To wonder how much parental support their is for grammar schools? schools

[BarbarianMum]

Yet another speech from Teresa May this morning claiming that grammar schools enjoy widespread parental support. As a product of the comprehensive school system and parent of 2 boys going through the same I'm really puzzled by this. Do these schools (and the secondary moderns that go with them) really appeal to the majority? FWIW I don't think either of my boys would have any difficulty getting into one and I still don't think that they are a good idea. So what am I missing?

You can't "choose" a school that selects it's pupils. Parents of less able children also value education.

I am looking to move and self tutor to give my children a chance at grammar school. My reasons are the local schools are so poor and I fear she would get 'lost' in the system. However I wish I didn't feel like I needed to do this and believe all schools should have investment to make them equal. I also think parents have a responsibility to support learning not allow their kids to become disengaged or disruptive

But your school wasn't made into a shithole by turning into a comp, Chikara. It's way more complicated than that.
I went to a comp too. Range of kids, lots who weren't interested or engaged, but very effective at managing discipline. Maybe the discipline policy hadn't been thought through at yours because they hadn't needed to before as they'd mainly dealt with kids who valued education and were happy to be there.
My school started on the basis that some kids would be happy to be there and others wouldn't and laid out the discipline policy accordingly. Strict uniform, high standards for behaviour - some kids in my year left as soon as legally allowed. Some went on to get 4 A grades at A level and head off to Oxbridge.
Comprehensive doesn't mean dump. It means all kids get the same shot at it with equal funding, equal access to facilities etc. not a system where kids who are already disadvantaged, (parents not interested, not as bright, can't afford tutors etc) end up even further down the system because the top 20% get all the support.
Even if the answer isn't comprehensives, it definitely lies in a system whereby all kids have the opportunity to achieve, not a system where loads are written off aged 11.

It is a very very difficult issue. I have two at a grammar, I went to a shit comp.....I am amazed at my DSs school and the opportunities it affords them. A big part of me feels that it should be available to all kids but then that's not how the world works is it.

Maybe we should just get rid of private schools and grammar schools and then have a local lottery system of where pupils go - so you have no choice even if you are very rich?

That would make politicians address the real issues of education in this country which goes way beyond grammar schools.

But that is a very left leaning policy

I'd be interested to see what other countries around the world do - especially those systems which seem to do well for all children regardless of background.

We often hear about PISA results but rarely hear about their actual schooling systems.

Ego147 - What if you have a child who values education but doesn't pass the selection test to get in? - it's shit - I know - but there will never be a system that gives everyone a chance. It's worse now than it was. I value education but in the comp my son went to, (and mine), it was more fun to throw books at the teacher and set fire to the desks than study so my son was shafted. He had no other choice. I took him out, I home educated, I worked with him myself etc, etc. It's all you can do

honkinghaddock - I know that you are right but those kids are not helped by the current system either.
babybythesea fair points. Just giving my experience. I was bitter about my own utterly miserable time at school - bullied for being cclever, for wearing uniform... And I got over it then it happened to my son too.

Well that's fucking depressing. We can put people in space and transplant hearts but we can't do better than give 20% of kids a chance. You can't really believe that.

When people say 'you support grammars but would you support bringing back secondary moderns?' I wonder if they really appreciate how close to secondary moderns some comprehensives currently are, but without the option to escape for the few children who would have passed the 11+.

chikara

I was very lucky. I passed my 11 plus and went to a top performing grammar school with pupils who were clever and were not turned off education.

DS goes to a local comprehensive. It's not the best in the city but it's not the worst. However, there's no denying that house prices and school performance are inter related.

The school appears to have a very good approach to education and behaviour. I really hope he does his best and is given the chance to achieve his best.

I do think every child deserves the best education possible. What we have now is selection by house price. Selection by ability is still no help for those children who want to engage.

If a child does not want to engage, they should not be written off - and they should not be allowed to disrupt those children who do want to engage and learn.

It's a massive question of schools. Grammars are not the answer. What we have now is not the answer.

Do people also appreciate how close to grammar schools some comprehensives can be (mine was), offering those chances to all kids not just the selected 20%?

Maybe we should just get rid of private schools and grammar schools and then have a local lottery system of where pupils go - so you have no choice even if you are very rich? That would make politicians address the real issues of education in this country which goes way beyond grammar schools
Love this idea.

I am not a parent but dislike the grammar school system. And I can't get my head around the double speak from May.

"We already have selection by wealth and this is bad". I agree, Theresa, go girl.
"We want to offer opportunities for the brightest students at schools where it will be necessary to enforce a quota for students from low income backgrounds". Hmm, so you are explicitly saying that the new schools will favour selection of children from higher-income backgrounds?

WTF?

Sorry, my last post was in response to Countess.

Surely one non selective school (with places on a lottery if over subscribed to prevent mortgage size selection) with effective setting for all subjects (and adequate funding) is the ideal?

The evidence is clear that GS disadvantage poorer children. This is a big 'fuck too' to people who don't need any additional barriers to success.

Agreed this isn't a left/right issue - I am right but against GS. I don't see how having a two tier, divisive and underfunded education system is good for the country.

It didn't work last time. It won't work this time.

We have grammar schools very local to us. They take the brightest from a huge geographical area. So unless a child is extraordinarily bright, they won't get in and will instead be sent to one of the local 'needs improvement' schools.

I'd love my DC to go to the grammar as it provides far better academic education than the alternatives. But I feel concerned at the pressure this puts on the children to enter and pass the 11+.

I think splitting kids into two separate populations at 11 is a waste of time and resources and pretty pointless, and would oppose grammar schools being created.

However I'll send mine to the best most appropriate secondary school I can get them into, which seeing as I'm not in a position to go to a church fortnightly for years, may be a grammar - there's some within commuting distance and I'd be daft to rule them out.

PISA results higher than England's either exclude a large population (eg only Shanghai mainstream schools in China) or have a more equal society in general (Finland). The German tripartite system is increasingly unpopular (think grammar, technical school, sec mod decided by what your primary teachers think of you).

Look at it this way - there are four schools in an area. A, B, C, D and E.

They all get 70% 5x A-Cs a the moment at GCSE. There are 100 children in each year.

School A becomes a GS and selects by ability. Not the top 20% of the children in that area all go to school A.

School A gets 100% 5x A-c - WOW what a good school we all cry.

School B to E go from 70/100 getting 5xA-C to 50/100 getting 5A-C (because the top 20% have been lost from each of those schools).

So now you have 100% v 50%... what shit schools those other ones are eh? Must be the shit kids, the shit teachers, the shit environment.

It isn't elitist - it's about kids and parents who value education and are willing to play by the rules making the most of the chance they have.

Wrong - it's about parents who value education and who put everything they have into getting their kids coached for 11+ The feral kids with shit parents also deserve the best education. Sorting kids as great and mediocre at age 11 is not a good thing.

What we have now is selection by house price

Up to a point this is true. The "best" comps in our city are certainly in the most affluent areas. However the 2 (OFSTED outstanding) comps in my part of town serve both very middle class area (house price £200,00-£300,000), lower middle class/working class areas (house prices £60,000+) and several council estates. So not really selection by house price at all.

TBF - this Government under Cameron did say that the Queen's speech would make all schools into academies and we all now how that turned out.

The Government says it will do things but has a good record of backtracking when people oppose it.

My local high school (comprehensive, academy) has the reputation of being very good for the top kids, not so good for those that struggle.

I think Secondary Moderns if they were re-thought and reworked may not be a bad idea if they give extra support to those who are looking towards vocational training. That might be better than an academy that dumps the less able kids in the lower sets and just does fire fighting until they can be released.

As for grammar schools - it depends. I think that system rewards the parents of the kids that care against the parents of the kids that don't care and that has little to do with money.

in the interests of disclosure, ds is consider v bright by his teachers. He'll probably flourish in the local academy. Lots won't.

I think what parents and children need is a system of education that works for everyone to give everyone a broad knowledge base so that when they reach 16, they can either leave school and do an apprenticeship/vocational qualification for those who aren't academic; or go on to take A levels and go to uni for those who are.

I'd also cut the number of uni places right back to traditional academic university subjects, not vocational ones, and reinstate technical colleges. 50% of people do not need a uni degree. It devalues the whole system.

Ideally I'd like to see schools with different strengths: so a school with a strong sports academy; ones with a strong drama/creative bias; grammars for those who are capable; and so on.

However, there are loads of factors that schools can do little about, and that's parental engagement. Two of the strongest markers of a child's educational attainment are the child's mother's educational attainment, and the number of books in a house.

Schools can try to educate all they like - but if you have disengaged or uninterested, unsupportive parents, I'm not sure how much a school can achieve.

I live in the catchment of a GS.But the catchment is small and about 1/2 of children are OOC.The effect of this is that one GS (along with 2 excellent faith schools within 15 miles) has created what in effect are 4 secondary moderns.
The GS is great for the ones that go there, but is the price too high?

Just saying:

"Obviously, I cannot really pre-empt what is in the Queen’s Speech, but on this one example I can help out the right hon. Gentleman. We are going to have academies for all, and it will be in the Queen’s Speech"

David Cameron 27th April 2016

Then the Govt backtracked due to a lot of opposition. This time, you've even got educational experts AND the head of OFSTED saying this is a bad idea.

Babybythesea, yes, absolutely, we moved house for an excellent comprehensive that in many ways resembles a grammar.
Ime parents whose local comprehensive resembles a grammar generally support comprehensives, people whose local comprehensive resembles a secondary modern are more likely than the first group to want grammars...