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?

I'm strongly in favour of grammar schools. I'm from Kent where they still have the system and from my experience it generally worked well.

I also think that the 80% that didn't get in were equally entitled to the same standard of education (there was one excellent non selective school and it was a bun fight to get in, the others were not so great, which is where the system fell down).

If it could be sorted that ALL schools offered the same standard of education (albeit not the SAME education) then the system might be more appealing.
I'm a daydreamer and I think I would have just drifted at a comp with multi ability students. Grammar was academically focused and it was assumed most of us would go to university and were supported accordingly.

There were pupils from all backgrounds and incomes so it did give everyone a chance to have an academic education if they had sufficient brain power to get through the 11+. I don't know anyone who went there who was tutored to pass the exam. Yes, the majority of pupils were probably middle class and middle income but dare I say it, people who have well paid jobs are usually intelligent and will typically have intelligent children. So we're talking about a genetic advantage rather than a financial one.

A poster asked about what happens to pupils who just miss the pass mark on the day but are actually suited to grammar school. At my school there were a couple of girls moved after a term or two as they were clearly struggling (the 11+ was multiple choice so it was possible to load by accident! ). Likewise we had some new arrivals part way through the year who had technically "failed" but then clearly exceeded expectations at the non selective school. I'm not sure how easy it is to cross the border these days. (Don't live in Kent any more.)

I went to school in a town with a pair of single sex grammar schools. I took the 11+ and didn't get in so went to a good comprehensive. In theroy the comps were missing the top segment of their potential cohort, but it certainly didn't feel like that and the school produced healthy results.

At the moment the curriculum is being drastically reduced through the Gove preference for a narrow selection of accademic subjects. Tight funding and the need for schools to demonstrate results in these subjects mean that we are depriving students of the opportunity to make free choices about their education, and this is turning many weaker or demotivated students off completely.

The weakness of the grammar school system is its middle class dominance. Major social engineering and support could make it work to the advantage of people that are currently disadvantaged. But the secondary moderns/ comphrensives that the rest go to must have an appropriate curriculum and funding so that the system as a whole produces a population who are well qualified for 21 century life and workplaces.

And that's the rub.

If we had a comprehensive I would send them there. But what can I do? When you are IN the system it is either grammar or secondary modern. I wish you could boycott grammars and go to a comprehensive, but there is not that choice.

So I am sure in statistics you'd think I'm a parent who supports grammars but I actually think it is utterly awful.

Matt's cartoon in the Telegraph sums it up

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/01/matt-cartoons-september-2016/

I grew up in a house without books, without my parents being interested in my schooling. Neither of them had been to university. I went to the local comp of nearly 2,000 pupils then. I ended up at the best university in the country for my subject and got a first. Could I have done this from a grammar school? Probably. But I did this from a comprehensive.

My children are at a Grammar School - I live in Bucks which is 100% selective (11+ is opt out) and children either go to Grammar or Upper (secondary modern). My children love their school, as do I! The facilities are amazing and the opportunities offered to them are wonderful- this week alone they gave had the opportunity to speak to an Olympic gold medalist and another finalist. The results are great - over 70% A *.

BUT

I would rather GS didn't exist. The results may be fantastic but they bloody should be if you have selected their cohort! Their school has very few (if any) Pupil Premium pupils and is VERY middle class and quite privileged really.

I would like to see grammars abolished totally - no 10 year old should be told they're a failure!

Around 800 girls applied for 150 places at DDs school...which seems to indicate that there is enough interest for several new grammars in my area.

pleasemothermay1 I got a scholarship to a private school but the headmaster refused to sign the papers as I was a girl.

He also ensure that I went into remedial English at high school, though it was documented I had a reading age of fourteen.

Barbarian - But not everyone who passes the 11+ gets a grammar school place, do they?

In Bucks they do. Every child who passes is offered a place.

Barbarian - But surely the last thing grammar schools offer is choice - except to a very few?

but the same elitism applies to every club or group that is selective - so should everyone who plays football, no matter how crap they are, be offered a place in Man Utd's youth squad?

Should everyone be allowed into a grammar school, even if they won't be able to keep up?

Elitism benefits... the elites.
but only Sort of.
Because > inequality creates more stress for everyone. The social insecurity of having elite vs. plebs creates loads more social problems for both the elites & the plebs.
This is why the Scandanavian societies have such high life satisfaction levels, their relatively low social inequality creates better outcomes for both elites & plebs.

It makes sense to have threshold testing at a point when kids truly need to specialise, so A/A* in GCSE in order to have a fair chance at A-level, that makes sense. To have threshold testing at an age when kids don't yet need to specialise in order to progress or go to next stage, that's just nasty.

Well since Theresa May's own MPs seem decidedly lukewarm about grammars, I'm almost looking forward to watching her trying to get this through with a majority of 12.

This should be a good challenge for Corbyn - assuming he asks the right questions at PMQs and responds to May's answers / rhetoric rather than ignoring it.

A lot of educational experts and the Head of OFSTED don't think grammars improve educational outcomes. Still, we know that the views of experts don't count for much in 21st century Britain.

I'm always surprised at how many MNers have children that are above average intelligence and live near failing or 'sink' schools. Given the middle class demographic of MN, I'm surprised that so many of you live in areas where there are such apparently terrible schools. To be fair, in London, the line between rich and poor is much more narrow but you can't surely all live in London.

The proportion of people in white collar jobs in the UK is now over 50%, but only 20% will get into grammar school.

Many GS supporters will find they were mistaken in their assumption their kids would get into GS. I wonder what will happen when lots of middle class GS school supporters realise their kids will attend secondary modern.

My local school is bottom 5% and my ds is top 1% across a number of measures

That's got to be tough for him - I can imagine there are a lot of challenges.

I was under the impression with this Government that academies would 'solve the problem' and help eliminate under achieving schools.

All those children in that school deserve a good education and the right education.

I'm in favour of super selective education (so setting up proportionate special schools iyswim) but not in favour of the new proposals

Theresa May made my day this morning with the news on Grammar schools.
l am in favour of the Grammars taking the most academic kids leaving the comprehensives to concentrate on a narrower ability range.

Teachers must surely do a better job teaching 30 kids of more similar abilities than trying to support the whole range from highly academic down.

l cannot see the argument against.

Teachers must surely do a better job teaching 30 kids of more similar abilities than trying to support the whole range from highly academic down

Why not start at 5?

I'd support grammar schools if they were made to take a set number of children from state feeder schools, so every single state school would send the academically able on to grammar. Nothing to do with how good the school is / nice the area is, if you're the top academic percentage at your school, you get offered a place.

I cannot see the argument against

I've never met a child who hasn't been tutored to get into our local grammar schools. What happens if you're poor?

l am in favour of the Grammars taking the most academic kids leaving the comprehensives to concentrate on a narrower ability range

Why not have streaming within a comprehensive - so all pupils have access to the same quality teaching but at a level appropriate to them?

And sort out education so it's suitable and engaging for all children?

Surely if all the 'best' have been creamed off, then the resulting school is not actually comprehensive.

I hate the idea. My school has a wide range of kids, in spite of a local grammar, and we do really well at all levels. I have friends with kids grammars who didn't perform so well and were basically left to sink.

I also hate implication from some quarters that teachers are better in gs. Teaching a group of bright, motivated, supported kids (generally our top sets) is a hell of a lot easier than even the pleasant, slightly apathetic kids we get in the middle and the struggling (in all ways) bottom sets.

I can see I will have to hide gs threads. It's only the first week back, ffs.

I also hate implication from some quarters that teachers are better in gs

This. And the same for private schools who 'support' underperforming schools. Approaches that work fine in certain schools don't often work well in other schools - and for a range of reasons.

All pupils deserve good quality teaching suitable for their needs delivered by well supported teachers