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/

I don’t see the problem. It’s like people are saying, if my kid isn’t bright enough to go to a grammar school, then no one can. Why should the brightest kids be lumped in with all the rest where they will be held back from achieving their potential?

Exactly!!

'The kids who don't want to learn can go to the other schools'.

Would that be the kid who has to deal with alcoholic or drug addicted parents?
The one with additional needs but no funding for extra help in school, so disengaged early?
The one growing up in a domestic war zone?
The one who is being abused in some way and just can't focus on school?

I've taught for a long time. I've often taught kids who were a nightmare in yr7, but with support, ended up getting gcses and going on to do a levels. I often wonder what would have happened to those kids if they'd taken and failed an 11+ (like my parents). They'd have been written off and felt a failure from the start. Lots of kids aren't ready at 11 and one of the great joys of teaching in a comprehensive school is watching their successes over the years. I suspect many people desperate for more grammar schools have no idea just how much effort goes in to supporting kids in comprehensive schools.

If Truss actually gave a shit, she would pump more money into helping schools to cope with increasing numbers of SEND kids and non attenders (who we still try to educate remotely). Contrary to what some posters think, we are trained in SEND and have regular cpd. Lessons are supposed to be designed so that they are dyslexia and autism friendly. What we can't do is deal with so many students with so many different needs in a class of 30:
A is anxious, so needs cajoling into lessons.
B's medication wears off before lunch, so he can't keep still.
C tics a lot, which sets B off.
D has ptsd and needs to sit in the corner, so she knows the wall is behind her. The sound of police cars going past can be triggering.
E has very limited processing, so needs frequent check ins.E is distracted easily.
F doesn't speak English.
G also has adhd and poor relationships with other students, so tends to shout out, get into arguments and walk out. Which means alerting senior staff during the lesson.
H gets overwhelmed easily and needs frequent time outs.
I is homeless, but many of the other kids don't know. I doesn't really give a shit about school right now, so is bored and winding the others up.

Mrs Bennett

Comps set.

Even within a comp settings you won't have DC who struggle sat next to high flying DC.

Grammar are very few and far between now and yet many comps do not work. They are still failing DC.
Why?
How many year's has this experiment gone on? How much investment have they had??

Because it's not about being brighter than everyone else. It's about being able to pass a test you've been drilled for, when perhaps other students haven't.

Fucking honestly, the way people are talking about kids on this thread. 'Lumped in with the rest of them. '

Many parents don't.

Some comps are moving away from setting. Research shows that kids do better if they're not set. Especially the kids who would usually be in low sets and see themselves as 'thick'.

My preference would be for my child to attend one of the only two national residential schools for blind/severely sight impaired children, because the curriculum is specially tailored and the outcomes are so much better. My daughter has NO friends at school and this is a not uncommon theme among VI young people who are ostracised for their disability by their sighted peers

I think that is fair, as your child has very specific needs around day to day living skills and managing in a sighted world. I think she absolutely should go to a specialist school for children with a VI. Most ordinary schools will not have the increased skill set to support your child in the way that they need. And it is helpful to make friends with other children in the same position. Have you contacted the school's themselves? Often they can support and help you navigate around the LA appeal system.

Er, no, it isn't like saying that at all.

What I'm saying is that I don't see why kids like my dc should be segregated off into a "good" school while their peers are left to rot in a secondary modern.

I'm also saying that my extremely bright child was not held back the slightest by going to a comprehensive school. Quite the contrary, I think she benefitted enormously from developing a greater appreciation of the different strengths and talents of her peers, not merely limited to academic ability, and that this understanding and appreciation of differences will help her to fulfill her true potential in the longer term.

And I'm also saying that I think the real investment in education needed right now is to support the kids who are struggling the most in our current system, particularly those with SEN, those with challenging home lives and those in the lower sets who typically have to deal with a lot more disruption in their day to day school experience.

If the grammar / secondary modern school system was better than the comprehensive system, we would see that the results of counties with grammar schools would be better than areas of matched socio-economic profiles with comprehensive schools.

We do not see that, so the grammar / secondary modern system is not better.

What people might argue is that there might, in grammar areas, be a slight advantage for the top few % - but that is then balanced by a disadvantage to everyone else. Does the country want a poorer education for the vast majority?

What WOULD make a difference to absolutely everyone is better funded SEN education and support, including family support from the earliest years, that identifies vulnerable and SEND children from all families at the earliest possible opportunity and then supports them through whatever path is best suited to them, including vastly expanded Special School provision. My area has children in their hundreds who have been identified as needing Special school education but having no places.

It is indeed a postcode lottery. Which is why i dont think grammar schools are the answer.

I feel incredibly upset your LA doesnt provide VI units.

I dont think increasing grammar schools in other areas will result in more VI units in your area to give your child a golden ticket too.

I 100% understand grammar is the least worst option for you and hope your child thrives.

Id still rather a system where many, many more childen got the best option or at least a better option.

More funding in SEND and a better funding for everyones mainstream. Increased cahms, salt OT, the works.

I'm all in favour. Comps don't work. You really can't have a "one size fits all" approach to education. Different types of child need different types of education. All comps have done in the last few decades have dragged down school standards to the lowest common denominator. It's just too much of an ask to expect a comp to be able to provide quality education, choices, etc to such a wide range of abilities - trying to be all things to all men ends up with huge numbers of pupils not getting the appropriate education they need.

I went to a comp and it was dire. It had only just converted from a grammar and was sold as "a grammar education for all", but it soon became a war zone with endemic bad behaviour, damage to classrooms, teachers having nervous breakdowns, regular police attendances, etc. They basically ruined what were previously two good schools, a successful grammar and a successful secondary modern.

Yes, the grammar system isn't perfect, especially the selection based on performance on a single day (11+) but rather than thrown the baby out with the dishwater, the "selection" system should have been improved instead, i.e. by taking into account performance at primary school and primary teacher assessments, but also having some kind of system of being able to move to a grammar in year 8 if there was good performance in year 8 of the "comp".

I wish my parents had given me the chance to sit the 11+ and go to a grammar school. I did really well in primary school and probably would have stood a good chance of passing (late 90s). Instead I went to a comprehensive where doing well meant being bullied for being a 'swot' and lessons where half the class didn't want to be there, misbehaved and dragged others down with them. I went to university so academically I ended up doing OK, but I would have had a much happier time and probably had fewer mental health issues as a teen / young adult in an environment where learning was respected and hard work actually expected from everyone.

I understand the problems with the grammar system re creaming off the higher achievers and other schools getting worse as a result etc but the answer isn't reducing options for the more academic children. The answer is proper funding of schools to help them meet pupils needs, better SEN provision and better support, pay and conditions for teachers. I want DCs to go the school where they are most likely to do well, whether that is a grammar for the one who is an academic high achiever, or one which places an emphasis on sport / performing arts if that's what they are good at.
I have never voted for the Tories and have no intention of ever doing so, but I don't accept the idea that some children should be put in an environment where they won't be able to meet their potential in the name of a 'one size fits all' approach, because it doesn't.

As new schools are built, the possibility of it being a grammar school should be considered slong with the option of it being a specialist sports college etc according to the local need. Absolutely, funding for all schools also needs to be improved as does SEN provision.

Also, support for struggling families (whether that struggle is financial or issues such as neglect, abuse or difficult parental relationships) needs to be stepped up outside of school. I work in a primary school with a high proportion of children with behavioural issues, low incomes and difficult home lives and there is only so much we can do to help. If these families were getting the right support outside of the school environment, we would be much better able to spend more time focusing on the academic needs of a pupils.

@mumsneedwine it's okay to say you are chucking vulnerable kids on the scrap heap with a grammar system. How do you propose we tackle the issue facing tax paying parents who are expected to send their kids to the local sink comp with multiple children with behavioural issues. These same kids are then expected to compete with those from grammar, faith, outstanding postcode selective and private schools for the best jobs etc.

The top and bottom of it for me and I imagine many parents is that as much as I would like to say I care what happens to all kids, my DS is my priority. If we could opt out of even half of our tax bill we could easily fund private medical and school fees from what we pay. I expect value from the money we are paying and that includes a well rounded education with peers who are willing to learn. I don't expect to be handing over that amount of money for him to go somewhere he is going to be bullied and have lessons disrupted by the class clown. Sadly these kids to do exist and they need an education but it shouldn't be at the expense of other kids.

This means for us it is a faith education we are looking for that follows our values. Our other option is to move house into the catchment of the outstanding comp. If we weren't religious the option of seeing how he does in the 11+ before we commit to a bigger mortgage would be appealing. School fees are the other option but we are concerned about the impact that might have on university access by the time he is 18.

I think a better debate of grammar vs comp would be sats/teacher assessments vs 11+. Maybe get some private schools onboard to combine a selection centre with a scholarship selection day. The kids are ranked based on things like attainment, attitude, talent, etc (private don't just select on academic ability) this decides what school they go to.

You could end local schools set up specialists colleges for say STEM, classics, arts, challenging behaviours etc as they are older they are more than capable of getting the bus further to an appropriate school.

I don't think you truly understand the fear of ending up with a rubbish school place until that is your catchment school. We live on a regular estate every morning the teenagers head off to the bus stop to get away from it. I don't think anyone on our estate uses it.

My kids would be bright enough to go a grammar school, if there were any grammar schools in the area. But there aren't any, and partly as a result of that, the local comprehensive schools are excellent. I would definitely fight against the introduction of grammar and secondary modern schools in my area - I grew up under that system, and am really pleased that my children get to go to a different type of school.

Most comprehensive schools set for some subjects. So a child can be in a high set for Maths and Science, a low set for PE, a middle set for English, and a fully mixed set for everything else.

Very few 'stream', ie separate children into groups who never mix for any subjects, based on an 'average' ability across all subjects. Why can't children of all abilities mix in Art?

So yes, in most comprehensives, most children will, at some point in their school career, be in the same classroom as children of all abilities. And that's a real strength of the system. What does a 'grammar school' child who is exceptional at Maths but poor at English do? His English peers have been sent to another school. Likewise a child who is outstanding at English but not at Maths and is in the Secondary Modern - where do they go for English? The 11+ is an extremely poor tool for segregating children into different institutions, especially those with 'uneven' profiles.

How can a teacher teach to such a diverse class where some pupils are aiming for a 9 at GCSE and others will be lucky to get a 1.

I remember some of my "un-set" GCE subjects, one in particular was history another was German, where so few pupils had chosen them as an option, there was only one class. The teacher had a terrible time trying to teach at such a diverse ability group.

Both ended up teaching "to the middle" and those at each end of the scale were basically short changed.

I don’t see the problem. It’s like people are saying, if my kid isn’t bright enough to go to a grammar school, then no one can. Why should the brightest kids be lumped in with all the rest where they will be held back from achieving their potential?

Do you think that only the brightest kids go to grammar? There's plenty of extremely bright children in comps. And when they are in the top sets then they are not set back by the difficulties that other children experience in the lower sets. Who are often bright and capable children too who are held back by life experience, disruption and classroom management. This is where our money needs to be directed. To support those children who are struggling with learning, who have SEN, or are disadvantaged by background. This is what benefits ALL children. Not directing resources and funding to people like you, whose child who would clearly succeed in the top sets if they really are that bright.

As an aside, it's often the middle of the road kids with pushy parents, sharp elbows and a bank balance to pay for tutoring to get their kids into grammar. Why should the tax payer pay for your child to have an exclusive education, away from everyone else's children? You want that exclusive education? You pay for it.

@cantkeepawayforever

What does a 'grammar school' child who is exceptional at Maths but poor at English do?

Grammar schools do "sets" too, so such pupils would be in the Maths top set but the English bottom set.

How can a teacher teach to such a diverse class where some pupils are aiming for a 9 at GCSE and others will be lucky to get a 1.

I know. What more funding could do to support those classes right?

@Freedomfighters

As an aside, it's often the middle of the road kids with pushy parents, sharp elbows and a bank balance to pay for tutoring to get their kids into grammar.

So change the system of selection to make it more appropriate, i.e. based on teacher assessments/performance at primary schools rather than the 11+ exam.

There are ways and means to iron out the problems rather than scrap the system.

Too much discussion on grammars / secondary moderns is based around the extreme examples - the exceptionally able and those who struggle academically.

In fact, the vast majority of children fit in the 'bulge' in the bell curve right in the middle - they are good at some subjects, less good at others.

The 11+ puts an arbitrary line between children of, essentially, indistinguishable academic ability - everyone knows that on a different day, a wholly different selection of children would pass, but the test is good enough to weed out those who really struggle academically [ie it weeds out the 'undesirables' from the point of view of the schools and the parents who want them] and so there is no push to change it.

Instead of this ridiculously arbitrary system pushing children into different institutions through selecting the top 10-20%, it would be much more efficient to really meet the needs of the 10-20% at the other end - those who have SEN or are disadvantaged through circumstances - and then the 'mainstream'/ comprehensive alternative would meet the needs of the whole cohort so much better.

I am so pleased that DS1 is off to Uni and DS2 is in his final year of school. So much fiddling and politics for want of a better word all the way through, especially DS2s education and not for the better. The whole while making cut after cut to education/school budgets. Changes to SATs in primary for DS2, making them much harder with the threat of them having to be retaken in secondary if not passed. This was eventually dropped. Class sizes in secondary going from 25 per class around 2014 to 30 ongoing sometimes more to compensate for falling school budgets. SEN and learning support budgets dropping meaning much reduced and often little support for those who need extra help. After school clubs/activities available reduced due to no budget. GCSEs made (mostly) exam only by Michael Gove in 2015 increasing stress in school children and to the detriment of many with mental ill health or special needs. Rushed in with inadequate text books or preparation time for teachers. Low teacher retention as they are knocked over and over again and minimal pay rises.

But no, concentrate on building grammar schools 🤦🏼‍♀️ It would help all schools to give them a proper budget. This has been cut and cut again since the 2000s and stop fiddling to please party members.

Some of you seem to regard the split between grammar schools and secondary modern schools as the 1950s model. Things changed once the non selective schools offered GCSEs instead of CSEs.

There's mobility between these schools now. Children who are doing well in the non selective can be transferred to a grammar school when there's space. Equally quite a few transfer the other way. Sixth forms at grammar schools take non selective students who get good GCSE results and some have joint sixth forms.

Many children are not tutored and pass. Some that are tutored can't cope and move to non selective.

It's about priorities. In my selective school, our priority is stretching our most able. In a comp (I worked in one for many years(, the priority is supporting the least able and that is where the time and money goes. This is why I'm hoping for a grammar for my high attaining son.