Petition against grammar school expansion

For those asking about polling evidence:

This is the link to the statistic about people of parental age not wanting new grammars:
d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/018joah9t6/TimesResults_160914_GrammarSchools_EnglandOnly_Website.pdf

The first table shows 26% of people of parental age (18-50 year olds) wanting new grammars to be built -the rest are either wanting selection ended altogether, wanting to retain existing grammars but not have new ones or don't knows.

There's also this rather stunning statistic:
Around six in ten who want more grammar schools think that less able children would be better off in comprehensive areas.
So when people tell you that children will be no worse off in secondary moderns there's a 60% chance they don't believe that themselves.

Lots more interesting stats here:
yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/grammar-school-fans-know-theyre-worse-for-less-abl/

i missed one important point. those things i mentioned above will also divide the society too.

Oh, the old "you're just jealous" response.

So much easier to say that than actually read and try to understand people's arguments, isn't it? And it's useful if you have any little niggles at the back of your mind about the system being unfair and bad for society. You can just block them out by thinking that everyone else is "just jealous"......

To be fair to poor people, please also create a petition to close down all private schools, Russell Group universities and all luxurious car brands.

I simply find this idea ridiculous. Simply because we can't afford private schools or our kids can't enter into top institution, we ask everyone to stop grammar school to expand.

I dare to ask you this question? How many of you ever worked in schools before? I'd suggest you observe lessons in mainstream for at least a week. You will find out why parents prefer grammar and indie schools. Yes, it is true that some (many) pay for tuition to prep their kids, but it doesn't mean there is no exception. We are poor, we work in school, our joint salary is less than 20K. We deem education is important for our kids, so we buy books to teach them when we have time. Guess what? My son has just passed grammar entrance test. If everyone is selfish as you are, then poor people like my kids would have no chance to enter top institution.

Therefore, I strongly suggest you create petitions to close down everything that make poor people jealous, that includes mansions, private jets, aeroplane first class seats, luxurious cars, michellin restaurants, apple products, diamond sellers, banks, stock market, etc etc.... please also ban good looking girls/men with big boobs and muscels walking on the street. it make me extremely jealous. Thank you.

I want a system that offers every child what they need to achieve their potential and their ambitions. An education that offers them that without a gamble as to how they do on a particular day, or that they have the right balance of maths and literacy in equal measures, or that they are mature educationally (despite summer birth date) by a certain date.

I want comps that can push and challenge the most able, while offering different learning speeds and subject lists to others.

I want an evaluation and league table system that measures A*s against high attainers as well as the basic A-C pass rate, A league table that takes into account how many kids take and pass Grade Music exams, take part in extra curricular sport, and arts, and how many do DoE. (for example)

A comp isn't a one-size fits all institution, with every child following a middle of the road curriculum at an average pace. A comp is a school that has many different learning styles and paces for different groups.

And some of the BEST teachers are those who can help a dyslexic child to read, or engage a reluctant or unconfident learner. Some of the BEST teachers get huge satisfaction from that. Some of the best teachers are those who can get classroom control over reluctant learners. I went to a selective school and saw an article written years after I had left by a former teacher. She was a GREAT teacher, and she wrote about how her years in my school were the deadest and most boring of her career because we were so conformist and easy to teach, and she got more original ideas and fun and job satisfaction out of her rough-comp pupils once she moved on.

I have a child who would be a grammar child if I lived in a grammar area - and I am not in favour of a return to a segregated education system. I don't think it serves anyone that well. Mine didn't serve me especially well - no better than a top set in a good comp would have done.

I have no beef with parents who choose the existing grammars - they are available and we all choose, as far as we can. what suits us best from what's available. But as a policy I don't support extending the grammar system. The current super-selective grammars have little effect on surrounding schools because their intake is a small minority. But I would not want to see a Kent style situation spread or replicated.

Theresa M's ideas seem to make much of kids moving schools if and when needs be - but WHY? What's the effing pint when it could all be cone in one school? I was listening to a teacher at a sixth form open day recently saying that if students moved for sixth, the first term was lost in many ways, as friendships and familiarity were being established. Why build that into a system for a child to move to grammar at multiple entry points rather than just keep them in one school and they move sets?

I think that responding to the consultation paper will be more effective than petitions, though, as that is the official consultation being undertaken.

The demographic of mumsnet, particularly on the education threads, suggests that their children are likely to pass the 11+. Very depressingly, this also means that they are likely to support selective education because they think it will be better for their child and don't actually care very much about what happens to other kids. Forgetting that what is bad for society generally is also bad for us as individuals.

I strongly suspect that the policy is popular with voters because they assume their children will go to grammar schools. There really needs to be a poll that asks whether people would be in favour of grammar schools if it were a virtual certainty that their children would end up in secondary moderns.

"Non-selective schools will still offer all the same opportunities for pupils, they won't restrict access to examinations or grades like the Secondary Moderns did. In fact, if I've scan read correctly, the proposals will ensure that high achieving students in the non-selective schools have access to resources and opportunities offered by the selective schools."

So what's the point of having grammar schools then?

I went to a grammar school in the 70s. A friend recently found the publication of our O level results and put it on FB, it was the first time I had seen these results from 40 years ago. They were piss poor- many of us achieved fewer than 5 C grades and some achieved only 1. I have always thought that the school was crap and now I can see in black and white what I always thought- it genuinely was dreadful in terms of results and as they gave us no social or personal education either, it cannot have claimed to have made up for lack of exam success by a well rounded curriculum in other areas. This was the reality of the grammar school system for hundreds of children- the schools rested on their laurels with the best students from the town and still managed to fuck it up.

"Socialists want to deny that some children and people are more intelligent than others."

No they don't. Why would anyone say anything so stupid? And I think you will also find that a lot of non socialists are opposed to grammar schools too!

Some people want better than a system that's great for a minority but worse for the vast majority.

No thanks.
Yes, the 11 plus is a faulty sieve that lets lots of clever kids not get in whether they fail by a little bit or do not live in the catchment, but that doesn't stop the fact that for those that get it, the grammar school great. People are saying that there's no point of putting the more academic people in a different school but there are lots. First off, as some one who knows lots of teachers, grammar schools are the dream place to work, with able kids that, if parents care enough to send them there, mostly care about not getting in trouble, so the teachers are great. There is also that they can move much faster, not having to wait for kids that don't confidently know their timetables etc. And, if the kids worked hard enough to get in, then they are going to care about they're education, which makes group work go a lot smoother.
I'm not saying kids that don't go to grammar schools can't posses these qualities, it's just the fact that most kids in grammars, DO. This was a bit of a rant, but this petition is a bit ridiculous. Yes there are faults in the grammar system, but it's mostly great for those who get in. If you think it's unfair for those who fail, that's life, and also, if you built up to the exam correctly, they should still gain something from the experience, and they will get over it if you parent them through they're dissapointment, like you are supposed to.
Again this was a bit of a nonsensical rant, but it's frustrating seeing all this complaining of the grammar system and I wanted to answer them.

Here's a recent poll that has status quo or close grammars ahead of opening new ones.

I have seen suggest that around two thirds of parents would get their children to sit the entrance exam and would send them to grammar school if they passed.

That's not the same thing as being in favour of opening new grammars. Clearly it's not. I would get my child to sit an entrance exam and send them to a grammar if I lived in Kent, and I would see them all closed down in a heartbeat.

There is nothing to suggest that the new selection system will use the current methods.

But there is no available group test at 10/11 in any country in the world which doesn't test environment/background in addition to ability/potential.

But there is no evidence as to the impact of giving those high achievers access to resources and support of grammars does.

This is not true. There have been many schemes for "beacon schools" (some of which were grammars) to support kids in neighbouring under-achieving schools over the years. Look at the Poole/Bournemouth area and other areas where grammars co-exist with non-selective schools and find out how little these schemes succeeded.

But there is evidence that small numbers of high achievers isolated amongst middle and low achievers do not achieve their potential.

But there is no evidence as to the impact of giving those high achievers access to resources and support of grammars does.

There is evidence that current methods of testing for grammars (including CEM) are unreliable at selecting the top percentage in terms of ability and potential - the tests are strongly affected by environment and tutoring.

There is nothing to suggest that the new selection system will use the current methods.

the children left behind in the non-selective schools do worse than they would have done in a school with all abilities.

There is no evidence to assess what added value partnerships with grammar schools would bring. There have been successful partnerships between private schools and non selective schools which have increased standards in the non selective school.

But there is evidence that small numbers of high achievers isolated amongst middle and low achievers do not achieve their potential.

There is evidence that current methods of testing for grammars (including CEM) are unreliable at selecting the top percentage in terms of ability and potential - the tests are strongly affected by environment and tutoring.

There is evidence from all around the world that the non-selective schools containing lower ability children find it much harder to recruit and retain staff.

This is not about belief or opinions but about evidence that the proposals cannot be implemented effectively - the children left behind in the non-selective schools do worse than they would have done in a school with all abilities.

If you look at 'do you want to introduce new grammars?' against maintaining the status quo or abolishing them, then I don't think the data supports them

A recent poll asked, "Would you support or oppose re-introducing grammar schools across the whole of Great Britain". This found over 50% in favour with 20% against. The rest were don't knows. Supporters outnumbered opponents in every political and demographic group.

An alternative question, "Would you support or oppose re-introducing the selective education system across the whole of Great Britain, where children take an exam at 11, with the top quarter of children going to grammar schools and the other three-quarters going to secondary modern schools", comes up with a narrower margin but those expressing an opinion still break heavily in favour of grammar schools with roughly 4 in favour for every 3 against.

And I seem to recall reading that only 30% of parents of school-aged kids are in favour of new grammars

I have not seen a poll showing support anywhere near that low. Polls I have seen suggest that around two thirds of parents would get their children to sit the entrance exam and would send them to grammar school if they passed.

YouGov recently did an analysis by local authority area and produced a map of England showing levels of support. This again showed that parents in most LAs are in favour of grammar schools.

I am not personally in favour of grammar schools as they were when I went to school. I want to see how these proposals differ before I make any judgements. But all the evidence is that the policy is popular with voters. That may change, of course, but right now the policy does not appear to be a vote loser.

Based on what is being proposed, I can see the benefits - higher achieving students in non-selective schools accessing things like "further maths" through the partner grammar which they otherwise wouldn't be able to do, for instance.

There is little value in objections based on disbelief. The "well, I object to this because I don't think it's actually going to be implemented the way they say it will".

Quite rightly, those objections will be ignored because every government intends to implement their proposals effectively - even in the face of scepticism.

This consultation is seeking opinions about the content of the proposals, not assessing confidence in the Governments ability to implement them.

So you're convinced that A star students in the non-selective schools won't be affected at all by being in classes with mostly B grade and lower students? And that the proposals will be effective at making sure that these students are taught the A/A star parts of the syllabi, offered triple science, further maths etc, even though currently this doesn't happen in lower achieving schools?

If this is all so easy, how come many high ability students in the current lower achieving schools don't do well?

So phrase the question as 'do you want Secondary Moderns' instead and see what the response is.

That's not part of the proposal though, is it?

Under the proposals, Non-selective schools will still offer all the same opportunities for pupils, they won't restrict access to examinations or grades like the Secondary Moderns did. In fact, if I've scan read correctly, the proposals will ensure that high achieving students in the non-selective schools have access to resources and opportunities offered by the selective schools.

This document here for 2014-5 is a shocker: per pupil funding by area

It would be far better to attempt improvement for all NobleGiraffe but I don't believe it's going to happen.
The divide between London and the rest of the country is getting wider and wider, ever less money is getting spent in the north. It seems to me to be vanishingly unlikely that they'll suddenly decide to pour a load of money into our schools.

Better to have the option of a good academic education available to 20% than to nobody, as at present in some areas.

Or in the areas where comprehensives are working, better to say, scrap that, can't have 100% having a good education?

Why is it better to wash your hands of 80% of kids than attempt improvement for all, as happened in London?

I don't know how you cans say that the majority of the public support grammars - I can't recall there being any consultation in my own area. I don't think there is all that much support from parents for a grammar in Theresa May's constituency of Maidenhead either.

It's one of those things though - when people are asked questions like, 'Do you support grammar schools' or even worse, ' do you support good schools' they may well say yes. 'Would you support grammar schools if your own child didn't/couldn't gain access' and the answer is much less likely to be yes.

So phrase the question as 'do you want Secondary Moderns' instead and see what the response is. This doesn't alter the fact that in the past there were some good secondary moderns, which people have good memories of and felt that they got a good education from.