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

By teaching the range, do you mean teaching across sets, or having children with vastly different needs and abilities in same class, such as reading ages spanning 10 years?

“And the NEET problem - I mean, there's a huge lack of jobs so how are schools supposed to solve that? All the shops are shutting and going online, cashiers are being replaced with self-checkouts, ticket kiosks are being replaced with online booking, pubs are closing left right and centre, phone lines are being replaced with chatbots, no one goes to the cinema anymore. Why have so few young people got a job?? Because all the stuff they used to do to get a foot in the job market has gone.”

Well even if there isn’t any paid work offered by the private sector out there, the State should create useful and volunteering roles for the young. I think it is absurd that youngsters can go on the dole and not engage at all. If you look around you, there is a desperate need for street cleaning, tidy up, volunteering of all kinds, lots of ways people can make themselves useful and get out of the house.
I can’t see a society functioning on a universal income and most people just sitting at home doing not very much. It is not natural for young people to not engage with life and each other and being doing things.

It is not a perfect system, there are many issues. Catchment area is a massive advantage or disadvantage. However, comprehensives are the best we have, they are not perfect. The one thing I am clear about is grammars cause many more problems, callously discarding many able students.

We need to have a debate about how to improve education, we need consider different ideas and not just drag up tired failed ideas from the past.

I don't think there are many comps who don't have any issues with recruiting suitable teachers. It's a huge problem.

And many schools now are having to make even more redundancies despite provision having been cut to beyond the bone under the Tories.

I mean, state education is in a desperate state and then you have people going 'why aren't kids passing maths and English?'

The answer isn't fannying around with the school system (which it really doesn't need any more of). The answer is to properly resource it, including with enough pastoral staff to support with the non-school reasons that kids aren't making progress.

And the NEET problem - I mean, there's a huge lack of jobs so how are schools supposed to solve that? All the shops are shutting and going online, cashiers are being replaced with self-checkouts, ticket kiosks are being replaced with online booking, pubs are closing left right and centre, phone lines are being replaced with chatbots, no one goes to the cinema anymore. Why have so few young people got a job?? Because all the stuff they used to do to get a foot in the job market has gone.

“OR we could properly staff current comps with qualified teachers.”

But the current comps aren’t all equally consituted or equally challenging. Some are full of deprivation and huge issues and others are quite affluent and nice. There is no standard comp at all. Parents buy their way into the catchments of the ones with the good teachers and the less disruptive ones and with higher attainment and less challenge.

It can be done, but it can’t be done by one set of teachers. Listen to what people like @noblegiraffe are saying, she wants to help, she’s good at it, she makes a difference but she can’t do it all the time. She need the light and shade that comprehensive teaching gives. Teaching across a range of abilities makes you a better teacher, it benefits the higher and the lower sets.

I see what you are saying about paying and valuing the teaching of less able and SEND students but the reality is we don’t. Look at this thread it’s all about the top sets, that’s what the public care about. There are issues with comprehensive teaching but it’s the best we’ve got and a return to grammar schools would be a disaster.

Bottom line teaching the range is better for teachers, it improves skills, it makes you a more skilled teacher and therefore it benefits the students. Also, we have more pressing needs in education. Infant school teachers reporting children who aren’t pottery trained and don’t know what a book is. Secondary schools where behaviour is out of control. Grammar schools are so far from being the main issue it just frustrates people on the front line.

It wouldn’t just be a SEND specialist school though would it. It would be the proper recognition that economic disadvantage determines educational attainment more than any other factor, so it would be properly funded in the broadest sense. Call it a reverse grammar or reverse private school. But of course if no teachers want to teach there it isn’t going to work.

OR we could properly staff current comps with qualified teachers.

Lots of funding (you said double, likely to be up to 10 times greater) , smaller classes, external services, interventions? SEN specialist teachers. So a special school then!

Grammar schools don't actually get any more funding from the government than comps per pupil. But they generally have more wealthy parents, who donate more to the PTA/school fund, which means they can afford better facilities.

The issue with grammars isn't therefore that they take more taxpayer money, the problem is their divisive nature, the pressure the 11 plus puts on 10 year olds, and the impact on the other schools in the area.

Oh yes, you need a top set class or sixth form to balance out the sheer emotional and physical demands of teaching the lower sets.

There are often posts on the staff room where a teacher has been given all bottom set classes and people responding that it's unfair and unsustainable.

I would say as well, that I wouldn't just want to teach at the grammar because it would be easier, but also because I am a maths teacher. I don't want to spend all day teaching adding fractions, I also want to be teaching calculus and more interesting stuff.

@Anothermoomin - it does not have to be like that though, does it. It could be better pay, fewer hours, very small classes like in specialist SEND schools. It could be valued as the most important thing.

Look if there is an explosion of NEETs and the marginalised because society has become so complex to leave many behind (and let’s not forget about the increasing right wing capitalising on all of that) - then someone somewhere has to do something and rethink.

The issue is not that it can’t be done. The issue is that nobody believes it would be done and funded properly or not more than one party’s short term think with no follow through.

I hear so many teachers state though that SEND is their passion and helping the children that need the most help is what they want to do. So I guess I assumed that some teachers really would be most passionate about teaching intervention classes and focussing on the bottom third in small groups. As a main job.

I'm trying to picture teachers who say 'SEND is my passion' and I'm thinking that they might be thinking of the sort of kids who really shouldn't be in mainstream education. The bottom third are not necessarily kids who need a teacher who is passionate about SEND, because the problem, a lot of the time, isn't SEND. Or not at least the sort of SEND that needs something that a decent maths teacher wouldn't be doing routinely in their classrooms anyway (SEND is certainly not restricted to the bottom third either, two of my A-level kids last year had EHCPs).

What's needed for these kids a lot of the time is a decent maths teacher who turns up every day (which is really not a given). Then a lot of them have problems holding back their progress which are nothing to do with school - family issues, friendship issues, mental health issues, medical issues, social issues. And some of them just haven't really tried at school for a long time.

Honestly, they are often great kids but with a lot going on.

One of the things dragging down the percentage of kids getting 4+ in maths and English which really needs addressing is boys massively underperforming compared to girls in English GCSE. If boys' issues with literacy could be solved, then that would go a long way to improving general GCSE performance. I don't think that's a specific SEND issue either, but a societal one.

Working with lower level children is so, so hard, and it’s under appreciated. If teachers like @noblegiraffehad to jump one way or the other because schools were separated they would go for the grammar because it’s easier. With the best will in the world and the desire to help lower achieving students the reality is, it is harder by a long way.
With comprehensives you can have easier and harder classes it balances out. Dividing schools you have all hard or all easy. SEND is a passion, working with disadvantaged students is where my heart lies but what about my quality of life, my children, my sanity? I can’t do it all the time.
These reverse grammars come at a cost, financial and emotional. The public won’t pay. Time and again it’s clear no one cares about the poor kids, those who are disadvantaged, and teachers who do care have to break themselves to prove they care.

And the only reason I suggest it is because there clearly is no appetite in this country to spend much more on the top 2/3.

There are plenty in the top 2/3 who still are underachieving due to an unmet need. Often these needs ARE identified.

This is doing both our country and these individual kids a massive disservice.

@noblegiraffe - those are all good points. I hear so many teachers state though that SEND is their passion and helping the children that need the most help is what they want to do. So I guess I assumed that some teachers really would be most passionate about teaching intervention classes and focussing on the bottom third in small groups. As a main job.
My vision for the reverse grammar school would be double the amount of funding, small classes, lots of external services involved from the get go, lots of extracurricular and really making a difference to those children.

And the only reason I suggest it is because there clearly is no appetite in this country to spend much more on the top 2/3.

I think if I had a child with learning needs and someone said to me look you can send them to this quasi private school with amazing funding and dedicated teachers to really turn things around, I really think I would. But I agree it would have to be a 15 year plan and not subject to any type of further governmental intervention and it would have to be led by the vision of leaders very passionate in that sphere to really make a difference to these kids.

Personally I don’t particularly like the Birbalsingh model, it sounds too high pressure/Singapore/directive style to me. I would always choose a more Estonia model with early intervention. However, even Estonia is struggling with teachers.

Actually the most depressing part of our education system currently is the level of unhappiness reported amongst teens. Fear of failure is a really large part of that and hence no matter how supposedly important it is to pass your GCSEs, it can’t be more important than wellbeing and happiness. I can’t imagine having a kid who has been pushed through the system and told they are not going to make it from the get go. I would definitely be taking them out of the system, quitting my job and finding an alternative.

Absolutely. The very bright children will always do well. The average to quite bright ones with professional supportive parents (like us) will try to address gaps through tutoring, study books etc as they will (like us) have noticed their child's progress slow. It's the average to quite bright with parents who, for whatever reason cannot supplement their child's learning outside of school, who really suffer in the current system. My girls will be ok - we are academic and can help them, we can afford tutors if we don't have a summer holiday. But I do worry that the 'quiet middle third' are actually the ones who need the most input.

Or, hear me out. Invest in education instead of the government taking the approach that state education is a favour to ‘poor’kids

The question was asked regarding why some children are struggling to meet end of KS2 targets. I explained that there is often a level of disruption which impacts on a teachers ability to get through the curriculum. There is also a wide ability range in mainstream classes - the reading ages of my 10 year old daughters class range between 5years and 14 years - meeting the needs of such a range of abilities in one class must be quite difficult.

Her school used to manage this by small group interventions. The 5ish children who needed the most support, and the 5ish highest ability each had seperate sessions with an experienced LSA, leaving the teacher with approx 15 mid ability to focus on. However, the recent funding cuts by Labour have meant the school going from 2 LSA's per class, to either none, or 1 part time one per class. I have seen the progress of both my girls stall since this.

So my suggestion would be increased staffing to give ability for some level of small group intervention and streaming within each school.

One of the problems with the 'forgotten third' is that a lot of kids don't have proper maths teachers for long periods of their secondary schooling.

I'm a great teacher for borderline GCSE classes. I've helped lots of kids over the line to a grade 4 in my time, including resitters, and have rescued classes who have suffered from previous crap teaching.

I also teach A-level maths and Further Maths. If they decided to extend grammar schooling to the point where you had to make a choice about whether you could teach borderline GCSE classes or be able to teach sixth form, I'd probably choose sixth form. Then those borderline classes would lose an experienced teacher who is good at maths. We know that grammar schools hoover up the more qualified and more experienced maths teachers and this is not at good thing for the other kids who then have worse teaching.

Grammar schools are therefore not a solution to the 'forgotten third'.

Also, at what point do you decide it's not even worth them trying for GCSEs in maths and English? Those qualifications are hugely important keys to unlocking lots of doors and we should give kids every chance to get them. 'Oh but they could do functional skills' or whatever. Sure, but parity of esteem is a real issue there, and you can't get around that by simply telling employers or colleges that they should count the same. If they were the same, the kids would have done the GCSE.

One thing about getting kids a grade 4 as well is that it is not simply down to the teaching, or the parents. The kids have to actually want it. Michaela does this very well by essentially creating a cult around good grades and getting all the kids to buy in. If we don't get the kids to buy into the idea that they want grade 4s in maths and English, as well as giving them the tools and teachers to do this, then it's a non-starter.

The idea that a reverse grammar is a good idea is madness. It will quickly become a dumping ground. Many students excel in English but struggle in maths (or visa verse ) where do they go?

We have issue with schooling in the U.K., we need to reconsider and fund it properly. We need to face up to issue with poor parenting and ubiquitous smart phones. We have many issues. Grammar schools will solve none of the problems and make many of them worse. We need to stop looking back and start looking forward.

This is one of the biggest issues.

The poor behaviour is from a very small number of kids.

Remove those kids and ALL the other kids do better.

If all children are equal, why is the education of these kids less important that the inclusion of the disruptive kids?

This also doesn't address WHY those kids are disruptive. ALL those kids will be disruptive FOR A REASON. The school is unable to cope with them and their needs.

So why are we flogging a dead horse trying to include them?

The kids that suffer most are the quiet ones who are struggling because all the time the teacher has is sucked into dealing with behaviour and not helping them. So the gap between those doing well and those struggling gets bigger for every year at primary. This is made worse as a problem because you can't go off piste from the curriculum. You have to learn certain things each year and there is little capacity to go back and recap on skills that haven't been mastered first time round. These are the building blocks. By the time you leave primary, I'd argue its too late. You aren't functional enough to go to the next level if you haven't got the right foundations.

The issue no one wants to address is how if you fall below a certain point for either behaviour or ability then that setting isn't working for them. There are lots of reasons for this. We really need to stop being so adverse to this, and make provisions for kids who fall into this pattern. That means smaller classes for these kids which costs. But this would benefit everyone and probably stop a lot from falling into the expensive justice system.

Its not a comprehensive education if there are bunch of kids effectively not getting any education because they aren't being served by the system we have.

Flat classes of 30 (or more likely 32 for a lot of kids) is utter madness when you think about it.

We have particularly big schools for Secondary Education too. This can give a wider range of classes but this is at the expense of teachers actually knowing the kids individually and being able to provide an adequate social support.

I think we need a big rethink - and acknowledge of the weaknesses of the current system - with thought about how we can make small changes that have a targetted impact which helps everyone.

Is this satire? I genuinely can't tell. It is like reading a Trump media post and having to research whether someone would actually say/think this.

So are you saying that primary schools shouldn't be comprehensive?
When would we make the age divide?
At 4? At 7?

It has often been disrupted by poor behaviour from a small group of children. My daughter comes home often telling me that they didn't finish X or Y topic because the teacher was dealing with disruption, or that she couldn't focus as noisy. It became really clear to us when she missed 1 day where termly exams taken, so had to take following day with just 1 other child. Her test scores were 80%+, compared with the 50-60% when done in whole class

Here is a really interesting article I read, about the “forgotten third“. It summarises a lot of interesting background and points, some have been discussed. And it attempts to hint that the Birbalsingh style model might be scaleable.
I don’t agree on that point because I believe the parental group Barbalsingh has targeted is pretty much as engaged as the parental group we have at the types of grammar schools my DC attended. I think they buy into the ethos she represents from the get go and that is why her school achieves such good grades. She is extremely clear on what she expects, how it is implemented but I think you need buy in if not active support from the parents on most of those expectations (KS3 is pretty extreme). It is wishful thinking that that model can be scaled to different types of communities at large, including disaffected and disengaged communities who don’t believe in the education system is on their side or will even elevate their children.

This article to me says it all in some ways. The premise is KS4 and GCSEs passes in Maths and English are beyond many children, were beyond, always will be but we should not stop trying. I agree with the reasoning about how our economies have evolved and that a higher level of numeracy and literacy is required to access the modern economy at large and employment. But I don’t agree that it should be in the form of GCSEs for all. I think it is demotivational for many children to be written off as not passing expectations for much of their schooling life when I think they could be taught the required skills in a better way with more of them reaching the PISA levels required to access a modern economy. I think the comp system has done a big con on that demographic and I think much of the education profession has bought into that as some absolute. It is not working for 1/3 of kids. It is one thing saying it is good for the middle demographic to be educated with the top 1/4/-1/3 previously at grammar or independent. It is a completely different thing to pretend the system is working for the bottom third because it isn’t. I understand why the aim was to elevate more children into higher education and I think that aim should continue. But there have to be urgent changes made for those being written off from the beginning.

The AI footnotes are interesting too.

https://substack.nomoremarking.com/p/what-should-we-do-about-the-forgotten