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'd probably be looking at 1 on 1 or 1 on 2 to achieve all that though sadly

I seem to remember a Government promising funding equivalent to private schools a while ago.

Most middle class parents will do whatever it takes to get their children into GS if they become wide spread. If that requires a lower income for a couple of years to look poorer, they will go part-time. If it requires tutoring, they will do that. Right now, they pretend to be catholic or move house.

80% will not get in. It won't be the gifted poor, recent immigrants or those with parents who have no degree who make the cut most of the time.

sorry, posted twice

Right now, they pretend to be catholic or move house

No one's even mentioned the change to faith school requirements yet.

A secret, shameful, dirty part of me thinks that I'd quite like a school that selected by attitude - hardworking? Positive attitude to education? Don't throw flaming lumps of paper all over classroom or spend the whole lesson ignoring the teacher and adjusting your makeup? You're in! - but the overwhelming part of my brain knows that behaviour problems are down to socioeconomic inequality, lack of opportunities, being demotivated by early "failure" (some perfectly bright children aren't ready to read at five, so they're behind from reception and fall further back), SEN, perceived lack of value of academics in communities where children are not expected to follow an academic path (I've known lots of people who didn't realise/hadn't been told they'd need a good level of competence in maths to do e.g. beauty therapy), etc.

I think grammars might have changed over the years too. I know the system wasn't great then (cost of uniform, opportunity cost of having a kid in school when they could be working and contributing to the family income, etc.) but in the 1960s my bright but definitely not middle-class relative went to grammar school, then university, then became a doctor. No extra tuition for the 11+ back then. But by the 70s, my equally bright relative was denied the opportunity to even sit the 11+ because of his teachers' opinions of him (probably related to his social class). Now it's all about tutoring and moving house to a new catchment area, if you have the money.

I would probably support super-selectives. For the children who are so far outside the norm that the top set is far too slow, who are hard to differentiate for, who long to not be the weird one, who need the challenge of being around others who are similar so as not to coast - I really think they need something else. These children can get complacent or bored or not be able to access a suitable curriculum. Like special schools - those are no longer needed or wanted for large swathes of children the way they were, but a few still need the extra support. I'd maybe argue it's the same for a small number of very bright children - we don't need separate schools for the "top" 10%, but perhaps it's a good idea for the 1% who struggle to get the support they need in the average school. And the idea some people support that these children should be able to self-motivate and go beyond the curriculum themselves - super-able children are not necessarily any better at that than the average child.

ego I'm not saying they should. But I can't imagine they are particularly winning in this situation either.

Dh is big fan of the reintroduction of secondary moderns. He doesn't consider himself particularly academic and he feels his profession, computer science, along with many others, could be taught much more successfully at school followed by apprenticeships, rather than slogging through and gaining meaningless (now at any rate) academic qualifications.

I seem to remember a Government promising funding equivalent to private schools a while ago

Shame MN doesn't have a laughing hysterically emoji...

I don't support this, I deliberately moved to a non GS area, I hate the Tories.

I would jump at the chance

just have a look at uniform gate I doubt that any grammar school have had this issue

If y ou want your child to fester in a bog standard comp under some mis guided notion of social justice fine but don't stop my child having a good education

It boils down to often I can't afford tution for my child so eveyone should suffer in shitly high 😕

"If they just want to learn, they will have been applying themselves in primary school and will pass the 11+. I don't see why the bright x % should be penalised"

No - there will be very intellectually bright children who may be very weak in one area of the curriculum who will fail the 11+.

There will be bright children who are late developers who will fail the 11+

There will be extremely clever children who do not sit the 11+

There will be very bright children who have undiagnosed ADHD or ASD which has impacted hugely on their attainment.

There will be extremely bright children whose attainment at 11 is way below what they are capable of because they have had no help or support with their learning at home, sometimes because of a lack of interest from parents sometimes because of long term illness in the family or severe poverty. My middle dc's learning has been hugely affected by having one sibling with ASD and one with severe mental health problems - I simply have no had the energy or time to support his learning as much as I could have.

And then of course there's the fact that 1 in 4 children are tutored. And a hugely disproportionate number of grammar school applicants are coming from private schools.

The point being: YOU CANNOT ACCURATELY IDENTIFY AT 11 WHICH CHILDREN WILL SUCCEED ACADEMICALLY given good teaching and support, and it's wrong to base an entire education policy on the view that you can.

All state schools need to cater for children of all abilities because they will ALL have children in them from across the ability range.

I think it's a massively complex situation and that the system we have may not well be suitable for all children.

I would love DS to go to a school where pupils are engaged and where he is streamed within his year with children of the same ability so he is given the chance to shine. I have no issue with streaming within a school - and is that different to a grammar school?

At the same time, I would hope that children who aren't of his ability are still given the best teaching and given the chance to shine.

I also know that the reasons for disruption are so complicated and the idealist in me would want a system that tackles disruption.

It's.....complicated.

Humid - why should it be about lower standards for the 20% though? Why shouldn't it be about higher standards for everyone?

I went o a comprehensive and not a low standard in sight. Not only the academic stuff either - although there were lots of high achievers in that respect, but I also had the chance to do a lot of music, including playing in the Royal Albert Hall. It was a comprehensive, so those chances were there for anyone who wanted to take them. School had a stock of instruments for those who couldn't afford to buy (I played one of them). Lunchtime rehearsals.

Why should those chances be kept for the top 20%?

Not all comprehensives are that good, no. But why not focus on making them so? It doesn't have to disadvantage the bright kids. My school showed that. Whereas a grammar by its very nature does exclude a whole bunch of kids before they've even got going.

poster mrsvilliers Fri 09-Sep-16 14:31:47
ego I'm not saying they should. But I can't imagine they are particularly winning in this situation either.

Dh is big fan of the reintroduction of secondary moderns. He doesn't consider himself particularly academic and he feels his profession, computer science, along with many others, could be taught much more successfully at school followed by apprenticeships, rather than slogging through and gaining meaningless (now at any rate) academic qualifications.
*there already is its called a studio school my friends son attends on is a construction one her learns English match science and all the Trades it's awsome but there aren't many because guess what the TUC are against them

My friends son is not highly academic and actually was very disruptive in the local comp it's transformed him really

I'm opposed.
I don't think Grammar schools have net benefits for anyone.

I would jump at the chance

You can jump but the chances are your DC won't get in.

Then what?

"just have a look at uniform gate I doubt that any grammar school have had this issue"

Are you saying it's the fault of comprehensive schools that they have children there who won't follow uniform rules?

Ego I'd say streaming is different because there's room for movement, or streaming for individual subjects. Once you are in a whole different school, that int true any more.

We were streamed. It was common for kids to go up a stream, I don't know about moving down so much (I think if anyone was borderline they went to the lower stream first to ensure they had room to move up but not down if that makes sense). We were also streamed separately for maths and English. Kids who shone at one but not the other could be in a top stream for English and lower down for maths (me!). If you are in a different school altogether, you lose that flexibility.

My friends son is not highly academic and actually was very disruptive in the local comp it's transformed him really

And that's why disruption and the very complex reasons behind it need tackling.

Education has become - under Gove - very focussed on traditional academic subjects. Is that a good thing or a way of turning people off?

And that's why it comes down to - what are schools for? What should schools be teaching and hoping to achieve for their pupils?

I live in a grammar area. I moved here when I was 18 and raising children was the last thing on my mind, by the time I realised it was a grammar system it was too late really.

I have supported/will support both DC in trying to 'get into' grammar school, even though I disagree with the system.

It is a load of utterly stressful shite and completely unfair on the majority of children, schools, teachers, and parents.

I have supported/will support both DC in trying to 'get into' grammar school, even though I disagree with the system

And that's the rub.

I don't like the idea, I think it would create even more inequality than we currently have. DS's head once said he was "Grammar school material", so he might have been one of the chosen few, but the idea worries me. For a start, not everyone develops at the same rate, some children don't come into their own until 13-14 and by then it's too late to benefit from a grammar school education, no matter how bright they are. In an ideal world, they would invest money making the schools which 'need improvement', into 'outstanding'. All schools would be up to scratch so that all children would benefit.

Too much emphasis is placed purely on exam results. Some children are just never going to get a C in Maths, I think we should accept that and change the way it works. What if they made more vocational courses aimed at the children who would receive lower grades or no grades at all (and therefore reducing the school's 'rating'), such as catering or carpentry and the like, courses which would lead to (good) apprenticeships and vocational college courses. Make the children who hate school attend school by making the courses they do interesting for them. That whole 'don't judge a fish on how good it is at climbing a tree' thing makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm all for selection, I'd be hypocritical not to be.
I support more grammar schools as I think it will enable social mobility.
There aren't enough at the moment, if they were widespread with tutor proof exams and in every town, anyone could access them who passed the test.
It's about time there was provision for all, it's great if you have good alternatives, outstanding comps, but unfortunately not all area do.
If it helps a small percentage I'll be happy.

This just came up on my Twitter feed.
Justine Greening was unable to say where the mandate came for this in the manifesto.

poster minifingerz Fri 09-Sep-16 14:40:04

No it's the parents who are actively working against the schools

So then the children are doomed like I said parents of grammar school children are often on the same page so you wouldn't get the police being called because some nit wits want there children to wear nikes rather than the school uniform

Or we could say the only way you can sit them is by the school nominating you

That's it so every school with have a number of bright children they can nominate

That's it tution I am afraid is a choice if you have sky then your choosing that over tution we did with out cable for 5 years so my son could be tutored if you smoke eveytime you get your hair done

It's priortys