To wonder if there are supporters of grammar schools who didn't go to grammar schools themselves

[WildebeestH]

Just that really. The only friends I have who support grammar schools went to grammar schools themselves. I'm intrigued to know if there are many people who support them having not been to a grammar (or other selective) school and if so why?

The kids of different abilities don't need to be in separate schools, they just all need to be in schools that areallowedto cater to their needs
This is so very very true.

You won't get many school senior leaders who would admit that in public, but it is nevertheless true
I think that's why a shift to progress 8 is a great thing, not just 5 A*-C including English and maths.
Schools are judged based on each child's progress. If a more able child should get a grade 7 (old A) and doesn't, it hits the school. Same for kids who really struggle. Instead of people writing them off and focusing on D-C conversion, it will make a difference whether the very weak get a 3 rather than a 2.

There is excellent stuff going on in many comprehensives. It just needs to be rolled out consistently.

"We already know."

People who support grammar schools don't. Or do and don't care. One or the other. There's no middle way.

Eolian for Education Secretary!

I have never understood why being slightly cleverer or even much cleverer than another child means that you have to be educated in a different building.

They don't, but there is no reason why they can't be. In exactly the same way many kids don't go to their local school but a preferred one further away or some go to church schools or free schools offering engineering, sport etc.

"I have never understood why being slightly cleverer or even much cleverer than another child means that you have to be educated in a different building"

PBR*

*parental bragging rights

Yeah that's right.🙄

And the worry that "thick" or "common"are contagious.........

So much talk about privilege yet the current system allows the wealthiest to select the best comprehensives with the rest making do. Grammars might not be perfect but they will be more equal than the current system of 'privilege'.

To be frank I see more bragging re poster's oh so perfect and wonderful comp choices.In RL nobody gives a shit and why on earth would they. I'm not the slightest bit interested in the other 6 schools my dd's friends separated off to. I'm sure they're not interested in mine.

Re 'common' you see far more scathing views from those at supposed better comps.

allows the wealthiest to select the best comprehensives with the rest making do

Grammars are far more stuffed with 'the wealthiest' than even the best comps.

And I think that the descriptions of excellent grammars aren't so much bragging as an attempt to counter claims that children who would pass a grammar school entrance test would suffer from going to a comprehensive.

"To be frank I see more bragging re poster's oh so perfect and wonderful comp choices."

I write about my experiences and observations of good comps I know:

• to counter a range of suppositions about comps and how they are not ABLE to cater for this or that child
• to give an example of what a good comp does and how it works, in answer to questions about 'how can we improve comps'
• to demonstrate that 'good ' comps are not just a product of leafy house price selection.

It's not bragging. We are lucky in having a choice of good comps. I realise they are not always good. They could be.

These discussions are not just based round parental competition, bragging and one upmanship.

My ds is at a secondary modern. I don't "brag" about it. I think it is s very good school, and does its best in very difficult circumstances. My ds is doing very well. He is, of course, by my definition, very privileged, so it is not surprising he is doing well.

That is the problem with grammar schools really. If more are opened up they will be siphoning off scarce resources from the other schools.

So much talk about privilege yet the current system allows the wealthiest to select the best comprehensives with the rest making do.
I'm against grammars and have already said this.
The current system maintains the privilege of some already.
Grammar schools doesn't improve that.

What would improve it is if all schools had the training, funding and resources to be fully comprehensives with tailored pathways for the most/less academically able - just like what goes on in many excellent comprehensives.

Unfortunately, there's free schools near me being funded as if they're full with only 2 year groups in. There's money spend nationally buying land for free schools that don't exist yet. There's been a failure to address schools that have needed help for years but now it's convenient and there's a shiny academy chain only now is any support put in place.

Improve the comprehensive offer for all children and stop patting about on grammars and free schools.

Eolian for Education Secretary!

The thing is, I've bailed out. Teaching was literally the only job I ever wanted to do since the age of 12. Not any more though. I'm still in teaching, because it's all I know. But as a cover supervisor and private tutor. I just can't bear being a proper secondary school teacher any more. It's hideous and depressing. What's really awful is, although 'Don't vote Tory if you're bothered about education' is very sound advice, I don't believe any UK party has the first clue about how to make schools better, I genuinely don't.

Actually, I think the Lib Dem education policy sounds pretty reasonable.
www.libdems.org.uk/education

Especially these bits:

• Establishing an independent Education Standards Authority to pilot, phase-in and resource future policy changes in consultation with professionals and experts.
• Reform Ofsted inspections so that they include a focus on longer-term outcomes and sustainable improvement as well as teacher workload, sickness and retention.

Give democratically accountable local authorities clear responsibility for local school places planning and repeal the rule that all new state funded schools must be free schools or academies. We will encourage local head teachers with a strong record to play a key role in school improvement, working with schools and local authorities. Scrap the planned expansion of grammar schools and devolve all capital monies for new school spaces to local authorities. Allow Ofsted to inspect both local authorities and academy chains. Rule out state-funded profit-making schools, and ensure that new schools are built in areas where there is a need for new school places, instead of wasting money on over-supply. Ensure that identification and support for special educational needs and disabilities takes place as early as possible. All new policies should have an assessment of how they impact pupils who have special educational needs, and ensure they adhere to duties under the Equality Act.

You're right, that's certainly more hopeful than the others. I'll be voting for them anyway. I live in a pretty safe Lib Dem seat - MP is Tim Farron, whose kids are at the local comp with mine.

Reform Ofsted inspections so that they include a focus on longer-term outcomes and sustainable improvement as well as teacher workload, sickness and retention
This one is massive for me and my area.

Great schools like mine look after staff and they stay for a decent amount of time. Low staff sickness, reasonable staff turnover (e.g. promotions or retirement) and get great results.

Struggling schools in our area are propped up by on the job trainee teachers, staff are usually out if specialism, staff come and go within 1-2 years, lots of staff absence and cover staff so no consistency. Unsurprisingly, behaviour gets worse and outcomes get worse.

Saying that, there's a certain academy chain around our end of the country that people warn you against working for because there's no long term consideration for staff or students according to the grapevine.

I agree with you, Eolian, about this - I don't believe any UK party has the first clue about how to make schools better,

The trouble is that both main parties get it seriously wrong. When, as Labour tends to do, they take the approach of mandating certain things, on the advice of the 'experts' in our university education departments, they end up embedding bad ideas: witness the prioritisation of whole language guessing in the National Literacy Strategy, for example, or the introduction of financial penalties for permanent exclusions.

Tories, on the other hand, tend to take the just-as-bad (worse?) approach of setting targets, in the hope that schools will research what works and choose the most effective methods - but many/most? don't, usually because they're wedded to their less effective pre-existing ideas, which again are what they were originally taught by 'experts' in teacher training. And those ideas often actually prevent teachers from teaching well: mandated group work, negative view of kids working in silence, no more than 10 minutes teacher talk in any lesson, VAK differentiation, etc., etc.

But of course Labour had targets too, and they allowed the 'regulatory capture' of Ofsted on their watch, so that many teachers are actually being forced to use these 'expert' methods that mean they have one hand tied behind their backs, as they try to achieve those targets: a 'perfect storm' that led to the constantly increasing pressure on teachers to work harder and harder. And the Tories have only made that worse.

This is why I'm very sceptical about the idea of a national body mandating change in consultation with 'experts'. Too many education 'experts' base their 'expertise' on ideology and philosophy, rather than actual evidence. (Witness the huge resistance among 'experts' to systematic phonics instruction.)

In my opinion, it's this anti-evidence bias of most of our 'experts' that lies at the deepest root of the problems with our schools, and until university education departments undergo serious reform, we will continue to have these problems.

I support grammar schools and I went to a grammar school. I come from a very working class background. I was, and still am, the only person to have gotten A-levels in my family. I have a PhD now, I have a fairly prestigious job. I would still be stuck in the working class if it wasn't for grammar schools. Thank goodness for grammar schools, giving other intelligent, working class children like me the oppotunity to achieve their full potential.

"Thank goodness for grammar schools, giving other intelligent, working class children like me the oppotunity to achieve their full potential."

If you genuinely think this, then you haven't done the reading.

Actually I think that the agency to pilot, phase-in and resource future policy changes is one of the most important proposals. Look at the immense mess caused by the rushed introduction of the new GCSEs, the total disaster that is the KS2 SATs, the much derided focus on obscure grammar, the damage being done to post-16 maths education. All the fault of one M. Gove who had had enough of experts and thought he knew better than everyone involved in education. The amount of expert advice he ignored to create this chaos is unbelievable and that amount of power should never be placed in the hands of politicians who are in charge of education for at most a few years.