If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

I haven't seen any evidence of schools round here putting this into practice. We are in a non grammar area and all high schools still currently set children in high school.

I apologise, I should have made it clear that I was talking about non-London.

It is a very circular argument, though, isn’t it? The very habit of sending children to private or selective schools has created these ‘sink’ schools (probably not sink in national terms - in the same way as it is possible to mis-idolise a very nationally average school due to its outlier status in the surroundings, it is also possible to mis-demonise a very nationally average school in the same way) and it is not easy to see a way forward.

This is factually incorrect.

London here - nice primaries but most professional/educated/middle class, whatever you call it, families send their kids to either multiple (and frequently top something in the UK) PS or to a few super selective grammars.

So perfectly nice and reasonably wealthy areas with pockets of social housing nearby which are spread over entire London have comps/academies filled with children who didn't make it to PSs or grammars. I live very close to one of such schools - I'm really scared of those teens when they go to/from school and see them very frequently shoplifting etc, straight in their uniforms.

The difference is in the culture of success that exists in independents - it's cool to do well.

That’s a very lazy trope - it is neither true that all independents have a culture of success (arrogance and machismo, perhaps) nor that all state schools - of all types - lack it.

So let's force those PS out of their schools, deny them grammars and chuck them to sinking comps where majority of families simply don't care hoping that those proverbial 7% will make these schools thrive

The thing is, comprehensive state schools tend to reflect their local area. It is unlikely that the majority pf parents currently using grammar or private schools live in the deprived areas (post-industrial; large council estates; coastal towns) where the schools described as ‘sink’ (for their outcomes, which are massively affected by their intake) tend to be situated.

Comprehensive state schools are universally struggling due to lack of funding (both direct and for support services such as SEN and social services) and teachers leaving the profession. Properly funded and supported comprehensives would not be sinking - but this needs huge attention, and huge focus and funding of both education and support services to work.

@nearlylovemyusername Having an engaged parent/s makes a world of difference, regardless of the child’s ability - it is even more important if a child finds a particular area or subject challenging.

@FancyBiscuitsLevel Why would it be selfish to want your own child to do as well as possible? It’s almost as if there is contempt for children who do well academically, and the idea that if they are so intelligent they will get there anyway. All children need to be nurtured.

It’s no wonder being smart in most schools automatically makes you uncool. It starts at home.

You’re quite right, I was using streaming as an umbrella term for both setting and streaming. The point is that one way or another, you need the abilities to be separated. Unfortunately, it’s not the case universally and plenty of schools actively discourage it and insist on mixed ability classes

This million times!

And there is absolutely nothing that government can do about it, it's coming from families. Just read those threads "should I take my child for holiday during term time"

So let's force those PS out of their schools, deny them grammars and chuck them to sinking comps where majority of families simply don't care hoping that those proverbial 7% will make these schools thrive

My DC’s experience, both in secondary schools with a wide mix of abilities and in parts of the UK with different education systems, is of setting and not streaming (as was my experience at comprehensive in the 70s/80s). We all also had the opportunity to either take exams early, take additional maths courses or skip to a higher level qualification.

However, for GCSE choice subjects, mixed ability classes may be the norm - Art, Music, DT, Drama etc were all mixed ability at my dc’s comp.

Setting - creating teaching groups in each subject according to ability - is the norm in most comprehensives.

The much cruder tool of ‘streaming’ - placing students in a group for all subjects regardless of eg spiky profiles - is much rarer. Why would it be ‘better’ to place a student in a fixed ‘stream’ that included both English and Maths if they are top 10% for Maths but lowest 25% for English?

I’m not saying there aren’t, I was merely expressing the ‘going rate’ for those I had researched for our kid, we are London-based.

@CakeTastesBetterAsBatter - the problems with streaming - you need a lot of children in each year group to fill a class of the top set and bottom set, so in schools with say, 4 class entry in a comprehensive system, you might not have the range of students.

then there’s the issue you’ve noted, streaming would have helped someone like you at the top to be pushed to do better, however as I said up thread, the evidence for streaming shows it doesn’t make much of a difference to the exam results to the middle students and leads to the bottom ability students doing worse than in mixed ability.

if a school is judged by how many students it can get a GCSE 4 or 5 in maths and English, not streaming will get them a better result overall. It would be worth sacrificing a few top kids only getting an 8 when they could get a 9, if they can get the same numbers getting a 4 when they would have had a 3.

I completely understand why many schools don’t stream, particularly those with majority who are of lower ability, I can support it from a national level, just if my kids could get 8/9 I want them to get that, not 6/7. I recognise this is selfish of me.

Setting and streaming are different things. Streaming is putting children n ability streams for all subjects usually based on performance in maths and english. Generally inflexible and not considered a good thing nowadays. Setting is putting children in ability groups for particular subjects so you can be in different groups for different subjects. This allows flexibility, and also means that some subjects like art, drama, PHSE and so on can be in mixed ability groups allowing non academic children to shine, and to let academic children realise that people they may have dismissed as no good at maths and English might be very good at other things.

They do but it tends to depend on whether the school encourages streaming or not. In a mixed ability class for a core subject with 30 odd kids, teachers have to make a choice because one of the 3 main groups is going to miss out - this is why they often target the middle and why senior management encourages this (they are aiming for a certain percentage of 5+). It is also why I will only teach in schools that stream, at least from year 9.

I passed 3 of my gcse's (3 of the compulsory subjects), did a level 2 course which was equivalent to 5 gcse's and then level 3 which was equivalent to 2 a levels.

Business studies was marketed at our school as being more suited to non academic students. Most of the people who did it said the lessons were boring but the trips made it worth it. The students who were considered "academic" were told to pick double science, history or geography and one additional subject from what we called the fun subject list, although I think the teachers called them something else. The non academic students did single science and got to pick 3 subjects from the list.

It worked in theory, except that all the teachers encouraged the well behaved students to do their subject, whether they were good at it or not because it was better for them to have students who sat quietly and did as they were told even if they failed the GCSE than have disruptive students who would fail the GCSE and also disturb the students who were more likely to pass.

Also as we were in a secondary modern, not a comp, academic was relative. I was in top set for both maths and English. Most of our English class passed but only about half of our maths class did.

My reference to the standard of teaching needing to be raised, is related to the large class sizes of mixed abilities and restricted curriculum.
Grammar schools encourage success in their specialised field. Most of them happen to cater to the academically inclined. In the town across there are 2 grammars, one with a focus on sports another more academically focused.

Independents have the luxury of better supporting children because they have smaller classes, a broader curriculum and an interesting range of extracurricular activities. The independent route is just one approach that fits some students.

@NosyJosie has touched on it nicely, grammar schools cater to the students who typically excel in Maths and English.
More flexibility and range is required in the education system to allow better teaching and opportunities for all students; but it most definitely should not be at the expense of grammar and privately educated students.

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone in real life who would say "calm your tits"....but then obviously I'm an out of touch snob.

You can argue as much as you like about levelling and improving state primary. The main cause of the imbalance in the U.K. education system is that we force all children to start school based on age rather than readiness like they do in other countries.
My own DCs are a late summer and a winter baby. The summer one was barely ready for school and could have done with waiting another year. The older kids in his their class did better by a country mile. The winter child is breezing it. They have the same levels of intelligence.
Children who may be performing at a higher level are not necessarily “gifted”, they may just be more school ready and should be allowed to move up. Similarly, we should hold back children in earlier years who need more time.
The focus on English and Maths in the format they are taught, drops a bunch of kids on their heads.
There are limited options for children in primary who excel in STEM and Creative and you just have to look at the dismal curriculums for computing, art, performing arts and music to see that they are treated as “extras” when in fact they might be what is best suited to some as their main focus.
We are obsessed with GCSEs purely because we do not offer viable academic flexibility for children who do mediocre. All decisions on where to go next are determined by English maths and science. Our vocational options are dire compared to mainland Europe where they have vocational colleges at standard AND higher levels. Those higher levels offer the middle set more options to specialise and there is flexibility to go to university later.

Did you type that with a classic mumsnet head tilt?

@CakeTastesBetterAsBatter Ah, right. You're in the "devil take the hindmost" camp. Fair enough. Not how I want the future citizens - never mind the potential movers and shakers-of the country to think, but hey ho. See you around.

Grammar schools finished in the early 1970s where I grew up. It’s quite ridiculous they exist at all.

Contextual offers for uni is a good idea in practice but it’s slightly weird how it actually works. Where we live, some students in DCs sixth form get contextual offers because of where they live. This is despite the fact that they are actually living in nice houses in the slightly less good part of town and they also attended schools across town that are outstanding. Also, no contextual offers for those with minor disabilities. Seems badly designed

So it is just on an anonymous forum that you are condescending and bigoted?.

I’m an absolute delight :)

Are you this lovely irl?