New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

Sorry - I don't mean Tring - that's independent. Can't think of the name of the school I do mean though (goes off to Google)

@Anothernamechangeplease a number of state schools in my area offer a certain percentage of places to pupils with specific skills such as sport, music and languages. It means you can secure a place even where your child doesn’t live in the catchment area.

I'm not aware of state secondary schools that select children at age 11 on the basis of musical/sporting ability and exclude those who don't quite make the mark?

There are a couple of state schools near me that have musical aptitude places. It's only 10% of places though; the rest are allocated using standards admission criteria (catchment, siblings, feeder schools etc).

And there are specialist schools (Tring springs to mind) that only take students who pass an audition. These are pretty few and far between though.

@mumsneedwine My own mum couldn’t go to grammar school because her parents couldn’t afford the uniform. However, things have moved on and my DC’s grammar school have a significant supply of second hand school uniform, including shoes and rugby boots and make it very clear than it is available for anyone that needs it. Furthermore, a number of places are reserved for looked after or pupil premium children who have to get a minimum score which is lower than the usual score required to get in. I know that one of the closest primary schools to the grammar has had significant success in helping its pupils secure a place. The primary is in the most deprived areas of the city. So it is possible to promote social mobility in grammar schools if the school itself and its feeder schools are willing to encourage it.

I'm not aware of state secondary schools that select children at age 11 on the basis of musical/sporting ability and exclude those who don't quite make the mark?

@ClocksGoingBackwards I agree - I think grammar schools are great. There are certain secondary schools which are known for being particularly sporty / musical etc - so why shouldn't there be schools for those who are strong academically.

In my grandad's day the grammar was for the clever kids, he was from a large working class family and him and a few brothers went to the grammar. While now for DS the same school is quite middle class. So I think things have changed.

In my area I found it interesting that a few working class people I've spoken to didn't even sit the test for the grammar, saw it as for the posh kids not for them and all their friends were going to the comprehensive. So they did chose the comprehensive/secondary modern (grammar is super selective with kids travelling so it's not taking the top 25% of local kids).

Middle class people who might vote tory may like the idea that their children will be educated away from others who misbehave and cause issues in comprehensive schools.

Recent polling shows the majority of Tory voters don't want grammars.

The ones that do are more likely to be over 60, I reckon.

Of course, nobody uses the term "secondary modern" any more. Too many negative associations. That doesn't change the fact that that's what they are, though.

We need to be honest that non-grammar schools in grammar areas aren't fully comprehensive schools because a certain proportion of the "brighter kids" (or at least, the most heavily tutored kids) will have been creamed off by the grammars. Especially in areas like Kent where a relatively high proportion of kids go through the grammar system - much less so in the areas where there are the so-called super-selectives. If we are to have more grammars, or if we are to expand the ones that we have already got, then we move even further away from the comprehensive model.

And yes, secondary modern schools can call themselves whatever they like, but it doesn't change the reality of what they are.

Sure, there will be some who might be more suited to that kind of environment. Nevertheless, I don't think the majority of parents would choose a secondary modern for their kids. It's difficult to see what value this would add for most kids, over and above what a comprehensive with decent setting could offer.

As a pp has said, the people who tend to be most in favour of more grammar schools tend to be the ones who believe that their children will get in. Personally, I think we should be designing an education system that serves all kids, regardless of where they fall on the IQ spectrum... and I don't believe that the grammar/secondary modern system does that.

But there are no secondary modern schools, surely. No non-grammar schools in a grammar area are called “secondary modern.” They’re called comprehensives or high schools or “name of school” school. Even parents who live in a grammar area who choose not to send their dc to a grammar school will be choosing to send them to the alternative, call it what you will.

Conservatives continue to trot out this policy for two reasons.

1. Middle class people who might vote tory may like the idea that their children will be educated away from others who misbehave and cause issues in comprehensive schools.
2. It also provides a private school atmosphere and elite idea for free on the state so good for those who don't or can't spend the cash on independent schools.

The problem is obvious. They create a two tier service. It makes it harder for comprehensive schools to achieve higher standards. It is telling children aged 10 that they are not clever enough. It favours those who can afford tutoring. It is obviously not in any way promoting levelling up.

@Anothernamechangeplease thank you so much
That makes complete sense.

I think most parents would choose grammar or comprehensive for their children. Few would actively want their kids to go to a secondary modern, and therein lies the problem.
It's going to be different for different kids but my undiagnosed dyslexic uncle lost all confidence when the grammar closed and his secondary modern became a comprehensive. It became clearer how much he struggled compared to average.

The well above average progress list includes Waddesdon and The Amersham school.

Have you checked out how many kids on FSM go to those schools compared to the national average, btw? Buckinghamshire must be pretty leafy.

In some areas, the top 30% of high achievers are not in these schools.

And yet when I looked at the schools you mentioned, they still have plenty of high achievers.

Have you looked at Kent yet?

A secondary modern is a school that takes all of the children who didn't get in/ didn't try to get in to the grammar school.

They are different from comprehensive schools because schools that are truly comprehensive will take children at the top end of the ability scale as well as the bottom and everything in between. If those at the top end are selected out to go to grammar schools, then you are left with a secondary modern.

I think most parents would choose grammar or comprehensive for their children. Few would actively want their kids to go to a secondary modern, and therein lies the problem.

@noblegiraffe
You have NO idea what you are talking about!

The well above average progress list includes Waddesdon and The Amersham school. These are secondary modern schools. The above average list includes Cressex, The Misbourne, Khalsa, St Michaels and Holmer Green. ALL are secondary modern schools. In some areas, the top 30% of high achievers are not in these schools. Please don’t post about schools where you know 0.

Burnham did close and it had never been a great school for 30 plus years! Lots of DC got places in neighbouring Slough schools. How many comps have closed? As Bucks has opened new schools that are doing well, the loss of one isn’t that remarkable.

If the top 25% go to a grammar, then the other 75% go to secondary moderns. They don't call them secondary moderns much anymore though.

What is a secondary modern? ELI5 sorry

A child can be low income but not pupil premium if their parent has always worked. I think this could mean you'd have 80% pupil premium and 20% coached middle class. It would make it harder for working class children if they are competing with middle class for only 20% of places.

I have had my IQ tested on two occasions. Once as part of a SEN assessment and once when I volunteered to be involved in a research project. On both occasions, my IQ came out as being in the top 0.5% of the population. I have no idea whether my sister's IQ has ever been tested, but I think her intelligence is similar to mine. So I reckon that we were both the kind of kids who would have been considered "grammar school" material.

Except we both failed the 11+. Our parents didn't really believe in selective education and so we didn't do any practice papers. I remember sitting in the test and finding some of the questions utterly bizarre and pointless. The kids who did get in were not necessarily the most intelligent, but they had parents who were dedicated to that goal. Some had been doing weekly practice papers for years. Some had had tutors. There was a local private primary school that seemed to exist primarily for the purpose of getting kids into the selective secondaries.

So DSis and I went to the comp instead. And broadly speaking, it was a comp rather than a secondary modern, because there were plenty of other bright kids there who had "failed" the 11+. And we were fine! The kids were set according to their ability in each subject. There were some kids who worked hard and some who didn't, at all ability levels. I quickly learned that everyone had different strengths, that everyone brought something different to the table.

Going to the comp didn't seem to damage our prospects in any way. Dsis and I both excelled in our exams, graduated with Oxbridge degrees, went on to have successful careers etc. Few of the kids who "passed" the 11+ and went to the grammar did as well as we did academically, and actually, I think they had a less rounded educational experience overall.

My own dd is very bright, straight 9s at GCSE etc. Thankfully we live in an area without grammar schools. There are selective private schools but we didn't think they were worth the investment. So she went to the local comp and she has thrived there, both academically and socially.

There is just no need to separate kids off at 11 years old based on a spurious test that reflects the amount of preparation that has been undertaken rather than actual ability. It achieves nothing, but may leave some kids feeling like failures when their academic careers have barely even begun.

If we have more grammar schools we have more secondary moderns. Not comprehensive schools. So not all ability schools, no allowance for later development. Grammar schools only seem to be advocated by people who believe their own children will go to one.
Why segregate kids at 10/11. Why not allow them all to go to the same school and make sure that they have the funding to provide every student with the education they deserve. Whether that be academic or vocational. It is v possible.
I hate grammar schools. My own parents passed the 11+ but couldn't go because they couldn't afford the uniform. So social mobility has its limits. Eventually teachers stepped in for both of them so they could go a year late. But grammar schools have never been for the v poor.

Yes for top 2%, No for top 25%.

Creaming off the top 25% at 10 years old means that you create a school bereft of academic role models for the next tranche down and you can struggle to attract excellent teaching staff, who don’t have their A level classes to balance out their Year 9 set 8s!

It depends on how they are operated. When I went to school, in the dark ages, every child took the 11 plus, we didn't even know what it was; it was a similar test to those we had been taking every year as part of results in our school reports.
Those who passed went to one of the reasonably local grammar/selective schools, along with other state school children, nobody was tutored, in fact my parents wouldn't have been able to afford a tutor.
If the grammar school system went back to that, I would have no problem. It shouldn't be only for children whose parents can afford a tutor.