To believe that we need to create two hundred more Grammar Schools for the Shires of England.

Online is tricky with students with challenging behaviour, but you are absolutely correct about the way they behave. Read some of the threads on MN about how awful teachers are to their precious babies and then imagine those ‘babies’ in a job.

I think you can reach far more of these kids online. If there is no in person alternative and too much red tape, the online workshops are a good idea. DH has had kids talking Hood at him like a mate, rocking in their chairs, falling asleep, chewing gum on camera. But why would they really know any different if that is the environment they have grown up in. If they don’t have professionals in their life modelling a certain way of living and behaviour, how would they know any different? For some of them it is the first time they have to ask questions and engage with a professional outside school or the GP. You can’t change their behaviour in a few sessions, but you can make them think and realise there is more.

Which is why colleges need buy in from employers, it’s really hard but will benefit us all in the end. There are supportive internships that support young SEND students into jobs by helping them understand the world of work. We need something like that for NEETs but they only work with employer input. We can do it but it needs investment, but it way better than having loads of unemployed and unemployable young people. This is where the important discussion lies.

Some comprehensives are excellent and really do work for all but I can understand the frustration if you do not live near one. I can understand why people make the choice to go for grammar if the local alternative is really not good. What I don’t understand is people with little knowledge of the education system as it stands wishing to condemn many able children to a poor education and totally abandoning more vocationally inclined students because of what amounts to snobbery.

You make a good point

Turning up on time is not an academic skill.
A good work ethic is not an academic skill.
A respect for people in a position of authority is not an academic skill.

These are also not excusable because of a SEN need. It's just kids being obnoxious and having a lack of respect (Freddie Flintoff has demonstrated the difference well here too).

Unfortunately these are life skills that a lot of kids are missing. We need to be clear about this and how this isn't being addressed.

Lots of young people are unemployable because of their attitude not because of their GCSE grades and this is the most depressing thing of all.

@RedToothBrush - isn’t the risk though that the more successful schools just expand as they have the demand and they need the extra funding too? And then the remaining ones close.

Birbalsingh for example still has a tiny cohort of 120 I thought in KS3 and 4. I wonder how she does that, perhaps they leave her alone because she is a celebrity head.

@Anothermoomin I really wish my daughter didnt need a grammar school. But until children are able to behave and allow her to learn, and her teacher doesn't need to use the brighter students to teach the ones who are struggling in the name of integration, she needs it, and we will do everything we can to help her get in.

It's the same with many families who send their children private. Many are not rolling in money, but state isn't working for their child as they cannot cope with the level of noise and distraction. My parents sent my brother private with a bursary after he was beaten black and blue most days just for wanting to learn. My Mum worked night shifts to pay for it as they paid more than days, came home drove him to school, slept for about 5 hours then went back to pick him up as the children from his old school were on his bus route home and tore his new blazer on day 1 of him attending the private.

Many FE colleges have courses where they house train students for work. These are really challenging and hard to teach on, they are funded at the same rate as A levels when A levels take much less teaching effort - I’ve done both.
No one sticks up for these students, middle class parents quite rightly fight for their children but the focus needs to be on the ones who have no one to fight for them. One of the issues is civil servants and policy makers have never been to a college they all did A levels.
On a societal level we would be better if we could get some of these students into jobs. @Bushmillsbabe you DH is making a difference when he works with those students. As teachers students feel able to ignore us but when someone ‘proper’ tells them off it makes way more impact. I’m sure it doesn’t feel like that to your DH but it’s true.

I’ll say it again we don’t need grammar schools, we need investment in parenting courses at infant schools and a realistic way into a decent job that makes secondary education seem worth while for all students. Building more grammars may feel like a solution to an immediate problem as a parent but it’s a sticking plaster which will make the societal problem worse.

I have two DC, one is in grammar, one isn't. The main differences I see are that the grammar school has excellent behaviour from its students, and higher expectations for academic work. The comprehensive school has superior, more creative, teaching, and more extra-curricular opportunities. I'm happy with both schools, each one suits the child who is there. I think the education system should have more types of schools - grammar, comprehensive, technical/vocational - and all should be seen as of equal standard so there isn't a fight for the "best" schools and every child receives an education which suits them.

@Anothermoomin

There is lots of apprenticeships available, in both manual and professional roles, but they still require commitment, engagement and a desire to progress. DH's team have offered apprenticeships in both technical/practical roles and more administrative/IT roles. They come with a lot of paperwork, and time commitment by the employer if done properly. He is forever coming home with tales of young people who are turning up late, messing around on their phones, lack basic social skills of how to talk to a variety of people appropriately and professionally. They have had a few amazing ones who have gone on to paid employment with their company after finishing, but many more quit part way through, or after many attempts at supporting them, have to be asked to leave

Schools need to improve provision for all abilities, and further education and early employment opportunities need to be wider and better. But equally young people need to take these opportunities when offered them, rather than wasting them.

I can see why teachers want to teach in grammar - a readily engaged group of young people must be much easier to teach. I can see why children want to attend them - my daughter chose to do an 11+ summer camp a few weeks ago. She came out saying 'mummy, it was so different being with children who weren't disrupting the lesson all the time, I learnt so much more than at school' and she has been much more focused since as she wants to go to a school where as she says 'I can learn without people shouting through the lesson' - for the first time she has seen what this looks like and she really really wants it.

She shouldn't have to put herself through all this extra work and stress just to be able to learn. I dont agree with the principal of grammar, but her desire to attend is logical, her effort is admirable. It's just sad that she has to do this to access a peaceful lesson!

There's a birth rate bust coming.

This means there are going to be schools with empty classrooms. There are going to be teachers available.

We would be wise to make use of them. We can have a live experiment to see if helps.

No need to build new schools.

@ElizaMulvil - Oxbridge still has very low levels of students from Polar 1 and 2 postcodes. “Crap” school simply means all the difficulties discussed to recruit teachers in the first place into the key subjects like Maths. If anything, those schools would need the very best teachers. What typically happens is the opposite. That does not mean there aren’t lots of amazing teachers trying their level best, but it is not always enough. Sometimes a child just needs one amazing teacher who believes in them in one subject to turn things around.
The teachers have explained the difficulties on this thread quite honestly with regard to recruitment.

Also the whole Oxbridge has to take disadvantage too. I don’t think it was ever just about the brilliant students who have faced disadvantage. It is more like the grammar schools taking some kids with FSM. It is only fair that the unis with the very highest funds and some of the very best staff in the world don’t also get to cherry pick the easiest students on top of that.

In a teacher recruitment crisis, and a uni crisis, the best have to take their fair share of disadvantage too. It is more about fair competition between the individual educational institutions than anything to do with what is actually best for any of the students or pupils involved. For Oxbridge though there has to be a benchmark of attainment as otherwise it is not going to be in the best interests of the students, The peer group competition would be too much. It is the same with FSM benchmarks for grammar schools, they operate by trial and error and see what will work and what is the minimum attainment that means the child will still thrive in that environment.

And it remains outrageous that for our family we end up choosing grammar schools not because we believe in grammar schools as a concept, but because our local catchment school is challenging/faces teacher recruitment issues and a cohort with problems and low attainment. Plenty of us would have loved the stereotypical dream comprehensive on our doorstep representing the social strata fairly with plenty of funding and flexible setting. But we don’t get that - the choice we get is spend substantial amounts of cash to move house and it is into the many many thousands. Lots of people face that dilemma. If you are somewhat affluent and have choices - you aren’t going to do nothing as it is not in the best interests of your child. The people who do nothing are those typically without choices or don’t care about education. The I am going to send my child to the local worst school in the area for moral reasons are a tiny minority. And if they do, they typically pull strings of some sort to up the level of that school and have that power in the first place.

The top students are usually well served, not always, not everywhere. The middle cohort can be the focus of schools attention, getting 3s to 4s. It’s the bottom third who are ignored, dismissed and not well served. GCSE maths and English resists can be a disaster for some it demotivates them and stops progression, there have been several threads about this recently.
One of the big issues with NEETs is the underfunding of FE colleges. Colleges are funded at a lower level than schools and sixth forms yet have to pick up the students who failed at school. Apprenticeships and T levels need proper investment and funding of support programs for students where college is their last chance.

That isn't the flipside of the young person employment crisis, it's a symptom of it. Young people have to produce these absolutely amazing results and CV's to even have a chance of getting a decent job.

And yes, charity shops and the nhs are 'stepping up' and offering work experience. But that rarely translates into paid employment.

Absolutely, the job market is horrendous. I was shortlisting for a part time relatively low level role this week - basic requirement were gcse's in maths and English, some experience working in nhs and with children. The job automatically closed after less than 48 hours as the 100 application limit was reached. Well over half the 100 were qualified health professionals, with excellent academic qualifications, broad skills and well written supporting statements. They cant get the jobs they are qualified for as none available. I found it thoroughly depressing that these young people had done all the things they are told to do - work hard at school, get work experience, show extra curriculars, carefully write an application form - and these talented young people are fighting for an 18 hour a week not much above NMW job.

If these dedicated skilled young people can't get a job, what hope do those who are leaving school with minimal qualifications have? All the street cleaning and gardening volunteering in the world isn't going to help them get a decent job!

Not only do Comprehensive schools' students do better than Secondary Moderns, but better than Grammar in that their alumni perform better than grammar school pupils at graduate and postgraduate levels.

Oxbridge Colleges are wanting the best and are concerned that many areas of Britain have rarely if ever sent students to Oxbridge, so they, the Colleges, will be missing out They are concerned to attract students who for several reasons, not necessarily to do with whether they have been to a Grammar or Comprehensive Schools per se, may have never considered Oxbridge, despite having excellent academic attainment.

They specifically mention ' if your personal, financial, or educational background makes it harder for you to reach standard university entry requirements.' This does not mean that they will have you with poor A levels eg, but that you should apply because you really must be someone special to have done so well with all your handicaps. I'm sure their interviews etc will still be rigorous.

They specifically mention,
1.living in an area with low household income or high deprivation,
2.attending a secondary school with low average exam results
3.being a young carer
4.having a disability

So it is not whether you have been to a 'crap school' but whether you have been subject personally to serious disadvantages eg poverty, lack of knowledge/ambition, ignorance of what is possible, personal handicaps (disability ). Cohort attainment means that many of the students in that school are subject to similar disadvantages. This does not mean that the school is 'crap' as you put it. Nor does it mean that the results are necessarily poorer .

It may mean that the student must be exceptional to have done so well and overcome many handicaps.

You are rather teaching a grandmother to suck eggs here. But if there are no large local employers, there are no large local employers. There's only so much the Tesco on the high street can do - we don't all live or teach in cities.

“Research by UCL ( University College London) and the Sutton Trust have shown that in fact pupils of similar ability do virtually just as well in Comprehensive schools as in Grammar. But, more importantly, pupils of average and lower ability do much better in Comprehensive schools than in Secondary Moderns.”

”Virtually just as well”? A number of elite universities clearly don’t agree as otherwise they wouldn’t be contextualising results against cohort attainment. And it is not about whether the school is an actual grammar or comprehensive - it is about the attainment of the cohort at large.
So the elite institutions basically in their recruitment fully admit that if you are smart and go to a crap school, you are statistically going to be getting lower results.

@noblegiraffe - yes of course there is much inbetween! But in my line of work (corporate law) and DH’s we see a lot of perfect CVs - far better than anything we ever did or had. So that is the flipside of the NEET crisis. So was just highlighting the two extremes.

Andy Burnham might be expecting your school office and school kitchen to step up too, who knows or your local NHS, charity shops whatever - hopefully not the gambling shops or nail parlours. But beautifying a deprived area is actually a really good thing to get involved in. If all else fails, there is online work experience too. Can’t see why those working from home cannot help out.

No, it was based on faulty, ie made up 'research'y Sir Cyril Burt who advocated that intelligence was innate, fixed and measurable at 11. His work was largely discredited in the 1970s.He fabricated data to support his claims even went to the trouble of inventing people who would praise his work.

Research by Professor Brian Simon of Leicester University uncovered his lies in the 50s and 60s and showed how the 'tripartite' system reinforced social class divisions rather than finding raw merit. His work influenced the UK's shift towards Comprehensive education. Amanda Lavelle showed how the 11+ exam fractures friendships and permanently altered self identity, with a sharp decline in self esteem and a sense of alienation for those who 'failed'.

Research by UCL ( University College London) and the Sutton Trust have shown that in fact pupils of similar ability do virtually just as well in Comprehensive schools as in Grammar. But, more importantly, pupils of average and lower ability do much better in Comprehensive schools than in Secondary Moderns.

You do know that there are many, many kids in between 'top grades and loads of work experience' and 'no grades and nothing to talk about' don't you?

And many different barriers to kids getting paid work or work experience, not least where they live.

This is what pisses me off about Andy Burnham and his blithe assertion that large local employers can sort out work experience for 14 year olds. We don't have any large local employers. We had a huge factory and it shut down and moved to Poland. Loads of people work from home. Public transport is crap.

Well DS grammar have all year 8s having to do 1 full day work experience in the school office - I don’t know how the admin staff feel about it, but they have been doing it for years. They have every year doing something on the school ground including the gardens, DIY, school kitchen, looking after the counsellors therapy dog etc.
Primary had all sorts of duties and positions of responsibility.
Older years have compulsory work experience. The school sorts it if the parents can’t.

Sure stuff needs to be done, but that's not for schools to sort.

'Oh we have a bunch of NEETs, schools are failing them' is just ignoring the massive hole in the job market.

“Do you think the young people who are already disengaged, will volunteer for cleaning streets?”

@Bushmillsbabe - if they do nothing and gain no experience whatsoever they don’t build skills including social skills and don’t build a CV of any sort. So they need to be doing something. Cleaning is a good and important job, so is gardening. I mean council park projects. There are all sorts of things to get disengaged youngsters involved in.

We live in an absurd society now - when I look at the CVs of my year 13s friends they are outstanding with long lists of achievements, voluntary work, work experience, paid work, high level this that and the other plus top grades. Far better than anything I had at the same age.
And then on the other hand you have those with no grades, no qualifications, nothing to talk about at interview.
Every young person has something to offer and needs to get involved somehow.

There are lots of volunteering roles out there, the state doesn't have to create what already exists. Young people are encouraged to engage in volunteering through the DoE scheme, and others. However, it's often the young people who are engaging with their education who also engage with these.

Do you think the young people who are already disengaged, will volunteer for cleaning streets?