to ask would you send your eldest Dc to a grammar school?

[var12]

Hypothetical question... if there were grammar schools in your area and your DC1 was offered a place, would you accept it?

I'm genuinely not sure what contribution you think you're making with that little snapshot, bobo? I suspect I have about as much in common with the average Parisian maman as I do with, well, you...

Haybotn, I think for the few students that would leave the private system the tax would actually bring in more.

Ped data for private education suggests that demand is relatively price inelastic.

Almost certainly there would be some children coming back into the state system but I'd suggest that his would be ofsett by the extra tax receipts.

Oh and on the polls, the recent one showing support for May's plans for grammar schools also showed that 48 percent of people thought that they were good for working class children and provided more opportunities.

So I'd question their judgement.

multivac I am unaware of the conspiracy theory you are referring to, in relation to money, 'magically' being created because we voted for Brexit.

But back in the real world, actual and borrowed money comes from tax payers i.e. you and me. If it were otherwise Gordon Brown would still be a job.

Teachers are knowledgeable about teaching, I dont think they are experts in what resources the country can afford to allocate to education and the improvement of schools.

Erm, it's not a conspiracy theory; the Bank of England is very transparent about its operations.

I'm quite enjoying the fact that the minute the case is effectively made for 'improving comprehensive schools' rather than 'making more grammars', it suddenly becomes an issue entirely of economics. As if, were money no object, then of course it would be fine to concentrate on providing a top quality education for everyone. But, y'know, we're a bit strapped at the moment - so best we invest in those who perform most strongly at an arbitrary academic test at the age of 11, eh? Regardless of what employers and universities say they want. Regardless of what teachers and heads say works for kids. Regardless of what history has demonstrated. Regardless of the fact that plenty of posters on this thread alone with children in grammars have said 'I know it's wrong; I know it's unfair; but it's there, so I'm going to take it' (for which, I repeat, I do not blame them in the slightest, by the way).

I quite like watching people tying themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible.

At a comp it would be very likely they would be identified as (pretty much) straight A pupils so, you know, hey...they'll be just fine, no need of much support or 'focus'. Instead, we'll concentrate all our 'focus' on struggling pupils, and push them up from a D to that all important C...

This only happens in spectacularly shit secondary schools who would be failed by OFSTED very quickly. Teachers are judged by the progress they make. We do focus on groups but often AA* students are one of those groups.

Brilliant point.

From both of you.

Yes we are judged by the progress of all students, and the results of the highest achieving are scrutinised, a lot. But in MN land all teachers just pay attention to the C grade kids.

because schools get measured on percentage who get 5 A-C including English and Maths. The number who they send to Oxbridge doesn't get reported or compared about. Why though, I do not know.*

I used to teach in a very average comp, in fact it wasn't even a proper comp as some children went to the grammars. We identified our potential Oxbridge candidates early on and constantly reviewed this. They were mentored by teachers who has been through the Oxbridge process and every year we had students who successfully gained places at Oxford or Cambridge and other "top" universities. It certainly did matter if students got Bs rather than As. This happened at the other comprehensives I have experience of. There are poor comprehensives but they are not as common as some people would like us to believe.

Oh and btw 86% of children in the state system are outstanding or good schools.

And maybe it does. But I have never worked in any comp that had more than 3 sets for maths.

I don't think that I have ever taught in a school with 3 sets for maths and I have taught in a fair few.
My top sets would only have students in who would go on to be targeted A\A* grades. Set 2 would usually have students with A grade targets in too - or students who would go on to achieve at that level. That is at a school that was on the edge of a grammar area so not fully comprehensive.

My dd's grammar school had 7 set for maths. My dd's secondary modern has 7 sets for most subjects.

My DDs' current school has 5 sets for maths. Two classes in each set. It's a very large school.

I really don't understand how some schools are rated outstanding

ds went to an outstanding school it certianly wasn't it had improved so became an outstanding school for improvement it's was chaotic, over crowded, teachers lacked control and the tests results were average of that

Both of my children are not super bright but certainly top 10-15%. Older one passed, went to a grammar school, younger on failed and didn't. I am (and always have been) opposed to selective education. Having experienced it, I am even more implacably opposed to it

Oh, yet another poster who has availed themselves - like our Dear Leaders of the GS system for themselves and good schools for their own DC, but who want to close it down for the rest of us .

I would have taken a grammar place if the alternative had been a shit or dangerous secondary - as many parents in my former bit of Sarf London did, sending them just over the border into Kent. But it never sat well with me or DH, which was one of the reasons why we chose to relocate to an area of Scotland with great nonselective state schools.

Oh and btw 86% of children in the state system are outstanding or good schools

Yes many parents round my way think our comps are good too. Not so the Dm whose teachers walked out on her DD weeks before GCSE's and she had to pay a tutor to get her DD through them. The school has been between requires improvement and other labels for years now. I have to run the gauntlet of the pupils every day. But hey, some DP round my way - think its a good school, maybe it is to them?

The comprehensive dd has just started at has 5 sets for maths.

"Yes many parents round my way think our comps are good too."

Not rated by parents, by OFSTED.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11284656/Ofsted-warns-state-schools-are-failing-their-brightest-pupils.html

The education watchdog says almost two-thirds of the most able pupils in state comprehensives fail to fulfil their potential

Thousands of bright pupils are going backwards in secondary school because of a "worrying lack of scholarship" combined with and a tolerance of bad behaviour, according to Ofsted.

In its annual report, the education watchdog warned that almost two-thirds of the most able pupils in state comprehensives – 57,000 – fail to fulfil their potential.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmcis-monthly-commentary-june-2016

Only skim read:

Of all the important issues I have put under the spotlight during my time as Chief Inspector, arguably none is as critical to the nation’s success and economic fortunes as the performance of the most able children in our non-selective state schools.

The question of how well our brightest pupils are supported and challenged to achieve high academic results after they transfer to secondary school has been the subject of 2 high profile Ofsted studies in recent years.

Both these surveys found that thousands of pupils who achieved well at primary school, especially those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, were failing to reach their full potential after the age of 11. The reasons for this were:

• poor transition arrangements with feeder primary schools that left many academically gifted pupils treading water in their first few years of secondary school, rather than building on the gains made at key stage 2

• a culture of low expectations and a failure to nurture high ambition and scholastic excellence

- few checks being made on whether the teaching of mixed ability groups was challenging the brightest children sufficiently - disproportionate effort being spent in many schools on getting pupils over the GCSE D/C borderline rather than supporting the most able to secure the top A/A grades*

It is, therefore, dispiriting to learn that in spite of Ofsted’s sharpened focus in recent years, little progress seems to have been made since I first reported on this important issue.

We know that there are non-selective schools across the country that act as beacons of excellence when it comes to meeting the needs of their most able pupils. Unfortunately, there are not enough of them

Ofsted's Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, comments on the most able pupils, saying that there is still too much talent going to waste June 2016.

Can I ask once again why we are only talking about the needs of the high achievers? Why are high achievers more important than any other group?

Because Mumsnet, I think, BR.

Yet this is the same organisation that says that 86% of schools are outstanding or good?

The question to be asked then that as Wilshaw has been the head of OFSTED for 4 years, what has he done to improve this, and why do you think that the introduction of grammar schools would do so?

Do you not also think that in the years since 2010 when funding has been slashed there is a difference made here?

Not all the high performing students in these schools would make it into a grammar.

On top of this it has been well documented that the KS2 tests that are not great indicators of future exam results.