New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

(What I have found I interesting to observe as my own DC have become older is the ebb and flow between the schools as well. The grammars actively select out students at 16 who haven't met their 11+ promise. They take in large waves of replacements from other schools to boost their A-level and Oxbridge results, and claim these results as 'their own')

I would lift the ban on opening new grammars, but not have an active policy of trying to create them either. So basically new grammars would only be created where there is overwhelming local demand.

In some areas of Kent children have been doing 2hr+ return commutes for decades, travelling in the dark and on highly unreliable (and expensive) transport because the local academic school in Sevenoaks had become a private school and it was illegal to open a new grammar to replace it 🤬 but there was no full service comprehensive either because its a ‘grammar area’. Long story but for decades many children in Kent had an awful time and lost hundreds of hours to long distance commuting because of this stupid ban which was created for political reasons.

Finally, after decades of arguing with central government, the council managed to create in Sevenoaks two local ‘annexes’ of some Tunbridge Wells grammar schools but apparently it was illegal for this to be mixed sex because that would make it new 🙄 So now Sevenoaks has two small grammar annexes sharing the same site instead of the single coed grammar it needs. The children think the adults are insane when the issues are explained to them.

I don’t agree with irreversibly streaming children at 11 either. I agree its unfair and divisive. But if you have grammar schools around you have to allow new ones to be occasionally created as local situations change ans populations shift. Either scrap them all, or lift this stupid ban.

(Dunno what Rishi is mumbling on about, grammar schools are already allowed to expand.)

Locally, the 'arms race' has gone beyond that. When my own DC started secondary a decade ago, successful grammar entrants in my partially-selective area were

• From private primaries OR


• Coached OR


• Naturally very academic


• From private primaries AND coached


• Naturally very academic AND coached


• 'Normally' high ability and coached for a very long time, often from specific types of family who make hours of extra academic work per day the norm for their children almost from the start of school

If middle class parents are getting their dc tutoring, as in their regular academic dc (so not greater depth) to get into grammer, all they are doing is paying for their dc to try and be as academic as your (naturally) greater depth dc. In other words, trying to match a naturally very academic child buy paying for extra tuition.

[You may ask why the non-grammar needs so much more money in order to provide an equivalent quality of education [note i say l quality, not 'level']. It's obvious - it will contain almost all the children from genuinely deprived backgrounds, and almost all those known to social services. It will have almost all the SEN, and almost all the children with behavioural difficulties. It will contain almost all the refugees, and almost all those who are at the early stages of learning English. It will have to offer a much wider range of courses and qualifications than the narrow range of academic subjects at the grammar, and the staff will have to be much more skilled, as they will teach a much wider range of ability. More support staff will be needed to manage SEN, pastoral and behavioural issues. Extra-curricular clubs will be much more necessary, as they will provide much more of a child's cultural capital and much more of their opportunities, since the average income of the families who attend it will, in any given area, be lower than the equivalent grammar.]

I think that they need more Special Schools and PRUs because in my experience as a parent, there are too many kids stuck in mainstream who'd benefit from that kind of schooling.

I live in an area with some grammars. As a teacher, I have known no un-tutored child get a grammar place for many years, and the vast majority of tutored children don't get in either. 8 years ago, a year of tutoring was normal. It's 2 now - or (most commonly) private primary plus tutoring

What were the average pass rates for that year? Were they well above the minimum pass?

How about you can have grammars IF the per head funding for every child attending the non-grammar is at least 2x that for every child at the grammar (plus PP and SEN funding on top) AND a new Special School is created, fully funded and staffed, for every grammar created or named?

That might almost be worth it.

In your experience
in your area

its not the same in mine, in my daughters year.
the greater depth kids from poorer backgrounds didn’t get it. The year before they might have got it, certainly 5 -10 years ago they would have 100% done it. Tutoring wasn’t a thing. Now it’s summer camps and big business

For context, the pass rate was 308 points and my son got 374. So we'll beyond the "just scrapping past" point.

One point about SEN that regularly gets missed is the pool of children who are "twice exceptional" -- academically gifted but with some type of SEN. The current system does a terrible job of catering to those children, and it's even worse when schools are selective. There are parents of children with SEN who have to choose between their child getting academic qualifications or getting proper support. In practice, they are usually only getting the second.

Grammars cater for children who are bright all rounders and can meet high expectations of work and behaviour. One of my nephews is autistic and absolutely brilliant at maths, working years ahead of his expected level, but is only average at English. A grammar wouldn't suit him at all.

Not all Grammar school children are tutored, and let's face it, if a child is tutored just to pass the test, they will struggle there anyway if they aren't academically clever enough in the first place.

My ds is at Grammar, he went to a very ordinary Infants/junior School/s and we are a very normal working class family. He never had tutoring, just did some papers prior with us to get him used to the stuff his primary didn't do.

He was always a "Greater Depth" child consistently from year R, had that something extra in his brain. He's a natural Grammar school child who sits at 8/9 grades and is the kind of kid that the schools were aimed for. The notion that Grammar school is only for the middle class, well its nonsense.

This is what’s happening in my area. Where tutoring has been ramped up it’s now “not for people like me”. The exact opposite of what it was intended for

I’m in a grammar area.
Its terrible, kids are tutored from year 4, once a week, with an hour every day homework, this then ramps up as they get closer. Which pushes the pass rate up of the entire year.
i tutored my daughter for a few months before, not growing up in a grammar system i didn’t know I left it too late. She was top set for everything should have walked the exam and had passed all mocks.Unfortunately I don’t know what happened on the day. It didn’t come off for her. She was devastated, I mean devastated.
she cried for weeks and I had to ask the school for support building her self esteem up.

if I had known how she would take it I would never have put her in for it I could have appealed with the schools support but I realised she needed for it to be dropped, move on and have certainty over her future.

she’s at secondary now and is top set for everything, I’m about to get her a tutor for maths as the provision is fucking terrible and she should be pushed more.

in my area it takes away any choice. So you pass you get one grammar and one comp to chose from. You fail you go to the comp. That’s it.
you need a choice for your child, a best fit. Grammar removes that for most.

Hi @noblegiraffe - yes, it's ridiculous isn't it?

Honestly, I think the pros and cons of the issue have been argued to death now - I'm just going to bang on about the insane impracticalities of it all. And hope they continue to defeat this nonsense just as they always have.

I think Teresa May did actually have a strong personal conviction on this whereas the two candidates just seem to be trying to drum up a few votes. I'm not sure how much time either of them would devote to this once they've won.

Hope all's well with you.

Hey @HPFA it’s been a while since we’ve had to argue this nonsense, nice to see you again

Yawn. How many times are we going to have go through this to please some Tory pensioners?

Let's go through all the practical issues:

A. Where is the money coming from for new grammars? Schools are already struggling with energy bills rising and staff pay rise having to be funded from existing budgets. Do govt ministers really want to be justifying this when kids start getting cold? The Labour attack lines write themselves really.

B. You want to convert existing schools? Fine. Except: How are you going to choose which schools become grammars and which the secondary moderns? What about that nice leafy comp? Good luck with explaining that to all the parents who assumed their kids would go there and now find 80% will be excluded. Or that school that's struggling? Again, try and justify that to all the surrounding "better" comps who are now rewarded by becoming secondary moderns. What happens if schools decide to blow up the system and all apply to become grammars simultaneously?

C. How are you going to justify the removal of choice from all those who don't want more secondary moderns? Everywhere you put a grammar it affects the intake of surrounding schools. You think this isn't a recipe for poisonous local disputes? Which side are Tory MPs going to be on when parents protest the undermining of local schools without them having any say? It's not even universally popular among them now. Here's one who, coincidentally, has a constituency full of nice, high achieving comprehensive schools.

twitter.com/david4wantage/status/1553671055256031233

E. Why would this be assumed to be a popular policy among parents?

twitter.com/Samfr/status/1554056156779352065

F. Existing grammars would likely be quite wary of this as well. An incoming Labour govt would presumably seek to reverse the legislation - and would be under considerable pressure to just abolish selection altogether. There is already a pot of money for existing grammars to expand.... and it's never been fully spent!

There are reasons why all previous attempts to "bring back grammars" have failed. Maybe it will be different this time......

No one 'chooses' secondary modern. They might not take the 11+ because they don't think it's for them but that's not choosing. A true comprehensive can support all students, regardless of ability or aptitude. And allow for bright students who want to take more vocational subjects and those late developers who might want to try for harder A levels. Also helps students realise that people come in all shapes, sizes, interests and abilities. Seen far too many ex grammar kids at A level who believe they aren't v clever with their handful of 8s and 9s.
Grammar schools might give a few places now for PP students and provide uniform but the majority will be from middle class homes who have been tutored. When I taught at one the presents at end of the year were v v nice 😂.
I hate selection at such a young age. By 16 we have a much better idea of who they want to be and where they want to go.

The problem with sport and music aptitude is that just like direct exams it favours children in families that can support these things. That takes parents with time and sometimes resources so favours MC. Some primary schools may have good music or sport however practice needs time and space. Some children from poorer backgrounds will see that music or kit is expensive and not try to excel because they know their parents can’t afford stuff (maybe not realising that school can help, or not wanting to have to ask.)

Bucks has had a number of problems with inadequate upper schools in recent times - note they are not called secondary modern schools anymore and I think it’s not right to refer to them as this - also technically Bucks classified them as all ability schools. I’m not going to list the schools by name as that feels wrong but with the exception of a handful the majority have been in special measures. One was closed and another (mentioned as a good school up thread) has effectively been closed this year as the government stopped funding due to severe concerns over many things including safeguarding (it has transferred to another trust). That said ther are some Previously inadequate schools are now great. But there is nothing t equality in provision. House prices in catchment for GMS are huge for instance which in itself is its own form of selection.

the 11+ has a massively negative effect on primary education with it being the main focus for a number of parents. I do disagree with the oft cited mass tutoring for the 11+ in Bucks - it’s not really the case and sadly those who are heavily tutored often struggle and have a miserable time and then don’t meet the grades for A level so have to go elsewhere.

some of the uppers have a “grammar” stream but it n reality there is very little opportunity for movement between streams and children often end up (and stay) in the one their ks2 data suggests which then potentially limits their access to things like triple science.

as I said earlier my children have benefited from grammar schools but they are not a fair system and having had children in the Bucks state system for 15 years I think they negatively impact all schools - people make choices for places in reception based on the perceived likelihood that that school will deliver a grammar place. Having been educated myself in the comprehensive system I would never have expected it to have such an impact.

as I said before my children have had an education which was outstanding and provided truly outstanding opportunities for them but all children deserve an outstanding education.

I think Queens School in Hertfordshire selects some pupils on sporting ability.

I think noble is probably right about over 60s being keener on grammar schools. My mother (who's 80, so 60 might be too young) is very keen on them, seeing that they were her way to a university degree from a strongly working class family where no one had been to university before. Sadly, I'm fairly sure that students with her family background are not getting into grammar schools today.