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/

Why have it at all? I don't see that it's necessary. I can't see the worth in ironing out the problems of grammar school selection. We certainly don't need more grammar schools for the middle class pointy elbows to fight over. I'd much rather focus cash on improving educational outcomes for all children.

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.

Absolutely.

My ds got 8 in maths and 9's in science.
4 in English 🤣

So where would he end up in the grammar system?

He's extremely well behaved and compliant, kind and considerate but he's autistic and struggles with some social stuff.

He had the extreme spacial bias on CaTs.

We cannot just categorise kids into boxes.

All will have strengths and weaknesses. Some will have potential they didn't know existed because no one has unlocked it.

Some will be very sporty and others excel in the arts. Are these not considered attributes worth providing the apparent better education of a grammar?

I'd much prefer to see a comp system with more specialist institutions (Eg specialist science, music, sports etc) schools. Then have applications and places based on what suits a child. Re think the catchment system that also become elitist in swim areas with house prices etc.

Give all children a decent education that caters for their strengths rather than deciding at 10/11 yo who gets the "better" education based on a limited and specific test which many are coached to pass (rather than being particularly the most able) and that many could pass if it wasn't often - still - based on who has the most spare cash.

My DD’s grammar has had prior experience of students who are blind and sight impaired - this was a major factor in my selection process.

What has benefited your DD is the fact that the school has previous experience of dealing with visual impairment. This is not down to its being a grammar school. I think you will find that the majority of grammar schools have zero experience of visual impairment. Instead of ploughing money into grammar schools, surely it would be better to create more units that cater for visual impairment, hearing impairment, autism, dyslexia and others which will benefit children born with a disadvantage rather than those lucky enough to be born academically able (or rich enough to afford plenty of tutoring).

This is crazy - in the lat 1940s and through to the 1950s when the Grammar School/Sec Mod was the norm, most children left school at 15 without taking exams. Now we expect them to stay at school until 18 or be in employment with training. So we want to introduce a system where those deemed less academic have to achieve with one hand tied behind their back? Just ask yourselves why Maggie Thatcher approved the greatest number of Comprehensives - Sec Moderns were deeply unpopular and were a vote loser. Besides, the people who Liz Truss is speaking to, send their children to private schools anyway.

Building more grammars is not a popular policy, even among conservative voters.

Polling data from June:

"Of all voters, 30% say they want the government to build more grammar schools, 21% want the status quo, and 27% want the removal of existing grammar schools, with 22% saying they are unsure. Demographically, support for more grammars is highest among over-65s (44%), AB voters (36%) and parents with children under-5 (33%) and lowest amongst 45-54 year olds (20%) and DE voters (24%)."

"Conservatives are more than twice as likely than Labour voters to support grammar expansion. 46% of Conservative 2019 voters support building more grammars, compared to 20% of Labour voters, 27% of Liberal Democrats. Conservative support varies by region, with 2019 Conservative voters in the Midlands being most supportive of grammar expansion (52%), and Northern conservatives (42%) least supportive. Among all voters in Conservative 2019 gains (34%) and the Red Wall (32%), support for grammar expansion is marginally higher than the country as a whole but lower than for 2019 Conservative voters."

So a minority of Conservative 2019 voters want more grammars, and demographically, they are most popular in the over 65s - who are not parents of school-aged children (and probably harking back to a by-gone era).

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.

I live in an area with some residual grammars, leaving some towns with secondary moderns and others with almost-comps. I have never known a child move between comprehensive and grammar, though I do know some quietly 'managed out' of the grammar when the 11+ failed more egregiously than normal in identifying who it is 'supposed to', ie the 'most able'.

Yes, the grammars take in students at 6th form - as do the comprehensives, as some are 11-16 schools and there is anyway a remix at that point, with many students moving between grammars. The grammar I know best has a 2-tier 6th form entry system - they give all their pupils a set of entry requirements, and then do a very stringent 'pre-sift' of external applicants based on predicted grades, with a bar much higher than the entry requirements then offered to the selected few. They thus kick out any of their lower-performing students and replace them with students with the highest possible grades from other schools (the average grades of external candidates from non-selective schools and other grammars is much higher than the average grades of the internal candidates at GCSE) and then trumpet their A-level results as 'the result of being a grammar school'.....

There needs to be legislation to even out the quality of schools, in my city there are schools that are massively oversubscribed because they are the best schools & then others that nobody wants to go to because pupil behaviour, teaching & exam results are poor. Since academies have been brought in the gap between the two is widening.

Oh, come on, that’s a massive straw man argument! My DD is registered blind, is adopted, has neonatal abstinence syndrome and is diagnosed with ADHD and autism. Oh, and she is a FSM student because we are poor and subsist on UC. Honestly, I didn’t have the 10 years or so to wait for this mythical specialist provision to be built from unicorn teardrops plucked from the magic money tree. I chose the best school for her at the time of making the decision regarding secondary school.

I’m not an apologist for grammar schools here but I really can’t stand the polarised views of grammar schools are bad and comprehensive schools are good.

Yes, my dd's comp did indeed set for most subjects from mid way through year 7.

Despite this, she absolutely did find herself sitting next to kids who struggled with a lot of the academic work. She sat next to them in form every day. She socialised with them. Sometimes she helped them with homework or revision. She did subjects like personal development alongside them, and discovered that many of them brought real insights from their own experiences that were very different from her own. She saw that some of the more academic kids were great at English and the humanities but rubbish at maths and science, and vice versa. She discovered that some of the kids who were in very low sets for maths, science and English etc happened to be brilliantly talented at things like art, or music, drama or PE. And she learnt that some of the kids who didn't particularly excel in anything at all were actually incredibly kind, thoughtful people who made brilliant friends.

I watched her go on a real journey from year 7 through to year 11. In the beginning, she was scared of the kids from the "rougher" primary school on the other side of town. She was very judgemental and gave them a very wide berth. Over time, though, her perspective changed as she got to know them better. She learnt not to write people off because they seemed different from her at first glance. She learnt to respect the fact that people have different strengths and weaknesses. She learnt to appreciate how lucky she was to have a stable, supportive family without significant financial worries. And she learnt that being clever is worth fuck all if you are not also a kind, caring, humble person who seeks to use their talents to help other people.

I think all those insights will serve her pretty well in her chosen career as a doctor. I certainly think her education would have been poorer without that breadth of exposure to people who were different to her.

@EmmatheStageRat it's fantastic that your DD has overcome such adversity. You are clearly a very supportive parent. But on a debate about the overall benefits of grammar school, there is no evidence that the system benefits disadvantaged DC. It is the opposite. FSM children and those with SEND are far less likely to get into a grammar school.

We need more specialist SEN schools, the practice of putting all but the worst SEN children in mainstream schools doesn't work. The SEN department at our local comprehensive school has closed down & all the SEN pupils are expected to manage in class with everyone else, no small groups to enable them to learn. My friend's son hasn't been to school since the department closed down, she is spending all her time fighting to get him a place in an SEN school.

It is literally nuts to me that we would invest in more grammar schools yet the real need is SEN provision and special schools.

As a school governor, the number of children with ECHPs and really complex needs is increasing. Despite ‘additional’ funding it’s really not sufficient and when there starts to be many SEN children per class the dynamic certainly changes.

There aren't grammar schools here but DS goes to a fab comp, has SEN, never had any tutoring and got all 8's and 9's. He has a lot of support at home but I feel so lucky he went there as I don't think he could have achieved those results in many other comps. They are really on top of behaviour and that is key IMO. I totally disagree that setting should be scrapped though, top set at DS's school do things that just wouldn't be suitable for lower sets - ie further maths and Latin. All high achieving kids in comps should have the chance to be stretched in those ways IMO. They are taught differently to the lower sets as there are Higher and Foundation papers in core subjects and so sit different papers.

Money just really need to be poured into school to help kids with SEN, mental health issues, and somewhere that kids who are playing up in class for whatever reason to go and be helped. Money needs to be spent on helping kids catch up and keep up from a very young age. There needs to be assessment easily available for all kids that really looks at what will help them achieve at school. There also needs to be really good options for kids that are not academic so they are not made to sit GCSE's they are never going to be able to pass but have other worthwhile things they can spend their time doing so they don't leave school feeling worthless.

School have to be everything to kids now, they have to provide so many roles, to really ensure all the kids achieve what they can and the government needs to realise that that needs money to provide. But if that money is provided then it is likely to be to the benefit of everyone as the opportunities for those kids become so much greater and that is to the whole of society's benefit.

I don't think this actually happens though does it?

You will regularly find posts on MN bemoaning the Kent test. Do we want the whole country back in that position?

People spend an absolute fortune on tutoring for the 11+. I have absolutely no idea how you could level that playing field. I genuinely don't think you can.

Building more grammar schools is a terrible idea, but sadly not a surprising one from the government we are stuck with at the moment.

Both my kids were certainly bright enough to go to grammar school, but we don't have grammar schools here (thank God). So they were "lumped together" - what a charming turn of phrase - with everyone else in London comps. Are you saying that any child who wouldn't pass the 11+ are nightmare pupils who don't know how to behave in schools? Are you actually saying that???

Grammar school kids are heavily tutored and it costs a fortune. We have so so many tuition centres in our city and I keep seeing boards for more and more propping up.
not to mention all the online ones. Money should be put into the education system as a whole and for all children to excel not to open more Grammars.

my son just missed the grammar school cut off in the entrance exam. i object to queenofthebec's comments - my son is actually pretty bright having got a first and then distinction in his masters, both at russell group unis.

Comprehensives can be good and bad - our nearest isnt great, but the one slightly further is excellent. I would like to see more focus on stretching all students and providing vocational training where suitable. As an ex grammar school student myself with a child who also attended, I can see that one set of exams shouldnt define a persons future

THIS.

Even I realised at the time that this policy of sending XX% to university was incredibly ill-thought out for the reasons you mention (and I was a teenager!!).

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 is an issue here where there seems to be the idea that there's a split between people who are academic and those who are good at practical stuff, and that those who are good at practical stuff don't necessarily need to be clever to do it.

We need clever people to do practical stuff too. Siloing people aged 11 is not a great idea.

No I’m not. I’m saying that they have to wait for all the less bright* children to catch up with them in class instead of progressing at their own pace.

I am not suggesting that it is not possible to be academically successful in comprehensive schools so don’t get your knickers in a twist arguing with something I haven’t said. I’m just saying I don’t know why the option of going to grammar school shouldn’t be available to those who want it. Why do people care where other people choose to educate their children? If your kid is bright but didn’t get into or doesn’t want to go to a grammar school, fine. But does that mean they shouldn’t exist?

• I know “bright” is not a good word because it implies that other kids are dim. “Intelligent” is not good either because there are different types of intelligence. But I don’t know what word to use and I trust people to know what I mean: academically gifted.

I’m just saying I don’t know why the option of going to grammar school shouldn’t be available to those who want it.

Not if money is being directed into those schools to create more grammars, rather than improving the schools for the majority. I'd like the option of better SEN provision, support for those who need it due to factors out of their control, so that all children can have a good education, that tax payers pay for, not just those who will do anything to ensure their children are not educated with the 'great unwashed'.

queenofbec - because there tends to be an assumption that the brighter kids are at the grammars and the expectation of grammar/comprehensive kids is therefore biased accordingly. All based on one set of exams. The best school in our area has been a comprehensive sixth form with really high expectations of their students - which actually had slightly higher entrance requirements to the local grammar.

Yes, I couldn’t agree more. I sincerely hope that my DD, who has significant disabilities, will opt for an apprenticeship rather than a university degree.

My overriding take on this thread is that there’s a major split between SEN and non-SEN children. We ALL need clever and non-clever SEN people to be able to do stuff, too. And to become functioning members of society. It’s like it’s the white elephant in the room in this discussion about grammar schools. I’d love it if there were such a passionate discussion about provision for children who can’t appropriately access mainstream education, for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the disabled and SEN children are THE most overlooked in education, regardless of the comprehensive vs grammar school debate.