New grammars by 2020 which will exclude 90% of local kids

the suggestion that only kids who are going to get As at A-level deserve good maths teaching (if you are going to suggest that all the good maths teachers should teach in grammars)*

As I have written further up the thread, I do not believe in grammars.

But I do think that people should acknowledge that parents of high achieving students have some legitimate concerns and talk about how to deal with these concerns within a comprehensive school framework. It isn't helpful to simply discuss the widespread concerns of those working in higher education about unachievement of (some) high achieving students in (some) schools.

It would be more constructive to acknowledge the concerns, develop solutions and lobby for more funding to implement them.

The English department is not measured on maths results so the suggestion that schools do not push kids in English who are doing well in maths is absurd.

Measures in the league tables have generally not distinguished a great deal between an A or B, and an A or A star. Yes, of course, the English department wants the best results for their students, but in practice much of the focus is on getting the borderline kids to passes. (This is clearly stated in parallel threads.)

But not pushing the A/B kids up a bit in writing can and does have consequences later on. It would have far less consequences if we had enough money in 16-18 education to make scientists do some writing (and humanities/MFL students do some maths/science) to bring their levels up.

Are they labelled as failures? Do they view themselves as 'less than'? Do they go to schools that have lower aspirations for them?

Kent secondary modern heads certainly think this is a problem:

edexec.co.uk/grammars-plan-heads-tell-education-secretary-of-their-deep-opposition/

OK, so let me give another example. Many of the kids coming in to us with A stars at A level maths have been taught to the test. They can differentiate according to rules but do not understand the meaning of differentiation. These kids start with a conceptual gap that shouldn't be there.

Yes, we can choose not to take them, but we would then be turning down kids with high ability and high potential just because of poor teaching.

I just don't see why you won't admit that some high ability kids in some state schools are not getting the teaching/support/advice that they deserve.

BTW one of the reasons for the weak writing is often the lack of push at GCSE: if a kid who's great at maths and going to do maths/science at A levels looks like they're going to get an A or B at English, why push for more? Yet this relative weakness at English comes back and bites when these students have to write at university.

A simple solution would exclude Children educated privately or a quota of say 10% only from private school and the remainder from state and tested in the schools.

It wouldn't work. People would move their DC to state schools and use the money saved in fees to pay for extensive tutoring.

And bear in mind that some kids in private primaries are there just because they just moved into the area (and were offered failing schools or no school could take all siblings) or because something went wrong at the state school they attended (bullying not dealt with well etc) and their parents got them into private schools on bursaries.

Meanwhile some much wealthier/very highly educated families will have their kids in the best state primary schools in the area. These kids may well be just as advantaged or more advantaged than the kids in private on bursaries or kids who just moved to the area.

You can't complain about students being inadequately prepared for your university course if you set grade requirements low in order to get enough bums on seats

But highly selective courses which don't drop grade requirements also complain about skills gaps in incoming students. For example, I am frequently shocked at the level of our students writing, and they come in with A stars in maths/science subjects.

I haven't RTFD but quite a bit of it. I disagree that grammar schools offer social mobility, the children who get in are the ones with ambitious parents who can afford to live in catchment, send their kids to prep, tutor them extensively etc.

However, I don't disagree on principle with the idea of an academically selective school. I'm not totally convinced one way or another and I can't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about educational theories, outcomes etc so this is just an opinion but it's seems feasible that the very academically gifted might do better at a grammar school. I do think it's right that each child should have the best chance to fulfil their own potential, ergo grammars might have a place.

What worries me with grammars though, apart from the fact that disproportionately far more children from privileged backgrounds will get into them, is what happens with those who don't get in. Are they labelled as failures? Do they view themselves as 'less than'? Do they go to schools that have lower aspirations for them? And what about those who develop academically a later age? Why the arbitrary siphoning off at age 11?

It's possible that some of these concerns could be addressed by, for example, offering tutoring to all children so that they are 'trained' to deal with the questions/ format of the 11+ and it potentially becomes more of an even playing field. Maybe having more grammars will ease the demand and that will give less well off families a better chance of getting in. I just don't know.

But beyond that, how do we get away from the mentality that being academically gifted in a certain way is worth more than having other strengths? Or that you're either one thing or the other - academic or practical? Don't grammar schools just reinforce that?

noble I was quite amused by that one too. There's now one from someone looking for 11+ advice for a child who hasn't started primary. I prefer this honesty though to the sort of "separate but equal" line you get from some grammar supporters.

Interesting that in general most pro-comprehensive people are quite open about the fact that they would use the grammars if the choice was between that and a secondary modern

twitter.com/Samfr/status/831846565581041664

whilst most grammar supporters claim they would be happy for their child to attend a secondary modern "if it was right for them" - it just so happens that their child will be right for the grammar.

Although I should excuse the poster who said that it was good her child was at a secondary modern as his behaviour was "too disruptive in lessons" to be at a grammar. The fact that the children at the secondary modern were presumably having their education disrupted by her child's behaviour obviously not being important.

little would that not just push everyone into tutoring, who previously wwnt private?

We have them in the area here. It's is dominated by prep school children. A simple solution would exclude Children educated privately or a quota of say 10% only from private school and the remainder from state and tested in the schools. This would sort out social mobility. I have to say we have the best comprehensive school locally too so everyone gets a good education.

More children could attend these schools if the government hadn't created the scurge of academies that now blight our school system. At least you have choice.

The only people in HE who moan about high ability students as far as I'm aware are the ones who can't be arsed to sort out their entry criteria and expect schools to do all the work for them.

I am very happy to introduce you to very many people working in HE who passionately believe in comprehensive education, choose it for their own children and want it to work YET acknowledge that there is a huge problem of underachievement by (some) high ability students in (some) state schools.

This has nothing to do with entry criteria - which as I repeatedly write on MN are not set that high for science subjects such as mine, as they are relatively under-subscribed.

It has everything to do with the fact that (some) high ability students are woefully under-prepared for university. Again, I would genuinely be happy to pass on your details to colleagues at RG maths departments who would talk to you about students coming in to study maths who have learnt calculus algorithms by rote to get good scores in A level but have little understanding of what differentiation/integration actually means etc etc. There are massive variations in the quality of maths teaching around the country which is having very bad effects on (some) state school students.

Getahaircurl is absolutely right that while this is happening there will be those who push for selective state education.

Ta1kinPeace

Trolling? Nowhere have I stated the things you attribute to me. Maybe the boot is on the other foot.

Sorry Noble , that thought was sparked by you but not meant as pointedly to you as it looks. Sorry.

Noble - I do not work in HE but I do read here some of the efforts some people make in outreach etc and also some linked articles written by tutors / lecturers involved in admissions. The impression I have , which is very sobering is that some applicants are not offered a place because the preparation / ground work / choices they have had is simply not enough for them to keep up with the course ( notwithstanding their native ability or potential. ) How can / should universities make up for this over a typical 3 year degree course? Some articles I have read are saddening but I do not quite understand how it would help simply to allow people on to the course if they could not cope (sorry if i have misrepresented you ) Surely the answer is, as people or institutions seem to be making the effort to do , to inform the schools who will be doing the preparation for these applications about what is required. It may be hard / sometimes ill received and too little but surely the right approach. Again, I do not work in this field so my apologies if I use the wrong terms or my understanding is naive.

And Ifailed , I do think you're being a bit naive (given my basic point above if you get it) to think you could run universities along comprehensive lines (caveat about me not working in HE to the fore) . They are separate institutions, and at 17 / 18 (ish) that is one of the difficult things DCs face with choosing. Entirely different (whatever your view) to going through the compulsory years of education.

Ifailed
You have a very strange view of GCSEs if you think that all children study the same materials and take the same exams.

Your understanding of A levels is even weaker if you think that all children actually take them, let alone that they take the same ones.

You are clearly just trolling the thread - but misleading in the process.