May has got her Grammars.

I agree Clavinova that that is what the govt think about it: Essentially I think that the government and others do believe that the education of more able children is a priority - more so than children of middle or lower ability.

Whether grammar schools are good or bad depends on which gap you are trying to close - grammars are targeting the gap between state and private schools, with the supposed benefit of reducing the monopoly of independent schools on the most influential jobs. I think the government has given up on trying to achieve a system wide improvement, and are instead focused on increasing the number of children who attend 'good schools' - and they see increasing grammar spaces and faith school places as a quick win in that goal.

marytuda
Well obviously your excellent local comprehensive schools were unable to cater for your dc's needs.

noblegiraffe*
Clavinova loves playing the man rather than the ball

I do have an answer but you won't like it.

Essentially I think that the government and others do believe that the education of more able children is a priority - more so than children of middle or lower ability.

Michael Gove, Sir Michael Wilshaw and even The Sutton Trust have all written extensively about the importance of challenging the most able pupils.This report by Michael Wilshaw was published in June 2016 - only weeks before Teresa May made a bid for the Conservative leadership - it will have been one of the most prominent documents on the table when Teresa May and her advisers were considering Education Policy:

" Of all the important issues I have put under the spotlight during my time as Chief Inspector, arguably none is as critical to the nation’s success and economic fortunes as the performance of the most able children in our non-selective state schools

The question of how well our brightest pupils are supported and challenged to achieve high academic results after they transfer to secondary school has been the subject of 2 high profile Ofsted studies in recent years.

Both these surveys found that thousands of pupils who achieved well at primary school, especially those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, were failing to reach their full potential after the age of 11. The reasons for this were:
•poor transition arrangements with feeder primary schools that left many academically gifted pupils treading water in their first few years of secondary school, rather than building on the gains made at key stage 2
•a culture of low expectations and a failure to nurture high ambition and scholastic excellence
•few checks being made on whether the teaching of mixed ability groups was challenging the brightest children sufficiently
•disproportionate effort being spent in many schools on getting pupils over the GCSE D/C borderline rather than supporting the most able to secure the top A/A* grades....

Since these surveys were published in 2013 and 2015, the performance of the most able pupils and the quality of the teaching they receive have become a central part of Ofsted inspections. Our common inspection framework, introduced at the start of this academic year, explicitly highlights the need for schools to provide effective teaching, learning and assessment for the most academically able pupils.

It is, therefore, dispiriting to learn that in spite of Ofsted’s sharpened focus in recent years, little progress seems to have been made since I first reported on this important issue.

The most recent statistics paint a bleak picture of under-achievement and unfulfilled potential.Thousands of our most able secondary-age children are still not doing as well as they should in the non-selective state sector where the vast majority of them are educated ....

These figures reflect the lack of ambition our inspectors still find in many secondary schools. To illustrate the point, here is a sample of comments lifted from recent inspection reports of schools that have dropped from good or outstanding.

From an inspection of a large comprehensive school in the east Midlands:
“Work set by teachers is not always challenging enough, especially for the most able. Pupils are not given sufficient opportunities to apply their learning in a range of situations. This is especially true in lower school mathematics and science. Teachers do not have consistently high expectations about pupils’ work.”

This from the inspection of a secondary school in West Yorkshire:

"Expectations of what pupils can achieve are too low. The academy’s academic targets are too modest and more able pupils, in particular, are not challenged enough to make faster progress... In too many lessons, higher-ability pupils are insufficiently challenged by their teachers or the curriculum provided for them.” ...

What is most depressing is that the brightest children from disadvantaged backgrounds are the most likely not to achieve their full potential. The most able children in receipt of pupil premium funding still lag well behind their more advantaged peers. They are also less likely to be entered for the English baccalaureate (EBacc) than other bright pupils and when they are entered, are less likely to achieve it...

As Chief Inspector, I have consistently lamented the failure of too many secondary schools to stretch our most able children, particularly the poorest. If our nation is serious about improving social mobility then our secondary schools have got to start delivering for these children.

Our nation’s economic prosperity depends on harnessing the talent of all our young people but especially those who have the potential to be the next generation of business leaders, wealth generators and job creators..

many bright children, especially from poorer homes, are allowed to drift through their first few years of secondary school. Their progress and early promise are stifled from this point on...

We know that there are non-selective schools across the country that act as beacons of excellence when it comes to meeting the needs of their most able pupils. Unfortunately, there are not enough of them.

We have to muster all our efforts to challenge the underperformance of our brightest children. ..."

Published 10 June 2016

Unfortunately there is not enough money in the pot to improve all secondary schools and so more grammar school places (with a certain allocation for disadvantaged pupils) probably seemed like a good idea.

Thanks clavinova glad you brought that up gives me excellent opportunity to highlight difference between prepping a primary age child for 11+ and nagging similar age child about music practice (though I have no doubt there are plenty of tiger parents out there who manage both and more besides!)
11+ prep (Wandsworth (Graveney) test, call it what you will) is useless, it’s just test practice. Has no connection to National Curriculum or any other received measure of educational attainment, does not teach child anything except how to pass 11+. IMHO just about any other use of a young child’s time and energy, social, creative, sporting, yep even playing computer games is time better spent than on 11+ prepping, by that I mean, is more conducive to his or her long term health, mental well- being and yes even academic prowess. A young child’s time and energy is precious, and 11+ prep (unless they really love it!) is such a total waste of it.
Music on the other hand - now where do I start? It’s true it’s proven useful as a ticket into a nice school for many DCs but No Way is that the sole reason for any of us taking it up. It is a wonderful thing all by itself, creative, intellectually and emotionally stimulating and above all, for many kids, very very sociable. It's not for every child, of course, and I would say (as fellow music-mum, clav) if ever the practice-issue really does become too fraught, scale it down for now or even drop it. Other things - sport, art, drama, whathaveyou - are just as good and social . . . In a way that, uh, 11+ prep is not. Enough said.
And talking of aptitude places - by no means do they require specific coaching the way the 11+ (or Wandsworth test/Graveney entrance) does. Yes of course musically practised DCs will have the advantage (whatever application criteria claims) over untrained applicants but only because - well see above.
The same applies to sporting prowess . . even our Technology place probably assumed a long-term Lego habit, too darn pricey for many local families, no doubt! But all these are "hobbies" in themselves - don't pretend you can't see the difference.
I do agree that they are all means of weighting intake in favour of privilege. I'm not sure about the Faith school thing though; the one we have an aptitude place at has v elevated PP % intake, as do others around here.
It's a question of degree, clavinova, and in the end you take each school on its merits. Yes, some minimal selection is going on here certainly. But it in no way compares to what goes on as matter of principle at grammar schools.

Clavinova I'm a bit confused. Are you saying you are opposed to Grammar schools?

MumTryingHerBest
In a way - yes. The school has 3 academic bands of equal size and up to 2,000 applicants from all over South/South East London take the test - many of whom will also be targeting selective schools (including the Sutton grammar schools and London private schools offering scholarships and bursaries). Many pupils will have been practising NFER NVR/VR and the school allocates places according to the academic ability of those who apply and not according to the academic ability of pupils in the local area - therefore low achieving pupils and some middle achieving pupils living locally are squeezed out by higher achieving pupils from further afield who flood the bands.

Clavinova - 50% of places on a faith criteria as well as music aptitude

At least it's not a Catholic Grammar - 100% on academic and faith.

Clavinova loves playing the man rather than the ball.

takes place outside of normal school hours BTW, as far as I know, the 11 plus does too.

Clavinova so the school allocates most of the places based on academic aptitude?

The school quoted above also allocates places on sporting ability and the remaining places via an academic banding test, which takes place outside of normal school hours and is skewed towards higher attaining pupils. Another school applied for also allocates 50% of places on a faith criteria as well as music aptitude - and yet the poster disagrees with 11 plus tests.

how can you argue against grammar schools when your child is accessing admission to schools that the majority of their primary school classmates cannot, because they lack the same aptitude or ability?

Grammar school allocate 100% of places on academic ability. How many schools allocate 100% of places on music ability?

Somewhat bizarre logic for some posters to be anti-grammar schools/11 plus prep when they've entered their dc for numerous aptitude tests all over London, in search of outstanding comprehensive schools. Clearly, the test described below is a test of music ability and experience - any child who hasn't been receiving music tuition for several years will be at a clear disadvantage:

^Two performances on the applicant’s chosen instrument(s) and/or vocal pieces: 40 marks.

1. Aural Test: 20 marks.
2. Written Musical Aptitude Tests: 40 marks.

1. 1 Optional Sight Reading on applicants chosen instrument(s): 20 marks.

Personally, I hear more tales of tears and tantrums from other parents over music practice with 8/9/10 year olds than any 11 plus prep - ds2 is 10 and a fairly reluctant (though talented) grade 3 pianist. Also, how can you argue against grammar schools when your child is accessing admission to schools that the majority of their primary school classmates cannot, because they lack the same aptitude or ability?

Magic bullet, badbad? No . . But ask just about any head anywhere in the country and I’m sure they would confirm that adequate funding goes a long long way towards making schools good or Outstanding, especially the ones with high numbers of challenged or challenging pupils. Cash is widely credited with doing the trick in London (although in my view it’s more than that, also about dense, diverse population but that’s another story). But yep, teacher quality control and retention, support services, facilities, maintenance, equipment. . . All this costs money, currently in v short supply.
Who do you blame, badbad, then, for inadequate educational standards? The Labour government again? So long since we had one it’s getting hard to remember what it is.

Thanks for the good wishes, ScrubTheDecks. No, grammar school would not have been an option at 11. Hence the emphasis on finding a really sound alternative. After four secondary schools, none of us can wait for the end of this phase!

Comprehensives : schools which do not select, and thus contain a full (comprehensive) range of abilities that pretty accurately reflects the catchment area.

What about an area without grammars, but where there's "selection" because parents who care about their kids' education send them on a convoy on no less than ten buses across the county line to an outstanding comp rather than send them to one of two failing "comps" within walking distance of their homes? We have that exact scenario. The two "comps" in my home town have falling rolls and one is highly likely to close, yet the comp a couple of miles across the county border (in a small village!) is constantly growing. None of this is anything at all to do with grammars but 100% to do with the two comps being absolutely crap and having an awful reputation. That's the reality of some comps unfortunately. You can have "selection" by other means besides religion and the 11+. None of the 3 comps I'm talking about "pretty accurately reflects the catchment area" so that proves that it's not just grammars which cause anomalies.

Cutting money from schools definitely isn’t the answer to school improvement, but that’s what’s going on.

What’s interesting is that we won’t see any effect of school cuts on exam results - the system of setting grade boundaries based on KS2 results means that grades are protected even if standards aren’t.

I'd much rather the money was spent on making ALL schools good and outstanding.

When someone comes up with a definitive plan to make ALL schools good and outstanding, then I think everyone would agree. Trouble is that for the last 50 years, teachers, politicians, academics havn't found that "magic bullet" so until it happens, there'll continue to be a mis-match of policies, ideas, etc, some of which work, some of which don't which seems to depend more on the personalities involved and the immediate area given some things that work in one school don't work in another. What is abundantly clear after Labour trebling the NHS spending is there is no proportional link between spending and service improvement, so just chucking money at schools isn't the answer.

Grammar schools are both overtly academically selective and covertly socio-economically selective; many faith schools are both overtly selective in terms of religion and covertly selective in terms of the organisation needed to 'get the right entry tickets', as well as possibly the cost of transport.

It takes from other catchments- parental choice of course helps here.

That is what I mean by 'effective catchment' - the real intake area, whether this be smaller than the 'on the map' catchment or larger because of parental preferences. the effective catchment is the true admissions footprint, and the intake of the school should reflect the socio-economic and ability range of this area if it is to be comprehensive. This may mean that some schools are 'covertly selective' or 'admission is rigged against those from lower incomes', because e.g. students from richer families further away can afford the bus fares, whereas poorer students from the same further areas cannot and have to settle for closer, less good schools.

Part of the problem here is we seem so unable to counteract the "Grange Hill" image that people seem stuck with. Why is it that whenever I read a success story in the newspapers it's always " so-and so has become the director of Extremely Prestigious Institution despite only going to the local school" or "so-and so got into Oxbridge despite going to a comprehensive"? And the particular school is never mentioned.

Recently I discovered that all three of the finalists in "Young Musician of the Year" 2016 went to comprehensives. Imagine what would have happened if they'd all been to grammars, I can see the Daily Mail headlines now.

With something like 3000 or more so comprehensives, I don't think anyone can offer an opinion as to what 'most'comprehensives do.

Does OFSTED really think that once a school is outstanding it can never be anything else?

Agreed that this is iniquitous.

Especially since routinely-inspected 'Good' schools can no longer become Outstanding after a single Ofsted inspection, but have to wait to be re-inspected within a couple of years before they can move grades....despite the fact that many currently 'Outstanding' schools were inspected under frameworks so lax that they do not match the standards required for Good if inspected today.

It takes from other catchments- parental choice of course helps here.
It is oversubscribed- high PP school undersubscribed- with all financial difficulties that involves.
Like your PP idea re ofsted can'tkeepaway...