May has got her Grammars.

Echo chamber going on here, so here is a contrasting view:

Grammar school expansion is just keeping pace with expansion for all schools given the increase in school age children. Secondly, if they weren't popular then they wouldn't be oversubscribed by 5 or more children for every place or whatever it is that they are, and if you think many of those applicants are only applying from the local area and not thinking of specifically moving just to get in a grammar area, then you are very much mistaken I believe.

A certain section of the public want grammar schools, giving the public what they want is surely what government should be about.

If there was national per capita funding per pupil, it would be harder to hide behind statistics. Just saying.

But it doesn't address or correct the division between those parents who value education and teach their children to do likewise, and those who don't.

I don't think it's that easy to expand a school and I don't think it will happen much, except with adding extra classes to their intake.

One grammar in a neighbouring borough to us talked about expanding (after that school in Kent was allowed to build an annex 10 miles away), but it never happened.

schoolsweek.co.uk/confusion-over-grammar-school-expansion-plans/

There's too much lazy stereotyping which assumes all lower-income families are exactly the same. Class and money are wrongly assumed to be the same thing, for a start. But there are also assumptions that if a family is poor, they must also be uninterested, uneducated, disruptive, unqualified, stupid and not deserving of a decent education.

The problem there is bullying and disruption, which is unacceptable for any child.

Allow the interested, better off parents to remove their kids from the school and who cares about the rest?

mum it’ll most likely be disrupted because most schools only set for certain subjects, or because of the bullying and disruption that occurs out of the classroom.

qu1rky Sun 13-May-18 11:02:19 - I pity the bright kids at the school I am at now. Their learning is constantly interrupted.

Out of interest, does the school have a very, very small number of bright DCs?

Does the school set for subjects?

If the school sets for subjects and is a true comp. i.e. has enought bright DCs to form a top group, then I have to ask why their learning is being affected by other less bright, disruptive DCs?

@noblegiraffe Yes, I pity all the kids for different reasons.
I don't know what the answer is though when the parent's care little for education. They seem to rail against the school trying their best for their kids, rather than work with the school.
The attitude is so entrenched it could go on for generations.
How can the school improve for all?
All staff do their very best for the kids, if the kids don't see any value in education, what can be done to change their mind?

The job was so much easier with a school population where the majority wanted to learn and if they didn't want to, they saw the merits of it and knuckled down.
Here, it is the few who want to learn who are disrupted by the many.
I despair of the chain that seems unbreakable. The town shows no sign of being lifted out of poverty and our pupils will therefore remain in the same mindset.

Yes, @Neverwrestlewithapig, that advert was probably taken in a grammar school

@qu1rky
Don’t you just love the train to teach adverts? The ones with the teacher in front of 12 immaculate attentive pupils - such an accurate representation of teaching!

We need to find and support ^^all schools well; not just focus on the advantaged pupils (I.e. more academic/affluent/supportive parents/where they live etc). After all, we all have to live with each other!

cone That is how I see the issue too.

I pity the bright kids at the school I am at now. Their learning is constantly interrupted.

But you don’t pity the hard working medium and low ability kids whose learning is interrupted? Wouldn’t it be better to improve that school for all children, not just give a lucky few who are already advantaged a golden ticket out of there?

Scrub I don't know the solution, but it seems we have the worst of both worlds at the moment. Effectively there is selection by money rather than ability (whether paying fees or moving house). This means the brightest children from lower income families will be at the schools many better-off families have rejected. At least if there were grammars some (rather than none) of those from lower incomes could attend the more successful schools. I know that still doesn't make a difference to the many who don't pass the test though. Giving extra money to schools that need it would be a very good start, but unless all the independents close and all secondary schools in the area are comprehensive, have the same catchment and selection by lottery, people will keep buying their way out.

I have worked in an outstanding school and currently work in a needs improvement.

The low level disruption here is immense and although the SLT response is good, it doesn't seem to make a difference. Sanctions seem like water off a ducks back.

The whole atmosphere is different in the schools and I pity the bright kids at the school I am at now. Their learning is constantly interrupted.
You can't walk a corridor during lesson time without seeing numerous kids outside classrooms. At my previous school, it was a rare event!

I still stand by what I say.
Does the school need a social worker because the kids have issues before they go, or is the school trying to sort out issues of their own making.

I seriously had my eyes opened when I started working in schools. I take my hat off to teachers, I certainly wouldn't want to put up with the endless shit they get.

Absolutely! I completely agree. Money will always give an advantage.

There is a huge difference between buying a 11 plus test book and leaving a child to familiarise themselves with the types of questions, and weekly coaching from year 3 or 4. The first was affordable to me as a single parent on minimum wage, the second completely inaccessible.

@WombatChocolate Primary schools are not allowed to recommend schools to parents.

A few years ago, there was a trial of primaries ‘tutoring’ Y6 pupils as suggested by a pp. As I recall, there were lots of issues with the cost, logistics (when/how do you fit it in?), pupil selection etc. It was soon abandoned!

For those of you saying that you never tutored your child and just ‘did a few prep books’, that is still prep. Not everybody has access to prep materials or has an adult at home willing and able to support them. It is wonderful that you can do that for your child so I'm not knocking it (!) I just think that some children will always be at a disadvantage

There are no grammars in this area. Many of the secondary schools are not performing well here. There are a couple of leafy areas with good comps and a faith school which is near impossible to get into. Far from the lack of grammars improving the comps, what happens is that parents with enough money move away or pay for private school. The gap between state and private results is wide. It seems many people are happy to virtue signal support the comprehensives - as long as their children live near a very good or outstanding one. They justify it to themselves by assuming families without money must be unintelligent so don't need such a good education anyway

I think most people benefit from grammar or independent schools because the bottom tier is removed, ie there is less likely to be disruption from children who are disengaged with education. Children who behave and want to learn in comps and secondary moderns are disadvantaged as have a disproportionate % of this to deal with.

Most parents will admit they opted for independent or grammar to optimise their child’s chances of having an education less disrupted by the bad behaviour of other children. I include myself in this.

The key is actually more investment in those children who disrupt the education of others. Removal to dedicated schools or units within schools to help these children also fulfil their potential. With ability to move back into mainstream if behaviour improves. Well behaved children of all abilities should remain in mainstream.

Aaaah thank you scrub

I knew it was a 'thing'

I'd just forgetten every single 'fact' about it

I live in a county where there are 4 grammars, 2 mixed sex, 2 single sex. They are all on the edge of the county, so not easily accessible to all. From what I know, there are between 450-650 applicants for each school, who admit 150 per annum.
I can't help thinking that this scenario is completely different to the Kent setup, which gives me a different, maybe said skewed view of grammars.

In the north of my county, there are great, high achieving schools.
The East of the county underwent a social engineering restructure under the Labour government.
The great schools that existed, both single sex and mixed were amalgamated into newly built schools. The buildings are brilliant, look good and are functional as a school. The results aren't as sparkling as the schools. We live in a very divisive area where people are openly racist, very different to the 30 miles we moved from.

When the new schools opened, the mix of children in each changed. You have the Catholic school, heavily over subscribed due to not wanting to go to the 97% Asian school, again heavily over subscribed. We have 2 schools already that have shut (in the last 3 years) due to dwindling numbers, putting extra pressure on the already bulging schools. The other schools in the area, the OFSTED reports don't make good reading.
The grammar school in the east of the county (out of catchment) has a double decker bus of 76 from this town and I guess more who are driven there. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of these children are not tutored, the area is always in the 'poorest area' surveys.
I really don't think the grammar school (20 miles away) affects the standard of school in our town but gives the children the opportunity to better themselves.
The schools in the same town as the grammar get good results.

Prior to moving to the east of the county, grammar wasn't on my radar due to the 3 schools within walking distance that are both rated outstanding and deliver good results.
It was only when we moved that my eyes were opened to how an area can have no good schools. The best school in my area has a 50% A-C, the next best school has 70 support staff and a social worker on their books.

Everybodies opinion is based on what they know, which is probably what is local to their area.
From what I read on here, our area is vastly different from other areas and can they even be compared?

From having worked in a comprehensive school (high performing) for many years I have found the emphasis on league tables to be destroying the breadth of subjects offered - vocational courses have gone and non academic children are being badly failed and pushed into choices tgat are neither appropriate, attainable or useful.

I do wish that more people on MN could take on board that there are good comprehensives up and down the country, that serve all their children well, and not only in 'naice' areas too. We should be looking to see what they do and try to replicate their success elsewhere, instead of trying to resurrect policies which were regarded as failures 50 years ago.