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/

Actual policy: back to secondary moderns and stopping most children from going to university.
Horrendous policy and plenty of evidence to show how it dies not have social benefit. EG: working paper out today with @Em_Gorman & Franz Buscha, "Selective Schooling Has Not Promoted
Social Mobility in England"
ftp.iza.org/dp14640.pdf

How is this political ? They don't work for social mobility, just look at FSM figures. They work to keep parents who can afford tutoring happy.

I suspect that their political prejudices are driven largely by their experiences and observations of what's happening in schools.

There is a reason why you rarely meet teachers who vote Tory.

I have 2 bright sons, one very much so. The local comp is not great, behaviour is poor. At the time they were applying for secondary, the choice was really only that as the feeder school. Apart from behaviour, I didn't agree with some things like entering every child in for PE GCSE as it was easy to pass, and also keeping every child at the same level in maths until the least able had caught up - my kids excel at maths and I didn't see how this was fair on them. It's as bad as expecting a less able child to keep up with the more able ones. There was a fee paying school (we were definitely not in that income bracket at all), some good faith-based schools (we don't have a faith), and an excellent grammar. So my first choice as the best school for them was the grammar.

We couldn't afford a tutor so I just searched online for what to do to help them prepare and ordered some practice paper books (some second hand). They both got in, are doing great, are very self-motivated, the youngest just achieved high grades in his GCSEs and is very happy. Eldest is off to Cambridge in a couple of weeks doing a very difficult subject. DH didn't go to university and barely passed his A-levels. I went to an ex poly doing a shitty course and don't have any career to speak of. Without the push from the ethos of that school, its very high standards of both behavioural and acadmic expectations, I have doubt he would have stayed motivated enough to consider applying.

There are many kids from ordinary income brackets in that school who are pushed to excel, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The difference is the amoutn of supportive parents i suppose. In a comp you have very many supportive parents, but you also have those that absolutely couldn't care less about their kids and what they get up to, and take no interest in their education other than to run up to the school complaining every time their kid gets a detention or is spoken to sharply by a teacher. There will ALWAYS be those parents who are piss poor at parenting. Always. And those kids will suffer in many ways. You can't stop such people having children. What needs to happen is for more money to be put into both social services and comprehensive schools to ensure that those kids have their talents nurtured in the appropriate way. And schools need to stop pussyfooting about on poor behaviour for fear of parents' negative feedback to Ofsted - heads should have the power to tell parents to remove their children and send them to a different school if they do not want to support the school in enforcing good behaviour systems.

As for SEN provision, it's a bloody disgrace. It needs a SHIT load of extra resourcing, and dedicated units and experienced staff within schools to support them.

The point is EVERY child deserves the right school environment for THEM as individuals, not lumping all together with the aim of getting them all to the same academic level in the same things. We are doing a disservice in thinking that high academic achievement is the pinnacle of education, and sending more and more to university, but it just isn't right for every child. This country is short of talented tradespeople. Kids who are naturally good at practical stuff are no less talented than someone who is very academic, and they should have their needs provided for too, with high quality further education in those areas. There should just not be a one-size fits all when it comes to education, we need to cater for EVERY child's needs and talents. But that does include those with raw academic talent who need those talents nurtured at a very acadmemic school, where all the other kids are like-minded and highly motivated to learn. For that reason I support grammar schools and don't disagree with expanding them. The other side of that, though, is that the other types of provision need greatly improving, which means increasing funding. I don't think funding should be funnelled towards grammar schools only if you are going to leave other types of provision behind and this is wrong if that's what the government's intention is.

Grammar schools are a way for bright working class children who can't afford independent prep schools receive the education they deserve.

Round here it seems mainly middle-class children, parents pay a fortune on tutors. There are sometimes threads on here with posters paying over £40 an hour, talking about their tutor having ‘a great track record of getting kids through the 11 plus with a pass’

The ‘bright working-class’ are left behind.

Those schools would, in essence, become secondary moderns because many academic children who pass the grammar selection process would no longer attend them, so we will have more secondary modern schools in areas where they decide they want to bring back the grammar system.

I am in favour of grammar schools.
At my dc primary, every single spare penny and resource, was spent helping the disruptive/struggling kids. Every single penny or second of a TAs time. The brighter quiet kids are left day in and day out to their own resources.
Dd2 loved lockdown because in her words 'I get my work done in a tenth of the time it takes at school because Oscar and Jack are on mute.'
They are now both thriving at grammar, we need kids who are able, to be able to actually learn, because we need them to be the doctors etc

I'm sorry but the comp system doesn't work either. Any system is open to being played by educated and middle class parents. All the comp system does is push those who parents don't care into failing schools that effects their life style going forward. Sure I don't think the 11+ should exist rather SATs should be sat in year 6 and the results used to determine who goes to grammar, all parents can help teach kids for a exam it's the fact the 11+ is an aptitude test that is the issue. Take our mining town;

• local comp - requires improvement, results are average at best, attitudes aren't great, many disadvantage kids from the local social housing estates. Known to have a bullying problem.

*Next nearest school - rated good however not walking distance from all but smallest estates, chosen by parents who can pay for the bus (not funded as not nearest school), better results and kids have better attitudes.

*Faith schools - rated outstanding, great attitude, above average results, destination of leavers is largely Russel group or vocational degrees. Not known to have a bullying problem.

*Nearest comp to the faith school - rated outstaying, great attitude, selects by house price (catchment is tiny), above average results (has been named a top school for achievement many times), destination of leavers is amazing. Not known for a bullying problem.

We then have two excellent private schools who do many scholarships and discounts for local kids.

So even without a grammar the local comp gets what's left! Grammar system might allow some of those stuck in the local comp a chance at going to a better school.

Plenty share it.

I know there seems to be a larger selection on MN who are for grammars but I live in a non grammar area and people are very against them here in general.

They existed decades ago in this area but since they went there's been a much better change in mixed comps and social mobility has improved massively.

Once is a while if you went to X schools you went expected to do anything beyond leave school for a manual Labour job or to have babies!

Now all schools have a huge number going on to further education and many of those schools now have pupils go to the only 6th form we have, and many into RG or oxbridge unis.

People believe they can be what they want without their parents being able to afford 11+ tutors.

There are also many, many excellent comps which are really only available to those who can afford to live in a particular catchment area.

I think it's slowly becoming apparent that Labour's 90s policy of wanting to send many children to university has only resulted in lots of people of that generation onwards coming out with a useless degree as well as piles of student loan debt and competing for fewer graduate jobs than are available, then finding themselves in entry level jobs with school leavers at the grade above them. It was a nice idea and I am a Labour vote, but it was very badly thought-out and the long term impact wasn't even considered.

I work in one of the most deprived areas of the country. Our students regularly go to Oxbridge, Russell Group Unis, as well as do apprenticeships or trades. Comps work. So much so we now have parents from the posh houses up the road trying to get into our school. But no, you can't buy your way in, you have to live on one of the estates or in the tower blocks that make up our catchment.
There are many, many comps like ours.

I live in Kent. Children around here are tutored from about year 4. This obviously puts children whose families can’t afford tutoring at a disadvantage. It’s a totally unfair system and I say that as a parent whose daughters passed the test and went to grammars. Much fairer to have a truly comprehensive education system with a grammar stream.

Good. Over the years, so many children from far from wealthy backgrounds have flourished because of their grammar school education. They were abolished in my area the year before I would have gone, and I do rather regret that I didn't have that opportunity. We need to provide a challenging educational environment for the brightest children, as well as supporting those with educational needs - the former have perhaps been forgotten in recent years.

Are you a fan of the Michaela school?

Their head is hailed by the current government and she's very driven by her political prejudices and is very vocal about it.

Or does that only matter if it's a swing one side of the centre?

I wish a grammar would open near me. The only state secondaries our son is likely to get a place at look a bit shit based on where the leavers are going next. We have no choice, private or move into the catchment area for one of the decent schools on the other side of town. It's all very well being anti grammar but what if you have academic children and rubbish school options?

So what should parents of bright DCs do if they can't afford private?

competing for fewer graduate jobs than are available That makes no sense but you know what I mean (I'm rushing this cos I should be hoovering [grin)

Not having grammar schools just make things worse!!
only depend on catchment?

then the house price around good school will even more expensive.
only rich people can go to good school.

now, even poor kids can have a chance to get into a good grammar school.

Exactly. I grew up in a grammar area and it was almost exclusively the heavily tutored kids who got in. Not the brightest ones by a country mile.

We have been lucky enough to bring dd up in a totally comprehensive area without any of that nonsense. Her comp set students by ability for all students from Year 7 onwards. DD wasn't held back in the slightest, got straight 9s at GCSE etc. But she also learned that many of her less academic peers had other talents and strengths that she was able to admire.

There are differences, but it is possible for children to go to the same school and yet go to vastly different ones, according to the set they end up in.

I also agree with @RedToothBrush

Send their kids to comprehensive schools.

Plenty of bright children excel in the comprehensive system, you know.

If schools were funded properly then I can guarantee they would be ‘less shit’….. There would be support for those that don’t want to learn and more opportunities for those that do. They’d also be more money to train and develop teachers so that all children have a better experience. If your son failed the test because of an off day which does happen then the schools are likely to struggle even more and you wouldn’t have any choice. We really need to be campaigning for better funded schools and all the services that go with it.

The average household income is £31,400 the £60,000 limit I suggested is nearly double that. Meaning they have, compared to the average household an extra £30k a year they could spend on school fees.
What limit do you suggest? There certainly should be one so more working class children get the opportunity of a better school.

I have read lots about the amazing work that you do @mumsneedwine on other threads. Those kids are lucky to have you. If only we could invest so that every child could go to a school like yours.