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?

The arguments about streaming and setting being as good in terms of putting similar ability together as a selective can be countered. My own experience (admittedly 15 years ago; I realise schools have changed but this aspect probably hasn't - ability range remains the same) was moving from top sets at a selective school to top sets at a good comprehensive (different area). The difference in pace and material converted was staggering. For example, in French, by the first couple of terms of y10 at the selective, we'd covered three past tenses, the present, and the future, and were expected to translate to and from French, even spoken French. (After the test the FE college did at the beginning of A level, I was encouraged to study A2 alongside AS, based only on what I'd learnt at the selective by two terms into y10.) I'm not saying this to boast - every top set kid could do this. At the comprehensive I attended in year 11, we just continued to study the present tense, and a few had a grasp of the imperfect. We did almost no translation of passages into French. This is not a fast enough pace for any top set kid, let alone those who would be in the top set at a selective (the top 20% of the top 20%, say). There's a massive range of aptitude and attainment at the top and bottom ends of the ability range, in every subject. The trouble is, many bright kids have a lot of variability in their own strengths too. I'm not sure what I'd do about that - perhaps accept children to the super-selective based on the area in which they score highest. Most bright children will do okay in other subjects even if they're not their strongest.

Dear God, that needed paragraphs. Apologies - I didn't realise how long it had got

Humid my kids went to what I would call local good bog standard comprehensive. What I mean by that is a school close to home where everyone can reach their potential with no selection and yes with catchments that include a range of housing types.

This is an argument for England. I wonder what posters from other parts of the UK who have different systems (I think) make of this? As well as from abroad?

Also typos I swear my phone inserts them after I've checked the text. Material covered.

At the comprehensive I attended in year 11, we just continued to study the present tense, and a few had a grasp of the imperfect. We did almost no translation of passages into French

Why do you think this was so? Was it low expectations or were they working at the level of the children?

And if there had been more children in that school who had not been creamed off, do you think the expectations would be higher?

The school was in a different area so no children were "creamed off".

And I have no idea why the expectations were low. The school was rated good, possibly outstanding (I don't remember), so it wasn't a sink comp. It's just that students were taken exactly up to the level that was needed for GCSE, and no further.

The frustrating thing is that the conversation is only about grammars. Of course they are the best schools for academically gifted children, or even children who are quiet and studious but not genius level, like my DS.

A comprehensive discussion about the other schools needs to be had, but isn't, because everyone thinks their little darlings are going to get into the grammar school. What about talking about good technical schools, that will need much more funding because equipment for good vocational education is much more expensive than books and computers in academic environments, and actually, academic education for the 'average' but academic child. I don't think my DS would cope with the pressure cooker of a grammar, but he is in the top set for English and Maths. Not in the top 1%, but in the top about 30%. Just because he's not in the top 20%, should he be pushed into doing vocational education? There is absolutely no conversation being had about the majority of kids, who are not in the top 20% or the bottom 10% of disengaged and disruptive children but are just average, as most children are. Where will they go? Or does nobody care?

The key question Corbyn needs to ask Theresa May is:

"How will the expansion of grammar schools help all pupils to achieve to their potential?"

And he needs to focus on all and not just the few.

iced that is my experience of how a lot of schools are teaching languages now to ensure that the pupils get at least a c grade so it counts towards targets . Not to teach it in a way that equips them to speak a language abroad. So I think it's political targets that have influenced this rather than the teachers.

There is absolutely no conversation being had about the majority of kids, who are not in the top 20% or the bottom 10% of disengaged and disruptive children but are just average, as most children are. Where will they go? Or does nobody care

Another question for May:

How will the expansion of grammar schools help the child of average ability who wants to learn and achieve?

The key question Corbyn needs to ask Theresa May is: "How will the expansion of grammar schools help all pupils to achieve to their potential?"

This times a million.

Nobody cares about the children who are just average, that's why loads of people put their kids in for the 11+ every year in the vain hope that they will get into a grammar and not be left to sink or swim at local comp. The important things to remember about a grammar are this:

No one will laugh at you/bully you for being too clever

Every pupil receives equal attention and the disengaged are made to engage.

Comps aim for pupils to get a C - Grammars will get you As.

13 children from my DS's school passed the 11+ to go to Grammar School. They were all tutored for at least a year. One child went to a tutor 3 times a week and most of the 13 attended a 3 day summer school. The whole thing was very stressful for the children and the parents. Some children who failed were very upset.Most of the children were only 10 when they took the test. I wonder if Theresa May has any idea of the stress and tutoring that goes on not to mention the social divisions.

Earlier in the thread someone suggested that schools be allowed to prepare the children - I think this would seriously damage our primary curriculum.

I grew up in the Grammar School system too and I can honestly say that myself and my siblings are all scarred by the horrible education we received. My brothers all failed and went to a terrible secondary modern (it has continued to fail children for the last 40 years) whereas I passed and, like many non-middle class children, was continually run down and shouted at by my teachers for my lack of ability.

I know things have changed but I actually cried this morning when I heard the news.

This is from her speech

"Because for too many children, a good school remains out of reach. There are still 1.25 million attending primary and secondary schools in England which are rated by Ofsted as requiring improvement or inadequate. If schools across the north and Midlands had the same average standards as those in the south, nearly 200,000 more children would be attending good schools."

Grammar schools will only help some of these pupils. What about the rest? Don't all children deserve a good school?

Oh I forgot the near future tense we did, for which you don't really need anything beyond what you know from the present tense. With a bit of cramming before the exam of some stock phrases in, and a basic understanding of, the imperfect, that fulfilled the requirements for a future and a past tense. Teach to the exam

Although this is a side issue. But I'm sure there are inspiring comps that challenge children of all ability ranges including the vast range you'll find in the top set. Mine wasn't one. But it got good results.

Interestingly, teachers at the comp I went to urged my parents to send my sibling to a private selective school if they could afford it, as they couldn't really provide the challenge my sibling needed (very talented in maths; incidentally a subject with an incredibly wide ability range - in year six you can easily get a child who's capable of working beyond GCSE level sitting next to a child who's struggling (and often working really hard) to fulfill the expectations the government has set for KS1.

Which are ridiculous. I hate Sats and these "expectations" set for all children as though all children are the same. It's ludicrous that children can "fail" at infant school for developing differently to what the government thinks is correct. Development is not a nice even slope. Which is an argument against the 11+. I don't think any argument can win outright TBH.

Nobody cares about the children who are just average

I would dispute this, actually. There's a lot of attention paid to those kids in the middle who might score between a C and a D, to make sure they get that magic, magic C. More, sometimes, than is paid to those kids heading for A or A*, who will probably get a reasonable grade no matter what, or the hopeless cases who will really work hard for their E but sometimes are passed over by the system (often teachers will go out of their way to help them get that E but the system doesn't seem to incentivise it).

but the system doesn't seem to incentivise it

True. I am sure that a massive debate can be had over the best way to ensure that all schools ensure all children achieve to their best potential and that the education they have received is fit for purpose.

And all children are different, have different needs and different abilities - and will be doing different things in the future.

It's massively complicated. But you'd have thought we'd have some more evidence based policies now rather than ideology.

Progress 8. The progress of every child matters.

Progress 8. The progress of every child matters

I bet that's a whole thread in itself....

The progress of every child matters. Apart from the genuinely bright kids or those with supportive parents. Those kids must suffer due to leftie idealists

I'm just wondering how many grammar schools we would need to build to ensure that all parents who wanted a grammar school education could receive it?

And if there had been more children in that school who had not been creamed off, do you think the expectations would be higher?

^^ but pupils in comps are creamed off anyway into top sets and streaming but this is some how supposed to filter down to the other sets isnt it? And bring them all on?

And yet we know - many comps are letting down their top set pupils because they do have the right resouces for them.

so why not let them go to a school for them, and then give more resources to those left?

I struggle to understand the issue with this. It seems people want those top sets in a school to merely boost grade achievement stats?
Do I expect a school next to a grammar to acheive top marks in core subjects matching the grammar?

NO.

But I do still expect good grades in those core subjects as some pupils will excel in one subject but not the other.

I do however expect the students to achieve a rounded education helping them achieve their goals and potential, be that in creative things or what they excel in.

"And yet we know - many comps are letting down their top set pupils because they do have the right resouces for them.

so why not let them go to a school for them, and then give more resources to those left? "

Or alternatively comprehensive schools could be properly resourced.

If there are comps which are regularly turning out students with top grades and sending them off to the best universities to do competitive courses, then there is clearly nothing intrinsically inadequate about comprehensive schools - it's a matter of resources and management, both of which are always open to improvement.

Do I expect a school next to a grammar to acheive top marks in core subjects matching the grammar?

People do all the time. School X is a better school than school Y because school X has a headline figure of 75% and school Y only has 60%. Never mind that with their intakes school X is underachieving and school Y is doing bloody well.