school in England”(Collins, 2012: 48). By 1968 there were 748 comprehensives, though a largeproportion of students still attended other schools (Benn, 1972). This led Labourto promise legislative action to force the remaining LEAs into comprehensivesystems in 1969. However, this centralised approach united conservativesagainst the bill. Having won the 1970 election, the Conservative Government’sSecretary of Education and Science, Margret Thatcher, withdrew previous policyguidance, though the momentum was such that a considerable number ofcomprehensives were nevertheless created. After the 1976 election, Labouragain tried to force change but Thatcher’s government in 1979 blocked it,repealing previous education acts and removing comprehensive education as anational policy. Since then, local interests rather than government pressurehave dictated educational policy (Pischke and Manning, 2006). The legacy of these swings in policy has been a patchwork of educationalsystems in England. Currently, the vast majority of schools are comprehensivebut there remain 164 state-funded grammar schools in all regions of the country,except the North East (see Crooke et al, 1999 and http://bit.ly/eGWGJf). More recently, legislation beginning with the Conservative government’s1988 Education Act and extended under both New Labour (1997-2010) and the 8
  9. 9. current Coalition government has acted to increase the complexity of theeducation system with an expanding array of school types now present,including community schools, trusts, academies, federations, faith schools,specialist schools and, most recently, free schools. The motivation for thischange has been the desire to restructure the sector to promote choice andcompetition, to attract private and third-sector funding and expertise, to shiftdecision-making, governance and budget management away from localeducation authorities to schools and parents, and (it is hoped) to raisestandards. The Coalition have altered Labour’s flagship Academy program, originally atargeted programme for investment in schools located in the most deprivedneighbourhoods, to instead be a means to grant greater freedom andindependence for the highest performing schools (those with the best inspectionreports); permitting those schools to opt out from the budgetary control of thelocal education authority (The Conservatives, 2010). Academy status also gives aschool the ability to set its own admissions criteria, including the possibility ofselecting some pupils based on aptitude for a particular subject. Education policy no longer advocates a single type of school ascomprehensively suitable for all pupils. Quite the reverse: it seeks to diversifyprovision. However, it is never the case that a pupil or their parent can expect aright of admission into any school they choose. The reason is that many of themost popular schools are over-subscribed; their supply of places exceedsdemand for them. When this happens, admissions criteria must be used, oftengiving preference to pupils who live nearest the school (a criterion used for most 9
  10. 10. schools), to those who have affiliation to a particular faith group (used for faithschools) and/or who can demonstrate the require aptitude (some academies). To some commentators what recent policies amount to is an attempt toreintroduce or increase selective admissions (Galindo-Rueda and Vignoles,2005b). Yet to others, notably in some parts of the more right-wing media, theystop short of what would be perceived as more socially desirable: an explicitreturn to the grammar school system.3. Previous studies The arguments advanced in favour of grammar schools are not just that theyproduce higher educational outcomes but – critically – they do so foracademically able pupils from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, providingthose pupils with increased opportunities and prospects for life. The issue is oneof social mobility, with the accusation that the general abandonment of grammarschools has made it harder for the less privileged to find a social ladder our ofthat disadvantage. For example, the Daily Telegraph newspaper recentlycriticised David Cameron for lacking “the will to admit that grammar schools didmore for working-class children than a thousand free school meals” (Randall,2009). In a television documentary (Posh and Posher: Why Public School BoysRun Britain, first broadcast on BBC2 in January 2011), the broadcaster andpolitical commentator Andrew Neal argued that with the (near) demise ofgrammar schools, a largely private school educated generation is dominatingpolitics. (Half of the Coalition Cabinet ministers attended a private, fee-chargingschool, compared to seven per cent of all pupils in the UK). Alleged poorer 10
  11. 11. teaching, a diminished learning ethos, and lower teaching expectations withincomprehensives have been cited as reasons why social mobility has reduced(though, whether it has, it itself disputed: Goldthorpe and Jackson, 2007;Goldthorpe and Mills, 2008; Gorard, 2008). However, the empirical evidence is mixed as to whether grammar schools doindeed improve learning outcomes, and whether they do so for those from lessadvantaged backgrounds, thereby offering the prospect of greater socialmobility. Steedman (1980) presented one of the first attempts to evaluatestatistically aspects of educational progress in selective and non-selectivesecondary schools in England. Her research used the National ChildDevelopment Study, a longitudinal dataset of individuals born between 3rd and9th March 1958, with data sweep questionnaires at ages 0, 7, 11, 16, 20, 23, and33 focusing on education, employment, family, and health matters (Crooke et al,1999). Steedman’s work used the age sixteen sweep to find that pupils whoentered comprehensive schools aged eleven were disadvantaged in regard totheir reading and mathematics abilities, and tended to be from lower socialeconomic status groups. Using multivariate analysis to account for thisdisadvantage, Steedman showed the rates pupils advanced in selective andcomprehensive systems were not statistically different. Subsequent extensionsof the study struggled to draw conclusions for more specific subgroups of pupilsdue to the small number of pupils in each category (Steedman, 1983). Marks et al. (1983) used examination results for comprehensive andselective schools in England to study differences at the aggregate level of thelocal education authority. Using multiple regression analysis to control for socio- 11
  12. 12. economic status and non-British ethnicities, they concluded thatcomprehensives underperformed relative to grammar schools. Their studyreceived criticism from other authors for not adequately controlling for thesocial class intakes of the schools in each authority and ignoring measures ofsocial advantage (Clifford and Heath, 1984). The results of a follow-up study(Marks and Pomian-Szrednicki, 1985) mirrored the original, showing that pupilsin selective schools attain more and higher passes than those in comprehensives. Gray et al (1983) carried out a postal survey of pupil leavers in Scotland tothen consider the differences between local authorities without grammarschools and those where such schools were still active. They foundcomprehensive systems had a levelling effect on attainment, raising fewer pupilsto the highest levels but raising the average attainment. They also found lowerlevels of social class inequality in the authorities with a comprehensive system.Building on the study, McPherson and Willms (1987) concluded that oncecomprehensive schools had been established in Scotland, they contributed to arise in educational achievement and diminished the influence of social classfactors in education. Instead of drawing inferences from aggregate data, Kerckhoff et al (1996)returned to using the National Child Development Study (NCDS) and individuallevel multiple regression analysis to compare students in comprehensive andselective systems. Accounting for socio-economic status (SES) and prioracademic achievement they found that the highest ability students performed athigher levels in selective systems and low ability students performed better in 12
  13. 13. comprehensive systems. However, for most students the type of school has littleeffect. Galindo-Rueda and Vignole’s (2005a) used cogitative ability as a proxy foracademic potential with the NCDS dataset and accounted for pupil, school, andcommunity factors. They claimed comprehensive schools reduced the gap ineducational achievement between the most able and least able students but onaverage most pupils in the selective system do better than those in mixed abilityschools. Crucially, the SES of the pupil is a key determinant of learning outcomes,with the housing markets or ‘selection by mortgage’ usurping the eleven-plusexamination as a determinant of educational success. Boliver and Swift (2011) also use the NCDS data; to investigate howschooling systems affected class and income mobility. They used PropensityScore Matching (PSM) to match pupils in a selective system with pupils withsimilar characteristics in a comprehensive system. They concluded that going toa grammar school did not make children from lower SES backgrounds morelikely to be upwardly mobile in terms of income or class. Indeed, as a whole, theselective system does not yield any mobility advantage to children of poorerbackgrounds. Any assistance to children of lower SES attending grammarschools is cancelled by the hindrance to those remaining at secondary moderns. An alternative to using either local authority aggregated data or the NCDSdata is Jesson’s (2000) use of data from a National Data Collection Exerciseconducted on behalf of the (then) Department for Education and Employment inthe mid 1990s to compare the value-added of selective and comprehensivesystems. Jesson concludes that there is no support for the claim that selective 13
  14. 14. education systems provide better GCSE examination performance thancomprehensives. In fact, he goes as far to say that comprehensives aredelivering education that is as good as selective systems, if not better, and thatthose selective systems with the majority of pupils in secondary modernsperform less well overall. In summary, the notion that selective systems of education produce betterlearning outcomes is disputed. Moreover, even if grammar schools do raiseeducational success, at heart is the issue of for whom those learning outcomesare realised. Whilst grammar schools may lead to higher attainment for pupilswho are successful in entering them, the concern is that this comes at the priceof depressing the average attainment for other pupils. In other words, the value-added for some pupils comes at a loss to others, amongst whom lower incomegroups will be disproportionately present. Whether this is true or not, theoverwhelming majority of studies are reliant either on aggregate data, not onactual individual learning outcomes, or on data that were collected during the1960s and 1970s. There is therefore opportunity to update our understanding ofthe effects of a selective system to consider the present day.4. A case study of Buckinghamshire The argument favouring a selective system benefits from two conditionsbeing demonstrated empirically. First, that there is a value-added learning outcome for an academically ablepupil attending a grammar school over and above what would occur if that pupilhad attended a comprehensive school. Such an effect could be due more to, say, 14
  15. 15. differential resourcing than the benefit of being in some ‘higher level’ learningcommunity (more wealthy parent associations affording great facilities andopportunities for the children, for example). However, if there is no evidence ofimproved outcomes then there is no obvious basis to claim grammar schoolsenhance learning. Second, that academically able pupils from more deprived or sociallyexcluded backgrounds have no lower propensity to be admitted to a selectiveschool than equally able pupils from more advantaged backgrounds. Finding thisto be true is not itself a defence of grammar schools necessarily. It could beargued that a better ideal is for the proportion of pupils in selective schools whoare from more disadvantaged backgrounds to be equal to the proportion of allsuch pupils in the school age population. Nevertheless, if it were found that eventhe most academically able pupils from the least wealthy backgrounds areunder-represented amongst those who attend grammar schools then the claimthat such schools foster social mobility would be disputed. Our study looks at whether these conditions are met in one of the few Britishauthorities still operating a grammar school system: Buckinghamshire. Itconsiders the educational attainment of 11 746 pupils who took their GCSE (KeyStage 4) examinations in any one of the academic years 2006-7, 2007-8 or 2008-9. These are pupils who attended any one of 32 secondary modern or grammarschools in Buckinghamshire but not either of two non-selective faith schools(which are omitted from the analysis as unusual in Buckinghamshire). Pupilswith a statement of educational need also are omitted, as are pupils who did notstay in the same school from the first year of secondary education to the taking 15
  16. 16. of their GCSE exams. The study, therefore, is of all pupils that entered any one ofthe most typical school types in Buckinghamshire, stayed in that schoolthroughout their period of compulsory secondary education, and did not haveany distinct educational need. Of the 32 schools, thirteen are academically selective, as Table 1 records. Themean prior attainment score of pupils in those selective schools is 1.365standard deviations greater than the mean for non-selecting schools. Priorattainment here is measured by the combined Key Stage 2 tests (taken prior toleaving primary school but after the eleven-plus for those who sit the latter),scaled to give a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one across all the11 746 pupils. (The combined score is a summary of three separate measures ofattainment in science, mathematics and English: see Figure 1 below). Table 1 also shows that the proportion of pupils passing any five GCSEexaminations with a grade C or above is 1.507 times greater in the selectiveschools relative to the non-selecting ones. This difference in attainmentincreases when those who have passed with both mathematics and English isconsidered. The proportion in selective schools is 1.988 times greater. Bothmeasures of attainment by GCSE are crude measures of academic success butwidely used and published in ‘league tables’ of school performance. 16
  17. 17. Non-selecting Selective schools schools Number of pupils 6723 5023 Number of schools 19 13 Mean prior attainment score: KS2 combined scores -0.584 0.781 (95% confidence interval) (-0.605, -0.563) (0.766, 0.796) Proportion of pupils attaining any 5 GCSEs 0.661 0.996 at grade A to C Proportion of pupils attaining 5 GCSEs at A to C, 0.499 0.992 including English and Maths Proportion of pupils free school meal eligible 0.075 0.010Table 1. Showing the numbers of pupils in non-selecting and selective secondaryschools in the Buckinghamshire data sample, their mean prior attainment score,the proportion passing five GCSEs at grade A to C (any GCSEs and inclusive ofEnglish and maths), and the proportion eligible for free school meals. Of course, the better average GCSE performance of pupils in selective schoolsis not surprising given they recruit pupils of higher average prior attainment, aconsequence of having entrance exams. Another consequence of this selectionprocess is that they recruit few pupils that are eligible for free school meals, anindicator of the pupil living in a lower income household. Of the 11 746Buckinghamshire pupils, 555 are FSM eligible and, of those, only 48 attend aselective school (less than ten per cent). That is because those pupils face aneducational barrier to entry: the average prior attainment (KS2) score of theFSM eligible pupils is -0.275 standard deviations below the mean, compared toan average of 0.516 above for a pupil who isn’t eligible (a difference that gives atwo-sample t score of 21.9, significant at a 99.9 per cent confidence). Despite the selection process, there is some overlap in the prior attainmentscores of those who did relatively well and went to a selective school and thosewho did comparably well but went to a non-selecting school. Figure 1 reveals 17
  18. 18. this graphically, showing density estimations of the distributions of the priorattainment scores for entrants into the two types of Buckinghamshire school inour data. Four measures of prior attainment are shown: Key Stage 2performance in English; KS2 in mathematics; KS2 in science; and then the samecombined score used in Table 1. On all these metrics, the mean prior attainmentis greater for pupils in selective schools (and always significantly so at a 99.9 percent confidence) but there is some degree of overlap nevertheless.Figure 1. Showing the distribution of the Key Stage 2 results for pupils inBuckinghamshire schools. The mean attainment for selecting and non-selecting 18
  19. 19. schools is shown as a circle. There are always significant differences between thetwo but a degree of overlap remains.Data matching The overlaps in attainment shown in Figure 1 can be exploited to create abalanced sample of pupils amongst whom half attended a selective school andhalf a non-selecting school. A subset of data is taken of pupils found in theoverlap between the minimum combined KS2 result of a pupil in a selectiveschool and the maximum result of a pupil in a non-selecting school. Having doneso, pupils in the one type of school are paired individually with a pupil in theother type, where the match seeks to minimise the differences in their scores onthe three remaining metrics, prior attainment in English, mathematics andscience. In total, 3438 pupils are matched in this way (giving 1719 pairs). ThePearson correlation between the English scores of the pupils in selective schoolsand their pair in non-selecting schools is r = 0.994. The correlation for themathematics scores is r = 0.989, and for the science scores it is r = 0.991. Themean and median difference in attainment averaged across the three metrics is0.046 and 0.033 standard deviations, respectively, and the maximum differencepermitted (by choice) was set to an average of 0.250. Checking against theircombined Key Stage 2 result, no significant difference is found for the twogroups. Both have a mean between 0.330 and 0.332, a median between 0.354and 0.359, a standard deviation between 0.437 and 0.439, a minimum scorebetween -1.72 and -1.77, and a maximum between 2.50 and 2.60. The twogroups of pupils are very closely balanced in regard to their attainment on 19
  20. 20. departure from primary school but one group attends a selective school, and theother does not.Data modelling Having matched the data, logistic regression is used to model the probabilitythe pupils in the balanced sample successfully passed five GCSEs at grade A to C(first for any five GCSEs and then inclusive of English and maths), conditional onthe pupils’ prior attainment and personal characteristics. The observed (not modelled) proportion of pupils achieving any five GCSEsat grade A to C is high for both groups but higher for selective schools at p =0.992, compared to p = 0.902 for non-selecting schools, giving odds ratios ofsuccess of 131 and 9.23, respectively. (The odds ratio is p / (1 – p) and is highbecause few of the pupils, especially in the selective schools, do not achieve atthe level). The proportion passing five GCSEs at grade A to C with English andmaths also is greater for selective schools than non-selecting ones: p = 0.981 Vs p= 0.814, giving odds ratios of 52.7 and 4.39. These differences lead to modelledprobabilities of success that are significantly greater for pupils in selectiveschools at a 99.9 per cent confidence: see Table 2. The odds ratio of success inpassing any five GCSEs at grade A to C is 13.5 times greater for pupils in selectiveschools, versus pupils who are not; 12.1 times greater when English and mathsare included. This, to emphasise, is not because the pupils in the data samplewho are in the selective schools have higher prior attainment. They do not. Theyare matched to pupils of near equal prior attainment in non-selecting schools.The model also includes the pupils’ combined Key Stage 2 as a predictive 20
  21. 21. variable, with pupils with a higher combined test score on leaving primaryschool more probably achieving the five GCSEs at grades A to C, true whether ornot English and maths are included. Looking at Table 2, whilst prior attainment is a determinant of success atGCSE, there is no evidence that it has greater or lesser effect dependent upon theschool type (the interaction term yields no significant effect). Being in a selectiveschool raises the probability of success, as does higher prior attainment butthere is no joint effect. The model shows that female pupils will more probably achieve the fiveGCSEs at grades A to C. The odds ratio of success is 1.74 times greater forfemales than for males to pass any five GCSEs at grade A to C, and 1.63 greaterwhen English and maths are included. There is no evidence that older pupils in the sample do better than otherpupils, at least, not over-and-above what is expected given their priorattainment. (Older pupils, those born in September or October, have a higheraverage prior attainment with a mean combined score of 0.402, significantlygreater than the mean for younger pupils of 0.316: t = 4.46, p < 0.001). With theexception of Pakistani pupils for whom the greater probability of success withEnglish and maths is significant, there is no evidence that the probabilities varyby ethnicity. However, with 83.2 per cent of the sample classed as White British,the number of pupils in other ethnic groups is low: 97 Indians, 127 Pakistani, 22Black Caribbean and 333 of various other minority groups (wherein the numberof any specific group is few). 21
  22. 22. The national trend for increased examination success is reflected in theachievements of the Buckinghamshire pupils. The probability of success rose inthe year 2008 compared to 2007, rising again in 2009 (although the increase in2008 of passing with English and maths is not significant). Within the sample, the reduced probability of success at achieving any fiveGCSEs at grade A to C is of borderline significance for FSM pupils (butnevertheless not significant at any conventional level of confidence). There are,however, only 92 FSM eligible pupils in the matched data. Of these, just 24(26.1%) attend a selective school. The expected value is 50 per cent (becausehalf the pupils in the matched data set are in selective schools). This, using abinomial test, is a significant difference, at a 99.9 per cent confidence. Becausethere are so few FSM eligible pupils in selective schools the otherwisepotentially interesting interaction term giving the joint effect of both FSMeligibility and being in a selective school in GCSE success is omitted. Table 3 repeats the regression analysis but now weighting the sampleobservations from 0.197 to 1.18 where the weight is linearly proportional tohow closely each observation is matched to its pair and where the sum ofweights is equal to the total number of observations in the matched sample(3438). The results are substantively the same as for the unweighted regressionbut weighting gives a slightly better model fit (the AIC value is less) and there isnow a significant negative effect associated with FSM eligibility on successfullypassing any five GCSEs at grade A to C. 22
  23. 23. Any five GCSEs Five include English and maths Estimate s.e. z value P (> |z|) Estimate s.e. z value P (> |z|) (Intercept) 1.313 0.151 8.697 <0.001 * 0.633 0.124 5.119 <0.001 * In a selective school 2.605 0.300 8.669 <0.001 * (13.5) 2.491 0.199 12.491 <0.001 * (12.1) FSM eligible -0.670 0.379 -1.766 0.077 -0.298 0.330 -0.905 0.365 Female 0.556 0.170 3.278 0.001 * (1.74) 0.489 0.126 3.879 <0.001 * (1.63) Oldest in class -0.172 0.204 -0.841 0.400 -0.244 0.154 -1.583 0.113 Indian 0.954 1.038 0.919 0.358 0.730 0.629 1.161 0.246 Pakistani 0.828 0.529 1.565 0.118 0.984 0.426 2.311 0.021 * (2.68) Black Caribbean -0.291 0.824 -0.353 0.724 0.434 0.813 0.534 0.594 Other ethnicity (except White British) -0.431 0.266 -1.620 0.105 -0.391 0.207 -1.885 0.059 Prior attainment: Combined KS2 score 2.042 0.202 10.123 <0.001 * 1.915 0.165 11.614 <0.001 * GCSE year: 2008 (Vs 2007) 0.447 0.186 2.405 0.016 * (1.56) 0.171 0.140 1.223 0.221 GCSE year: 2009 (Vs 2007) 1.000 0.230 4.343 <0.001 * (2.72) 0.818 0.171 4.787 <0.001 * (2.27)Combined KS2 score Selective school 0.011 0.548 0.021 0.983 0.259 0.393 0.659 0.510 (AIC) 1116 1767Table 2. Logistic regression modelling the probability of passing five GCSEs at grade A to C (any GCSE or with English andmathematics), dependent on the characteristics of the pupils and whether the school is selective, relative to not being so. Thepupils in the selective schools have a greater probability of success. (*Significant at 95% confidence or above. The odds ratio alsois given for significant binary variables) 23
  24. 24. Any five GCSEs Five include English and maths Estimate s.e. z value P (> |z|) Estimate s.e. z value P (> |z|) (Intercept) 1.298 0.152 8.530 <0.001 * 0.632 0.125 5.065 <0.001 * In a selective school 2.613 0.304 8.602 <0.001 * (13.6) 2.446 0.198 12.366 <0.001 * (11.5) FSM eligible -0.747 0.382 -1.957 0.050 * (2.11)-1 -0.387 0.331 -1.170 0.242 Female 0.541 0.171 3.170 0.002 * (1.72) 0.491 0.127 3.856 0.000 * (1.47) Oldest in class -0.171 0.206 -0.831 0.406 -0.263 0.155 -1.699 0.089 Indian 1.589 1.377 1.154 0.249 0.885 0.655 1.351 0.177 Pakistani 1.105 0.579 1.909 0.056 1.152 0.449 2.567 0.010 * (3.16) Black Caribbean -0.322 0.815 -0.396 0.692 0.405 0.804 0.504 0.614 Other ethnicity (except White British) -0.435 0.268 -1.625 0.104 -0.332 0.211 -1.570 0.116 Combined KS2 score 2.100 0.205 10.254 <0.001 * 2.000 0.167 11.948 <0.001 * GCSE year: 2008 (Vs 2007) 0.499 0.187 2.664 0.008 0.173 0.140 1.231 0.218 GCSE year: 2009 (Vs 2007) 1.024 0.236 4.336 0.000 * (2.78) 0.842 0.176 4.785 0.000 * (2.32)Combined KS2 score Selective school -0.095 0.582 -0.164 0.870 0.159 0.402 0.397 0.692 (AIC) 1070 1701Table 3. Repeating the analysis of Table 2 but weighting according to how closely each pupil is matched to her or his pair. Theresults are substantively the same but FSM eligibility now has a significant negative effect on success. (*Significant at 95%confidence or above. The odds ratio also is given for significant binary variables) 24
  25. 25. Considering FSM eligible pupils further, there are 444 FSM such pupils thathave a Key Stage 2 combined prior attainment score within the overlap of scoresfor pupils in selective schools and those of pupils in non-selecting schools. Notall of these 444 are in the matched sample; indeed, most aren’t. That is because,within the overlap, the FSM pupils have lower prior attainment on average,making them harder to match: -0.545 for English at KS2 versus 0.139 (forineligible pupils); -0.465 Vs 0.142 for mathematics; and -0.504 Vs 0.153 forscience. An apparent consequence of their lower attainment is that of the 444FSM eligible pupils, only 10.8 per cent attend a selective school. In contrast, ofthe 10 636 ineligible pupils within the same overlap, 46.7 per cent attend aselective school, meaning they are four times more likely to do so. However, the difference is only partly explained by the higher priorattainment of the students not eligible for free school meals. Figure 2 gives theproportion of students that went to a selective school given their combined KS2score result and whether they are FSM eligible or not. The range of scores isfrom the minimum of any pupil attending a selective school to the maximum fora FSM eligible pupil. Even given the error bars (which are greater for the FSMeligible pupils because they are fewer in number) the trend is of a decreasedlikelihood to attend a selective school amongst FSM eligible pupils whencompared to ineligible pupils of comparable prior attainment. This unevenness is a concern, not least because FSM eligible pupils who doattend a selective school appear to benefit from it insofar as a greater proportionachieves success at GCSE than do FSM eligible students who are in the non-selecting schools. Within the matched data sample, p = 0.958 of FSM eligible 25
  26. 26. pupils in selective schools achieved any five GCSES at grade A to C, versus p =0.838 for the eligible pupils in non-selecting schools. With English and mathsincluded, the values are p = 0.958 Vs p = 0.779. These values for the FSM eligiblepupils in selective schools are comparable though lower than the proportions forthe matched pupils who also are in selective schools but not eligible for freeschool meals. For this group the proportions are p = 0.993 for any five GCSEs andp = 0.982 for with English and maths.Figure 2. Showing the proportion of pupils who attended a selective school giventheir combined KS2 score. The 95 per cent confidence interval also is shown. The 26
  27. 27. class breaks are those found using the Jenks (natural breaks) classification of thecombined KS2 score distribution for the free school meal eligible pupils.5. Discussion and comparison with Oxfordshire The results of our data analysis suggest two conclusions. First, that there areeducational barriers to entry into Buckinghamshire’s grammar schools forpupils from lower income households insofar as that is evidenced by eligibilityfor a free school meal (and without a statement of educational need), and by theprevalence of this group in the grammar schools relative to other pupils. Second, that there is an educational advantage bestowed on those whoattend a selective school in Buckinghamshire (FSM eligible or otherwise)relative to those who do not, insofar as that advantage is measured by increasedprobability of attaining five GCSEs (inclusive or not of English and mathematics)at grade A to C, controlling for prior achievement at Key Stage 2. What is notknown is how the difference in attainment is created. It could be that theselective system acts to raise (to give value-added to) the educationalachievements of those pupils in the selective schools. Alternatively, it could bethat the prospects of pupils who are not in selective schools are curtailed. To address whether the selective system comes at a cost to some pupils, twofurther data matchings are undertaken. The first is of the Buckinghamshirepupils who attended a selective school with pupils of similar prior attainment inthe neighbouring authority of Oxfordshire, which does not operate a selectivesystem. In total, 6988 pupils are matched in this way and closely so. The 27
  28. 28. correlations for the pairs of KS2 scores in English, mathematics and science are r= 0.993, r = 0.998 and r = 0.989, respectively. The second is of Buckinghamshire pupils who did not attend a selectiveschool but who had a combined Key Stage 2 score greater than the minimumamongst those who did attend a selective school, also matched to pupils ofsimilar prior attainment in Oxfordshire. Again, the pupils closely are matched.The correlations in their KS2 English, mathematics and science scores are all r =0.993. In total, 11 326 pupils are matched. Having made the matches, the probability of success at GCSE is modelled inthe same way as previously (and with weighting) but now comparing pupils in aselective system with pupils in a neighbouring non-selective one. Tables 4 and 5give the results. They show that the probability of passing any five GCSEs atgrades A to C is significantly greater for the sample of pupils inBuckinghamshire’s selective schools than for pupils of similar prior attainmentin Oxfordshire (Table 4). However, this apparent value-added of the selectivesystem appears to come at a cost to those pupils who might have, in principle,attended a selective school in Buckinghamshire but actually went to a non-selecting one. Those pupils do significantly less well (in Buckinghamshire’sschools) than do pupils of similar prior attainment in Oxfordshire (Table 5). Looking at the odds ratios, it may be argued that the increased prospect ofsuccess in Buckinghamshire’s selective schools is greater than the diminishedprospect in its non-selecting schools, the selective system therefore yielding anet gain. But, whatever the merits of such an argument, it remains a system ofwinners and losers. 28
  29. 29. Any five GCSEs Five include English and maths Estimate s.e. z value P (> |z|) Estimate s.e. z value P (> |z|) (Intercept) 0.012 0.200 0.061 0.951 -0.754 0.174 -4.347 <0.001 * In a Bucks school (Vs Oxford) 2.607 0.427 6.104 <0.001 * (13.6) 2.427 0.308 7.893 <0.001 * (11.3) FSM eligible -1.093 0.416 -2.626 0.009 * (2.98)-1 -1.171 0.348 -3.365 0.001 * (3.22)-1 Female 0.597 0.173 3.448 0.001 * (1.82) 0.543 0.131 4.148 <0.001 * (1.72) Oldest in class -0.147 0.221 -0.666 0.506 -0.277 0.164 -1.682 0.093 Pakistani 0.613 0.857 0.716 0.474 1.022 0.677 1.509 0.131 Combined KS2 score 3.265 0.229 14.241 <0.001 * 3.567 0.197 18.144 <0.001 * GCSE year: 2008 (Vs 2007) 0.524 0.187 2.808 0.005 * (1.69) 0.137 0.139 0.984 0.325 GCSE year: 2009 (Vs 2007) 0.977 0.250 3.915 0.000 * (2.66) 0.924 0.195 4.746 <0.001 * (2.52)Bucks school Combined KS2 score -0.671 0.560 -1.197 0.231 -0.547 0.419 -1.305 0.192 (AIC) 1184 1829Table 4. Logistic regression modelling the probability of passing five GCSEs at grade A to C, comparing pupils inBuckinghamshire’s selective schools with pupils of similar prior attainment in Oxfordshire’s school. The pupils in theBuckinghamshire schools have a greater probability of success. (*Significant at 95% confidence or above. The odds ratio also isgiven for significant binary variables) 29
  30. 30. Any five GCSEs Five include English and maths Estimate s.e. z value P (> |z|) Estimate s.e. z value P (> |z|) (Intercept) 0.313 0.053 5.932 <0.001 * -0.521 0.052 -9.943 <0.001 * In a Bucks school (Vs Oxford) -0.167 0.049 -3.401 0.001 * (1.18) -1 -0.194 0.048 -4.078 <0.001 * (1.21) -1 FSM eligible -0.734 0.102 -7.223 <0.001 * (2.08)-1 -0.703 0.105 -6.665 <0.001 * (2.02)-1 Female 0.502 0.049 10.303 <0.001 * (1.65) 0.516 0.046 11.252 <0.001 * (1.67) Oldest in class -0.212 0.066 -3.219 0.001 * (1.24) -1 -0.280 0.062 -4.544 <0.001 * (1.32) -1 Pakistani 0.985 0.141 7.009 <0.001 * (2.68) 1.161 0.134 8.650 <0.001 * (3.19) Combined KS2 score 2.421 0.078 30.928 <0.001 * 2.858 0.079 36.199 <0.001 * GCSE year: 2008 (Vs 2007) 0.518 0.057 9.107 <0.001 * (1.68) 0.344 0.054 6.363 <0.001 * (1.41) GCSE year: 2009 (Vs 2007) 0.984 0.062 15.858 <0.001 * (2.67) 0.859 0.058 14.761 <0.001 * (2.36)Bucks school Combined KS2 score -0.223 0.106 -2.106 0.035 * -0.397 0.105 -3.801 <0.001 * (AIC) 10180 11234Table 5. As for Table 4 but now comparing pupils who did not attend a selective school in Buckinghamshire (but might havegiven their Key Stage 2 attainment) with pupils of similar prior attainment in Oxfordshire’s school. The pupils in theBuckinghamshire schools have a lesser probability of success. (*Significant at 95% confidence or above. The odds ratio also isgiven for significant binary variables) 30
  31. 31. Our findings, therefore, are mixed. Consistent with previous studies, there isevidence to suggest that selective schools are of educational benefit to those whoare able to attend them. Yet, those who were unable to attend (but, in principle,could have given their prior attainment scores) would do better, on average, in acomprehensive system. FSM eligible pupils are under-represented in thegrammar schools, even when those pupils had prior attainment scores thatexceeded those of other pupils in the selective schools. We suggested that two conditions should be demonstrated to give supportfor a selective system. Of these, the first – a value-added learning outcome –appears to exist but at a cost to others not in the selective schools. The second –that academically able pupils from more deprived backgrounds should have nolower propensity to be admitted to a selective school – does not.6. Conclusions This paper has used learning records of pupils in Buckinghamshire toconsider the arguments sometimes advanced in favour of a selective system ofeducation. It suggests that grammar schools may well advance the educationalprospects of their pupils insofar as these can be measured by the attainment offive GCSE qualifications at grade A to C but also that the selective system appearsto reduce the probability of success at GCSE for those who do not attend aselective school. There are three reasons that might explain this differential. The first is thatthe eleven-plus is a more accurate measure of innate or potential academicability than the Key Stage 2 evaluations used by primary schools. This is possible 31
  32. 32. but conjecture, although the overlap in the Key Stage 2 scores of those who or donot attend a grammar school certainly suggests the tests are measuring differentthings. The second is that learning resources (such as the finances of the school, thehome environment or the ability of teachers) are different for selective and non-selecting schools. This also is possible, indeed likely, but raises questions aboutinequality of opportunity, to the detriment of those who do not attend a selectiveschool. The third is that there is a peer effect and/or a learning culture that iscultivated in the grammar schools to positive effect. Again, this seems entirelypossible but has an unfortunate corollary. If peer effects can be positive tolearning in some schools then, presumably, they can also be negative uponlearning in others. The implication is that some gain but others not so byselection into grammar schools. At the current time there are no plans by Government either to re-introducethe grammar school system in England or to remove that of it that remains.However, existing grammar schools have recently been given permission toexpand, to increase their intake (Gardham, 2011). Permeating governmentthinking is a desire to give parents more choice and to give schools morefreedom to operate outside the constraints of their local authority. Whether thisbegins to introduce ‘selection by the back door’ is a moot point. What we can saywith greater certainty is any system that does not guarantee a pupil will gain aplace at a school of their choosing will risk being responsible for creatingwinners and losers in regard to who gains most from their schooling. What 32
  33. 33. therefore is important is to ensure that those who gain less are notdisproportionately drawn from any one particular social group. Our study suggests that the attendees of grammar schools inBuckinghamshire do benefit educationally from that experience but seemingly ata cost to others. It also suggests that the academic barriers to entry into selectiveschools are such that pupils from poorer households are under-represented insuch schools, suggesting a selective system is more prone to reinforcing socialdivisions than eroding them. Nevertheless, grammar schools remain rare nationally. A more commonoccurrence is one of geographical constraints placed on admissions to schools, ofhouse prices rising around the most popular schools, and of resulting ‘selectionby mortgage’. Whether this actually is an adequate (or even better) system forenhancing educational prospects and for increasing social mobility is itselfdebatable (Burgess & Briggs, 2010).ReferencesBenn, C., 1972. Comprehensive schools in 1972: reorganization plans to 1975,London: Comprehensive Schools Committee.Boliver, V. & Swift, A., 2011. Do comprehensive schools reduce social mobility?The British Journal of Sociology, 62(1), p.89-110.Burgess, S. & Briggs, A., 2010. School assignment, school choice and socialmobility. Economics of Education Review, 29(4), p.639-649.Clifford, P. & Heath, A., 1984. Selection Does Make a Difference. Oxford Review ofEducation, 10(1), p.85-97.Collins, P., 2012. Making the grade. Prospect, January, pp. 48-51. 33
  34. 34. Conservatives,The, 2010. Academies programme opened up to all schools.Available at: http://bit.ly/9wx65C [Accessed April 12, 2011].Crook, D., Power, S. & Whitty, G., 1999. The Grammar School Question: A Review ofResearch on Comprehensive and Selective Education, London: Institute ofEducation.Ford, J., 1969. Social class and the comprehensive school., London: Routledge & K.Paul.Galindo-Rueda, F. & Vignoles, A., 2005a. The Heterogeneous Effect of Selection inSecondary Schools: Understanding the Changing Role of Ability, London: Centrefor the Economics of Education.Galindo-Rueda, F. & Vignoles, A., 2005b. The Declining Relative Importance ofAbility in Predicting Educational Attainment. Journal of Human Resources, XL(2),p.335-353.Gardham D., 2011. Grammar schools get go-ahead to expand. Telegraph.co.uk.Available at: http://tgr.ph/vfbu4O [Accessed January 13, 2012].Goldthorpe, J. & Jackson, M., 2007. Intergenerational class mobility incontemporary Britain: political concerns and empirical findings. The BritishJournal of Sociology, 58(4), p.525-546.Goldthorpe, J.H. & Mills, C., 2008. Trends in Intergenerational Class Mobility inModern Britain: Evidence From National Surveys, 1972-2005. National InstituteEconomic Review, 205(1), p.83-100.Gorard, S., 2008. A re-consideration of rates of “social mobility” in Britain: orwhy research impact is not always a good thing. British Journal of Sociology ofEducation, 29(3), p.317-324.Gray, J., McPherson, A. & Raffe, D., 1983. Reconstructions of secondary education :theory, myth, and practice since the war, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Hastings, M., 2009. No one admires high-achievers more than me - but you’llnever get social mobility by passing laws against middle classes. The Daily Mail.Available at: http://bit.ly/xxnZi0 [Accessed February 2, 2011]. 34
  35. 35. Jesson, D., 2000. The Comparative Evaluation of GCSE Value-Added Performanceby Type of School and LEA, Department of Economics, University of York.Available at: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/yoryorken/00_2f52.htm[Accessed February 2, 2011].Kerckhoff, A., Crooke, D., Fogelman, K., & Reeder, D., 1996. Going Comprehensivein England and Wales: A Study of Uneven Change 1st ed., Oxford: Routledge.Labour Party, The, 1965. Rejects! Did You Know That 8/10 Children are Rejectedfor Grammar School Education. London: Deaner Printers Ltd. (Leaflet)Marks, J., Cox, C. & Pomian-Srzednicki, M., 1983. Standards in English Schools,London: National Council for Educational Standards.Marks, J. & Pomian-Srzednicki, M., 1985. Standards in English Schools, London:National Council for Educational Standards.McPherson, A. & Willms, J., 1987. Equalisation and Improvement: Some Effects ofComprehensive Reorganisation in Scotland. Sociology, 21(4), p.509 -539.Pischke, J. & Manning, A., 2006. Comprehensive versus selective schooling inEngland and Wales: What do we know? National Bureau of Economic Research,Working Paper. Cambridge, MA.Randall, J., How the class war backfired and put social mobility into retreat.Telegraph.co.uk. Available at: http://tgr.ph/3fPo0i [Accessed May 4, 2011].Steedman, J., 1983. Examination results in selective and nonselective schools:Findings from the National child development study, London: National Children’sBureau.Steedman, J., 1980. Progress in Secondary Schools: Findings from the NationalChild Development Study, London: National Children’s Bureau.Stevens, A., 1980. Clever children in comprehensive schools, Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.Weeks, A., 1986. Comprehensive schools: past, present, and future, London:Methuen. 35
  36. 36. Williams, S., 2010. Climbing the Bookshelves: The Autobiography of ShirleyWilliams, London: Virago Press.Yates, A. & Pidgeon, D., 1957. Admission to Grammar Schools, London: NewnesEducational Publishing Co. 36

×