Liz Truss to lift ban on new grammar schools

[noblegiraffe]

I cannot believe that we are here AGAIN after it went so poorly for Theresa May when she wanting to do this.

Liz Truss said in her leadership campaign that she wanted to lift the ban on new grammar schools. Since becoming PM, she has stuffed DfE positions with ardent supporters of new grammar schools (including the odious Jonathan Gullis as new schools minister).

The Telegraph is now reporting a planned amendment to the Schools Bill which would allow the creation of new grammar schools. Leading this is Sir Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 committee, who has been trying to bring back grammar schools for years.

Some notes on grammars: They are bad for social mobility. Despite many efforts to create a selection test that doesn't select against disadvantaged kids, this remains the case, and grammar school intakes are heavily skewed in favour of the better-off (obviously this is why some people like them).

The Tories closed more grammar schools than Labour, (Thatcher closed more than anyone else). They were not popular with parents who eventually realised that the vast majority of children don't get into them. Parents who might be in favour of grammars are not actually in favour of sending their child to secondary moderns, yet this is where most of them will go.

The German system (which is always referenced when it comes to grammar schools) was condemned by the UN for perpetuating social inequity.

Vocational education is a real issue in England and that's where any energy on schooling should be focused.

And obviously school funding and teacher recruitment and retention should be the main priorities in education for the new government.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/17/liz-truss-could-lift-ban-new-grammar-schools-months/

Another poster on the thread wrote that their non-blind child attended a secondary school in their borough with a dedicated specialist unit for visually impaired children. There is NO such provision for sight impaired children and young people in my borough, let alone my whole region.

This is a real problem. The government with its academies obsession has also removed the power to create schools from local authorities so it is more difficult to respond to local need. Academies are encouraged to join multi-academy trusts which again can be national rather than local.

With this grammar school thing, schools (and parents) should be very wary of how the plonking of a grammar in the middle of the current school system (e.g. by a private school converting) could upset the status quo. If a grammar school suddenly started hoovering up the top set kids from your local comp, would the teachers stay? Badbunny would want the kids in the comp to lose access to the single sciences/languages that it might currently offer, in favour of vocational qualifications. If your kid is in Y7, what would you do?

BadBadBunny

Children do not choose their GCSEs on the basis of half a day of testing at 10 - they choose them after 2-3 years of exposure to a full curriculum within a secondary school setting.

It is not reasonable to argue that a child who is potentially gifted at languages (but perhaps less good at NVR, so didn't pass the 11+) should never have 2 languages offered within their secondary modern school building, just because had they gone to a comprehensive school they would have been able to do 2 languages in years 8 and 9 but would have had to trade these off against 2 humanities / double Science / drama and art when it came to choosing GCSEs for Years 10 and 11.

Nobody is saying that children should never have to make subject choices according to their interests and aptitudes, after reasonable exposure to a full curriculum in their first years at a secondary school. Comprehensive advocates argue that it is wrong to significantly limit a child's entire quality and breadth of secondary education on the basis of a short, flawed test taken at the age of 10.

On one hand, we hear that grammar school pupils are not more able, they are just posh kids tutored to pass the 11+. On the other, you are saying they'd be the top set in a comprehensive.

On one hand, we hear that grammar school pupils are not more able, they are just posh kids tutored to pass the 11+. On the other, you are saying they'd be the top set in a comprehensive.

I think both things can be true.

In a superselective area, the grammar school may take e.g. 5% of the pupils. The 11+ DEFINITELY doesn't identify the true top 5% accurately, for all the reasons discussed, but it does take most of that 5% from the top quarter to a third of the ability range, and most importantly for the grammar school and its parent body, it tends to 'select out' children who for reasons of ability or behaviour or deprivation or lack of family support will be more difficult to teach.

In a comprehensive school with e.g. 4 different ability sets (ime this is common because even if the year group is in fact 8 forms, setting may take place within each half of the year due to timetabling constraints), then yes, the 'grammar school children' will predominantly be within that top quartile.

So that 5% is for a super-selective school. What about the ordinary state grammars? Back to Trafford for a real-life case study. All grammars/secondary moderns. Last stats I can see show 2454 children taking the 11+ and 954 passing. That's roughly 39%.

I think there are a couple of questions about that data:

• Does every child in the Trafford area take the 11+?
• Does every child who takes the 11+ come from the Trafford area?

The fact that 39% who take the 11+ for Trafford Grammars pass is no indication of the proportion of the entire cohort of children who live in the geographical area covered by the Trafford Grammars who pass.

@cantkeepawayforever It's only open to pupils living within Trafford. Parents can choose for their children not to take the 11+ but the vast majority sit the exam. When I took it, about a third of my ordinary state primary class went to the grammar school, and I think it's stayed about the same.

I'm not saying there aren't issues - house prices here are far too high, and many put that down to the schools (the state grammars and secondary moderns are all seen as being good). But if other areas also had the same system, there wouldn't be the same premium for people to buy or rent here.

Looking at the entrance policies for the Trafford grammars, I'm not quite sure, because I would have to know the geography very well?

Most phrase their oversubscription criteria as 'by distance', and give priority admissions areas e.g. 8 miles in radius, sometimes with some priority for certain postcodes, rather than preventing some children from taking the exam? I would imagine that in some cases, that circular area would take in some non-Trafford addresses, whereas for others it wouldn't?

Also, is a pass a pass - ie giving access to the school - or simply 'obtaining a pass level mark', which appears to be a bit different?

Whatever the precise % of children 'getting into' a grammar school, I think there is no doubt about my general point - that there would be an overlap between 'children who would be in the top set of a true comprehensive' and 'children who would pass the 11+', but that the chances of being in the latter group are significantly boosted by private primary schooling with specific focus on the 11+, and also home or professional tutoring. Those who are NOT in that overlap - ie children who would be in the top set of a comprehensive but would NOT pass the 11+ because of the lack of these things, are amongst the groups significantly disadvantaged in a selective system.

If you don't think the kids from a comprehensive that would get into a grammar are skewed towards the upper end in ability, in that bottom set kids have an equal shot at getting in as a top set kid, then how bad do you think the entrance exam is?

My school is boy-heavy. Noticeably. It is boy-heavy due to the presence of a girls school in a different LA more than 10 minutes drive away.

The presence of a school selecting on any criteria affects the intakes of the schools around them.

The idea that those inadequate schools 10 mins away from the cluster of grammars that have well over 50% FSM kids compared to the low single figures of the grammar are nothing to do with the grammar is bizarre.

I absolutely think that lots of bright but not wealthy children pass the 11+, but the opinions on this thread are that grammar schools are full of not particularly bright tutored kids. That wasn't my experience. It was honestly the thing that turned my life around. I was living on a council estate and had free school meals, my uniform was all second-hand. I was picked on for being a 'try hard' at primary school. But as soon as I got to secondary there were other children the same and trying hard wasn't seen as a bad thing.

We know that FSM kids statistically don’t get into grammars even when they achieve the same scores in their SATs as a more advantaged kid who does get in.

I absolutely think that lots of bright but not wealthy children pass the 11+

Comparison of the %PP / FSM for grammars and the geographically closer ‘other’ schools shows that thus is not the case - or rather, that while a small number of children from deprived backgrounds do pass the 11+, there are ALWAYS fewer than there statistically ‘should’ be, given the percentage they make up of the whole cohort of that age.

Sometimes 10x fewer than you might expect, sometimes shockingly 20x fewer (in the examples I gave earlier in the thread, the grammar with 1.5% PP children is close neighbours with the ‘other’ school with 30%).

The argument should never be ‘oh, I was one of the 1.5% so the system is great’. It should be ‘What happened to the other 13.5% who should gave been there too?’

‘The argument should never be ‘oh, I was one of the 1.5% so the system is great’. It should be ‘What happened to the other 13.5% who should gave been there too?’

Yes, I agree with this. My child is an outlier as she is disadvantaged in multiple ways but she still managed to get into a super selective grammar school (without any paid for or external tutoring). Didn’t the Birmingham grammars change their entry requirements to favour PP and PP+ students? It’s not my part of the world but I remember the furore in the national press and the terrifyingly bonkers read that is the Elevenplusexams forum.

But, as much as I was helped by grammar schools, every other Liz Truss policy is bonkers and there's no way I'd vote for her.

I am not sure whether this has been said - it's not the more academic ones which need a boost, it's the long tail of underachievement which needs to be tackled. Good comprehensives, well resourced can do this. I admit that some comps are not good, and are effectively Sec Mods.

Given the problems the Truss government has run into not sure if this survives.

They're already under huge pressure on tax cuts for the wealthy - spending more money to benefit the kids of the well-off while cutting budgets of other schools? Not going to help the narrative.

If there is a big rebellion against the Budget it means those MPs are more likely to rebel on other measures.

May well struggle to get through the Lords as it isn't a manifesto commitment.

If polls continue to suggest a large Labour lead why would anyone put money and effort into setting up a new school which would likely never see the light of day?

Existing grammar schools should be very wary of this - if Labour commit to reversing legislating on new schools they would come under huge pressure to just ban selection altogether - especially if they have a decent majority.

People constantly talk of "return of grammars" as if there was a blank slate but there's nowhere to put them which doesn't affect existing schools - it's a recipe for poisonous local disputes. It's probably no coincidence that David Johnston, one Tory MP who has already come out in opposition to this, has a constituency full of nice popular comprehensive schools! Many MPs will be in the same position.

Maybe I've got too complacent about all the previous failed attempts to bring back grammars - but I tend to think there's a reason for that.

Maybe I've got too complacent about all the previous failed attempts to bring back grammars - but I tend to think there's a reason for that.

No one who talks about bringing back Grammars talks about how they will bring back Secondary Moderns.Those of us who are old enough i.e. born in the 1950s remember how deeply unpopular Secondary Moderns were. Even though there were some good ones. There were also some not especially sparkling Grammar Schools, of which mine was one.

Although I have realised reading MN that Kent and Bucks parents tend to call their Sec Mods are Comprehensive, just not knowing what a good comprehensive can look like when not competing with Grammars or Independent Schools.

Not all the kids who go to the Trafford Grammars live in Trafford.

So I'm curious as to whether those 39% are purely kids from the area or does it also include those who bus in (or are driven in)

I actually think we might see more hybrid schools if the ban goes.

Local high school is not an academy but also not control by the local authority. They are allowed to have their own admission policy.

They have aligned with several primaries to make an agreement to guarantee entry from them into the high school.

But this isn't all the local primaries and this leaves an interesting point. Priority is now given to kids who go to primaries further from the high school. Living locally is no longer a guarantee to entry.

The school does have space for more kids than their designated feeder primaries.

So if the other primaries have been demoted it begs the question of whether there is a desire to be selective over which other children get a place at the school.

I can see it being turned into a half and half situation.

There are already kids starting to get caught out by the change in the current policy.

Looks like Michael Gove could be leading a rebellion against lifting the ban.

So not certain to even get through the Commons let alone the Lords.

twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1576547668846747648

twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1576550450949660674

Well well well......

twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/1577766376357433351