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/

@Sockwomble

The teachers should be taught and armed with the proper knowledge on this.

Having to be any time behind is simply not true or relevant to gaining an ehcp.

And no teacher should be commenting on this if they don't actually know law.
Again I don't blame them, maybe this is what admin or head says
Remember,some local authorities don't know the law around this either!

This is why I'm surprised that we don't hear urgent calls for training around this area from some poster's?

When my MIL was a child she was told by her family grammar school was not for the likes of them. It was Secondary Modern for her and leave school at 15 with no qualifications and get a job. No social mobility there.

Nowadays most children who go to grammar schools will be tutored to pass the 11+, so lower income families wouldn’t be able to access grammar schools as can’t afford tutors.

Surely, better to provide good education for all income levels and needs of children

My daughters went to local comprehensive. Majority of their primary school tried and spent a fortune tutoring for grammars. My daughters achieved just as well in A Levels as their counterparts that went to grammars. The comp they went to was not pressurised and only streamed for maths and had lots of extra curricular and enrichment activities. We do not need any more grammar schools we need all comprehensives to be good and got each child to have parental or cared interest in helping them do well. I’m in doubt that grammars create more inequality and I don’t care what anyone says you have to have money & invested parental interest to get into grammars

I went to a girls grammer school in the 50s. Then, it was a way for poor girls to get out of poverty. Most of the girls in my class were poor.

This is a ridiculous, backwards move that will do even further damage to social mobility.

Why oh why can the government not just invest properly in comprehensive schools that will benefit all children and in sorting out the many issues that are causing talented teachers to leave the profession in their droves.

We don't need more grammar schools. We do need better funding for state education. We need better working conditions for teachers. We need better provision for children with SEN. And we need a more enlightened government that genuinely listens to experts in the field and bases their policies on real evidence about what actually works.

We're not in the 50s, and grammar schools nowadays have much lower proportions of disadvantaged pupils than they should.

On the other hand you never hear of anyone campaigning for more Secondary Moderns which was the alternative.

I know they are not all the same. And SEN can be very poor. Although schools not engaging shouldn't be an option. A good shake up of those schools and better incentives to get decent teaching staff, better support for teachers, so they can do their jobs properly would help.

As a working class woman, I'm really glad I had the opportunity to go to a Grammar School. It was a fantastic education and enabled my sister and myself to achieve more than anybody in our family ever had done before. Fighting Grammars is a race to the bottom. Kids are split by ability in most schools in order to better tailor their education, a Grammar is a continuation of this.

Also, of course they attract mostly "advantaged" (read: middle class kids). Does anybody really expect the kids of lawyers, doctors, teachers etc to be anything but academically bright? They still give a good opportunity to poor kids who are academically gifted - there were plenty of us at my school.

@UniversalTruth

No we didn't but I'm being bled dry with tutors for younger so she can just keep up in primary.
Outstanding primary just left her in her early year's..we were told waiting to click!! .we would still be waiting now!
I addressed your points as to why it's not fair now but how it used to be .

Fantastic news and a vote winner among "normal" people

They still give a good opportunity to poor kids who are academically gifted

No they don't. Research shows that kids with the same attainment at primary school are far less likely to get into a grammar if they are disadvantaged than their more affluent, yet similarly high achieving peer.

The irony. Your situation is exactly what happens in a grammar system. Grammars are prized and the options for “different” children are crap. The original grammar ideal was for a variety of options for less academically able kids. It didn’t work. Every parent believes their child will benefit from grammars but the who point is for 75% of kids to be left out.

Truss allowing grammars to open isn’t going to magic up the funding and will for high quality non-academic performing arts schools.

Actually it's not. Particularly when parents realise the impact that grammars would have on the other schools in their area.

@SlagathaChristie

It is especially when many DC "at the bottom* simply have unsupported and recognised Sen.

My own experience has been shocking. One DC moved from a so called outstanding comp to grammar and the other DC being left behind Iin Primary with absolutely no support at all!.

I was told lies, fobbed off...kept waiting!

As years ticked by and she wasn't progressing in anyway at all.

And the most frightening thing of all for her and DC like her was /is that when I saught outside help, actually...what it took to get her going was very little.

Just small tips really...no great need for funding etc. rhats the shocker for me.

That’s your opinion.
But what it does do is give people more choice, and that’s good.
Only those with money to afford school fees get the option of private education, this gives those without that much money another option.

My mum passed the 11+ ( in 50s) didn't go to grammar school because her parents couldn't afford it.

The Sutton trust issued a paper on this year's ago

Basically said of course Tom whose parents aren't engaged with 11+ will help him , teachers don't any more so how would he get into grammar?

It's bleeding obvious!!

That's why Sutton trust said Grammar must do more outreach and teachers /school need's to get involved , again to level the playing field.

Great news IF they place a limit on household income, perhaps only households with an income under £60,000 can apply for grammar schools.
I think they really ought to put some sort of household income limit on being able to sit the 11+ anyway.

But what it does do is give people more choice, and that’s good

The mistake here is thinking that it’s parents who have the choice to send their kid to a grammar. It is not the choice of the parents, it is the choice of the school whether to accept their child, and most children will not get into grammars.

So more grammar schools mean more secondary modern schools with children’s fate decided on one day when majority of the students are 10. It is way too early to decide at 10 whether a child is academic or not.

I live in an area with no grammar schools and to be quite frank they wouldn’t be welcome. The comprehensives round here cater for all and you genuinely have choice as to which suits your child best. My daughter (who I’m fairly sure would be grammar material) is thriving in her comprehensive.

The real scandal is lack of support for SEND, we need more specialist SEND units attached to schools and more SEND school places. Parents should not be fighting for appropriate provision for their children who struggle to access mainstream. That would also benefit comprehensives as they wouldn’t be struggling to include them and manage conflicting needs.

Fund comprehensives properly, bring back proper vocational options at 14 and we wouldn’t have this issue. The London Challenge was a perfect example of what can be achieved with proper funding. More Grammar schools are just a sticking plaster for fundamental issues with our school system. (And to try and appease some Tory voters.)

Yes, they do. I, and plenty of my peers are proof of that. It might not be perfect, but it's better than no Grammars.

My family was working class but I passed my 11+ and went to Grammar School in 1966 There was no coaching involved everyone went into the Hall to do some 'tests' and that was it until the envelopes with the results came. My younger sister, on the other hand, failed and went to Secondary Modern which she hated and left at 15. She subsequently did O and A levels and a degree. If she had been at a Comprehensive she could have transferred into a different stream and dine those exams at school without the mental scars of having been judged inferior at the age of 10 (August birthday).

There are no Grammars in the area where I live now. My daughter did perfectly well at a Comprehensive and my grandchildren are flourishing at the same school.

I, and plenty of my peers are proof of that.

Anecdote (particularly outdated anecdote) doesn’t beat data.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed as children are split into "sets" based on ability in all schools, grammar or not. Removing grammar schools wont create mixed ability schools. The only way to tailor the teaching to match the needs of the children is to split them up within the school anyway, so forcing the closure of all grammars will simply push the "non grammar" ability children to the bottom of the pile and automatically into the lower sets.

Grammar schools are a way for bright working class children who can't afford independent prep schools receive the education they deserve. Mixing them with all children, including those who have no interest in learning or being in school at all serves no purpose other than to distract those who DO want to learn.