New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

I don't think they are the right solution for society, but would send my DC to them if we had them in our area, because they would definitely suit my DC. It's an area that makes me feel like an absolute hypocrite.

I'm not sure I even agree with them being available in some areas but not others. I think it would make more sense to make them universal or scrap them. Either of those options makes more sense than the mixture we have now.

The Hampshire/Bucks comparison is meaningless.,It just means that they have similar ability children. No one system gives particular advantages and no changes should be made to existing schools. What matters is that they are all Good schools.

SEN school provision is interesting.When I worked in education the whole vibe was inclusivity for SEN children enshrined by law and what parents wanted. SEN schools were closed. Now it’s patently obvious that mainstream schools cannot educate everyone, we want more special schools.My LA didn’t close them and didn’t close grammars either. However as SEN becomes more complex it’s obvious more SEN places are needed.

It really is bollocks. My DC at 10/11 was probably around the upper end of average, an assessment at 11 would have unlikely to have opened the gate to a grammar school. I think their confidence would have been really hit by that which would have been likely to impact on their performance from then. They’ve just sat Nat 5 recently (Scotland) and were forecast by school today get all As with the majority A band 1 (we shall see).

Same here. Our 'High Schools' also perform really well. Our LEA was consistently one of the best.

I’m in Hampshire and I remember articles like this from Theresa May was trumpeting for more grammar schools
www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/13/grammar-schools-success-comprehensive-education-hampshire

Apparently Hampshire has similar education outcome as Buckinghamshire. But Hampshire is fully comprehensive and Buckinghamshire has grammar. Living here I just don’t understand why we need to put the children through 11 plus. It’s a stress they don’t need. I’m very happy with DC to attend our local comprehensive. Those who want to go to something selective can go to private schools.

Maybe more Grammar Schools only if there were also more vocational schools, technical schools, ones that specialise in the Arts and/or Media (bit like the Brit school) etc.
The divide shouldn't be until age14 though in my opinion.

It's yet another way to confirm the Tory idea that the poor are poor because they're stupid or unmotivated. The bright children of caring parents will be given opportunities to advance. The oafs and oiks will languish in sink schools. The wheat will be separated from the chaff, sheep from goats, etc. The belief that a system and its outcomes are based on merit is always self serving.

Dickens knew his people so well.

Grammar schools should be completely scrapped. All schools should be comprehensive. Comprehensive schools should cater to all kids including high achievers as well as kids needing more help. It's ridiculous and unfair to separate kids at such a young age.

Education is the most important tool in trying to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

BTW My kids didn't apply to a GS but did well academically at a 'leafy comp' ( so still privileged as we could afford to buy a house in an area with good school)

When they start talking about the investments they will make to the secondary modern/ comprehensives that those that don’t get into grammar school go to I may listen. ( actually still disagree because I don’t think children should be labelled at 10) but I can see a place for expanding vocational education and most certainly improving SEN provision. They never go into details about what provision will look like for those who don’t get into grammar and how the grammar school system will be better for them. ( we know it’s not)

I’ll be surprised if it happens. Theresa May said she wanted to bring in more grammar schools and then backtracked.

I don’t really have a view on whether grammar schools are “good” or “bad”. I suspect a mixture of both. I would have loved to have gone to one but there weren’t any in my county. Once my comprehensive started putting us into sets, it became far more like a grammar in many ways.

I often hear from people who are opposed to grammars that comprehensives are better because they mean children of different backgrounds mix. I’m not certain that this is the case - my friends ended up being studious, floppy haired girls who played musical instruments (because they were the most like me).

I do think it is infuriating that people in Kent can choose a grammar school (if their children get in) but people in, say, Sussex can’t. I’m not convinced that the overall educational outcomes are better in Sussex as a result of not having grammar schools.

If the Tories bring this in then it may be that the Labour councils refuse to introduce grammar schools - so they end up being an option for those who live in Tory boroughs (no not, generally, those living in the centre of cities).

If you’re looking at earning potential, or even university, everyone I know who went to a grammar school either earns less or went to lower-ranked universities than most of those I know who didn’t go to grammar school.

I went to grammar school and enjoyed if. I was never top of anything.

It depends how you define success. Lots of girls from my school are on average salaries. Blokes lots younger than me who didn't do well at school but went into a trade or something vocational at 16 seem to earn 2-3 times what I do.

I don't think the issue is grammar schools as most of my lessons were actually quite boring & wouldn't suit everyone. The teachers relied on us being prepared to sit still & listen.

The issue is that people still seem to see getting into grammar school & their child being that type of learner as a sign of success. We need to celebrate our children whatever their academic prowess. So they might be really good at sports or cooking but not great at maths.

DD would probably have got into grammar school - she was in top 2% in her CATS scores. DS didn't pass all his SATS and was average in CATS scores. I don't really care tbh - I think DS will likely outdo DD with salary as his emotional intelligence is good & he's smart but in a different way.

No, I would get rid of the existing grammar schools personally. I support setting by subject at state secondary schools, but I think selective schools are a terrible idea.

Whatever system you have it needs teachers, TAs and support staff as well as specialists so that Send is diagnosed early snd suppprt asap.

These, or definitely teachers and TAs feel under pressure and are leaving. That needs to be addressed first or at the same time as type of school.

My Dad, now in his 70s, has never recovered from failing his 11 plus and being told he wasn't clever enough for all sorts of things that were only available to clever children in those days, when the system was fully grammar/secondary modern. He's spent a lifetime over compensating for it and has a degree and a masters now, but all earned the hard while while working FT and never really giving the same career benefits that doing it straight out of school does.

The system is even worse now, where very few children who haven't been tutored get in, but MC Tory voters will love an opportunity to buy better opportunities for their DC

At the moment we're asking secondary schools to meet a wide range of needs for children aged 11 - 16, when they're maturing at different rates. They need to be able to serve those with quite difficult educational needs, children who are academically gifted and those who struggle academically but are extremely practical. And of course those with a mixture of all those things.

But many, if not most, schools can't meet all these needs so children can't achieve their fullest or explore opportunities for their future. I support more grammar schools, they meet a need for some students, but we also need to look at creating tech schools that younger teenagers can go to where they get their basic educational needs met but are given the opportunity to explore different trades. I don't believe one school can be all things to everyone. We need to diversify to meet business and service demands for the future.

No. Unless you call all schools grammar schools and have done with it.

I think more grammar schools would be a good thing, along with more special schools, more schools that focus on vocational training, and schools for children that need more support with their emotional development.

I don’t like the idea that one type of comprehensive school can meet the needs of nearly all children.

Money would be FAR better spent enhancing special school places and numbers for those with the complex SEND needs and children who are not coping with mainstream.

I am all for inclusion but there's no real alternative if it doesn't work.

I'm also contraversial in that I think we need to do the opposite to grammar school and bring back technical learning/training from 14+.

I live in an area where grammar schools are the norm. They are not decisive as people assume.

Many of the non-grammars locally provide good education, providing grammar streams within their schools, and so can get good results as well. Statistically, their results may not look as good, but that’s only because they have a smaller cohort of potentially higher grade pupils.

However, all schools should be invested in, whether secondary modern, comprehensive, upper school, high school or grammar.

A good comprehensive should set appropriately and cater for a full range of academic ability. Resource should be channelled down timeouts instead of reinvigorating the idea of grammar schools.

I'm in NI where we still have loads of grammars. I'm a fan, however I agree with @BookwormButNoTime, more Special school provision is needed first.

This is a super interesting read. fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/