New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

I disagree with almost everything that's ever come out for Truss's mouth but yes grammar schools are a good idea. Social mobility and the chance for academically able children from deprived backgrounds to reach their potential was trashed by removing them.

The above list is pie in the sky.

Of course. But if the aim is what grammar supporters say it is: to provide high quality, 'best fit' education for all children, then my list is what is necessary.

Or alternatively, we can have well-funded comprehensives and sufficient Special School places.

Any political party who truly wanted to improve education would start, not from the education of middle class high attainers, but from the funding and expansion of excellent Special Schools, including those for those who display challenging behaviour. It is the failure to provide enough places and enough support (e.g. through the funding and expansion of CAMHS, Ed Psychs etc, as well as support to families, refugees etc etc) at Special Schools and in mainstream that presents a significant challenge in mixed-ability schooling.

As a teacher (though primary), the most extreme behaviour I have witnessed has ALWAYS been from children who are inappropriately placed in mainstream, and who are waiting endlessly for specialist input and the Special School places they so desperately need.

Good idea.

*within should read without!

*you were engaged enough to research it.

not all kids have that. Years ago that wouldn’t have mattered for the top 30%. If you were clever and performed on the day you were in.

that is not the case now.

now

you need an engaged parent to research, spend time and money on it - either buying papers, tutoring, printing worksheets off.*

Yes. Even within preparation for the exam itself; the nearby “super selective” I mentioned upthread includes most of our borough in its catchment, but as it’s not in the borough it doesn’t get included in the information about secondaries that gets published on the borough council website and sent out to parents at the start of y6. The school doesn’t do any sort of outreach, so you’d only know children from the borough were eligible to sit the test if you went looking for the information yourself. And you’d need to do it time to register in the summer of y5. I’d say a large proportion of families in the borough have no idea the school even exists, let alone that their children could earn a place. So yeah, parental engagement is pretty essential in that case!

What happens in areas like Kent where there are lots of grammars? Does absolutely everyone in a state primary sit the test at the start of y6? Or is it still “opt in”? Because if so, that still requires parental engagement. No 10 year old is going to be filling in the registration form for the exam online and getting themselves there on the day without any parental input.

Well done @AWobABobBob on being determined.
I wish I had a grammar school in my area when growing up, I never knew what they were until I relocated.
Though I certainly could of motivated myself more, regardless of what school I went to, its just made me determined to make sure my children get a good education and take it seriously.

I am a quick learner but wish I had bigger aspirations in life at a younger age, something my school didn't push for. The careers advice was non existent until gcses where over. My parents were old school working class, so there advice was get any job and bring in a wage.
The good thing about grammar is you mix with lots of different backgrounds and they do careers advice from year 7.

You’ve just completely proved my point.

you were engaged enough to research it.
not all kids have that. Years ago that wouldn’t have mattered for the top 30%. If you were clever and performed on the day you were in.
that is not the case now.
now

you need an engaged parent to research, spend time and money on it - either buying papers, tutoring, printing worksheets off.

I went to a grammar school and came from a very working class background. Was a very studious child, didn't have any tuition and didn't have pushy parents, I just really wanted to go to a certain school (that was grammar). The comprehensive schools in my area were absolutely dire and I don't think I'd be where I am today if I had gone to them. I got into a grammar school on my own merit and don't think children who have the same desires should be held back.

Willingness to fork out for private tutors will guarantee good GCSE results Yes, I think that is key in many schools (state secondaries including the leafy comprehensives, and more so even in private schools). A lot of the young people in DC1's cohort were heavily tutored in their weaker subjects from Yr 7 (and this was a high league table position grammar) to ensure they got into medical school or similar. So the great academic outcomes aren't quite what they seem.

Did they? Can you tell us more please?

I’ve always thought the current situation suits the schools rather well; what better way of ensuring invested parents, whose proven determination for their children to succeed and means and willingness to fork out for private tutors will guarantee good GCSE results? GL are taking it in too selling practice papers, so I can’t imagine they’re too bothered about an “untutorable” test.

Not sure the medicine analogy works as they are so different but surely it would be more like
GP-cover teacher
specialist- subject teacher
Highly specialist- head of department
or
gp- subject teacher
specialist- head of department
highly specialist- HOD in a specialist school eg music conservatoire, dance school, SEN school

I think a teacher with QTS should have the skills to teach any students in mainstream education

*Any teacher worth their job is trained to teach all abilities. Yes, it's much easier to teach 'grammar' students^
Not easier from my perception just different as the work of GP versus consultant is different or how a university academic teaches is different to primary school level. If more maths and physics teachers are to be recruited then you can’t exclude those who prefer to divert their career to teaching bright sixth formers.
How long it takes for doctors to be able to select their pathway is irrelevant.

With regards disruption, I think from my DCs, bright pupils can be very disruptive especially if they can talk and work simultaneously.

Some people have v strange ideas as to what a comprehensive education is. The assumption that all students 'don't want to be there', are disruptive and it's a terrible environment to learn are, to me, odd. I've worked in 6 comps and never had that experience. Yes, I've had several classes like that, but there are always reasons and those students won't be mixing with the more academically minded. Who will be in lessons with others of the same mindset. However, those students will be aware, and potentially friends, with the less school loving kids, maybe through sport or a shared interest. This is a good thing as they understand that not everyone finds academic stuff easy and they may have talents elsewhere. My current school is in an area of massive poverty but we manage to get kids to Uni (included the beloved Oxbridge, to do medicine etc).
Any teacher worth their job is trained to teach all abilities. Yes, it's much easier to teach 'grammar' students and some people opt for that to reduce the stress. But they are not better, just chose to specialise. Doctors don't even start to do that until at least 7 years post training.
Comps work if properly funded.
We seem to only hear from grammar parents about expansion, not v often from secondary modern ones. Strange !

They tried and failed recently to create a tutor-proof test.

The above list is pie in the sky.
As I said in a PP
If any extra money I would use it to help disadvantaged pupils at primary school to ensure the academic gap is n’t entrenched before secondary school.
Then after that expand the sixth form capacity of grammar schools.
Also almost certainly pie in the sky but more realistic than the PP.

As I have said repeatedly, I have less issue with a ‘grammar’ school being nominated if:

• An equal or greater number of highly funded Special Schools is created at the same time.


• The ‘non grammar’ school has at least twice the funding per pupil, enabling them, amongst other things, to pay teachers at a higher rate than grammars as well as provide academic, pastoral and SEN support at a high level.


• Selection for the ‘grammar’ school is wholly reformed to become, as far as can possibly be devised, fair in terms of social background, accurate in its identification of academic potential and tutor-proof.

I am not convinced that all teachers in grammar schools are better than those in comprehensives / secondary moderns, although they potentially have an easier job.

The whole school systems needs an overhaul, so that it's not just the academically cleverest who get the most 'investment' from their schools. DC2's experience at a very mixed comprehensive has been equally eye-opening and not necessarily in a positive way. The top set pupils getting all the 'enrichment' opportunities and the others seemingly none. It sucks. It really sends out a very negative message to the others, including the more middling ones some of whom may have the potential but for various reasons are not as motivated or inspired.

This:

In reality I don't think it will happen and is just another thing Liz Truss will U turn on.

mumsneedwine^ and cantkeepawayforever* pragmatically I would rather see and retain an influx of teachers whose abilities best match teaching more demanding academic curriculums especially for example in physics or maths than restrict recruitment to teachers who have to teach all abilities or otherwise be perceived as not worthy or too lazy to be teachers.

Of course if supply outstripped the demand for teachers there might be enough mumsneedwines or even primary school teachers sufficiently academically qualified to also teach STEM subjects at the equivalent of STEP or olympiad level should that be needed. However that is not the case so IMO it would be wrong to further drain the recruitment pool by sticking to the dogma that one size has to fit all.

As another analogy nobody doubts that both GPs and specialists are required in the health sector and some consultants are even more specialised and will work at tertiary referring centres. The skills and qualities of each doctor may differ but laziness would n’t be an appropriate adjective to apply on the basis of what sector they choose to work in.

@Itiswasitis90 we have a similar experience, DS didn't have years of tutoring (we worked through past papers). He got in (I was surprised after hearing how much work some families did).

We live in an area where the 2 modern secondary schools are failing; the grammar schools are out of catchment. The next city has far better modern secondary schools, but of course it's impossible to get a place there. Would a grammar in our area make sense? Possibly, but it would make more sense to fund the already struggling schools.

Not necessarily @Damnautocorrect - I got a U grade in English and some terrible gcses.
I helped my son with his prep for the test, if I can do it- anyone can.
There's lots of books that explain the answers and reasoning.
All grammar schools are open about what test they use.

Parents that are serious about getting their child in, will do basic research on what they need to cover. I didn't know anyone who went to grammar or what it entailed, until I started researching it.

Most grammars, also puts Foster children or FSM children (ours does the former) on priority lists , they get extra marks to make it fairer. As well as area ranking to make sure local children get an advantage.

In reality I don't think it will happen and is just another thing Liz Truss will U turn on.

You are wrong with regards to there is no reason why bright kids can't be challenged at any school, there is a very good reason- most kids at grammar want to be there and learn.

Looking round schools at the time (3 comps and 1 grammar) there was a noticeable difference in behaviour.

I couldn't learn at school due to the amount of messing about and ended up going in with the attitude of if you can't beat them, join them.

It's not the teachers that are the problem but the students, they are more unruly and disinterested in learning. I was a pain in the arse and honestly can't imagine what it's like now with social media and phones everywhere.

Going in on open days and seeing the schools at work, opens your eyes to the difference in attitude.

(It seems to cone from the same root as teachers who teach Tear 6 in Primary being seen as ‘better’ than the Reception teacher, or secondary teachers as ‘better’ than primary because they ‘teach harder content’. Believe you me, when it cones to actual teaching skill, Reception teachers are right up there, along with SEN teachers. I have seen Reception teacher transfer very successfully to Year 6, but never the reverse!)

Because the 11+ is not particularly reliable at genuinely separating out high ability students, teachers in non-grammars will have to teach high ability students as well as those from across the rest of the ability spectrum - often in groups of very mixed ability due to there being small numbers of such students.

They will also have to manage a much wider variation in SEN needs, social needs and behavioural issues - so these teachers in non-grammars should surely be the most highly paid, most highly regarded, seen as being better teachers as they do a much harder job.

Is that really how society perceives - and remunerates - the teachers in each part of selective systems? Or are the teachers, as well as the pupils, in grammar schools somehow perceived as ‘superior’?