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?

"There was no class/wealth devide to grammars in the 60s."
Yes, there was. There always has been.

I think they're a good idea in principle. I didn't go to a grammar school but had an assisted place to a private school (the one good thing the tories ever did for me). I know that I did much better there than I would have had I gone to the default local comprehensive. I think if there are children of particular ability who would benefit then it is to everyone's advantage that they be given the opportunity to achieve and succeed.
Where it becomes a grey area is with the tutoring that now comes with the competition to get a place at selective schools. I don't know if it just wasn't a thing where I lived because there were no grammars near me, or maybe it was less common back then, but pushing a child beyond their natural ability just to get them through the door only for them to inevitably flounder when they get in doesn't seem fair or right to me.

I went to a good comprehensive school those that were academic were pushed many went to good universities I was average I got some decent GCSE,s that I wouldn't have got had I gone to secondary modern those that were not academic we're also given a chance in my opinion, my boys would never have got into a grammar school ds1 is not academic and ds2 goes to a special school .

Well I don't know how you can support the comp system knowing that richer families monopolise the best schools.

0% FSM is not a national figure as Bertrand well knows. Some comps have less FSM than some grammars, and then we get those over the threshold which run pretty similar.Nobody is suggesting the Kent model.

Those on FSM (particularly high achievers)don't do well in comps so one can assume they don't frequent the top sets in comps with all the advantages they give either. At least something is being done about FSM numbers in grammars. What is being done about FSM numbers in the best comps and FSM numbers in the top sets within all comps?

I never went to one and I support them.

I grew up on a council estate and went to a really crap secondary school. I did ok, despite that. But not having grammar schools means bright kids whose families can't afford to live near good schools (like mine) get forgotten. Grammar schools were few and far between near me and I missed out on a place due to numbers.

Not all kids are the same or learn at the same speed and schools should reflect this. Kids aren't robots.

I think unfortunately the name "comprehensive" give a warm and fluffy feel - you imagine that everyone will go there and there will be top sets of high academic ability etc.

I think a lot of comprehensives are actually secondary moderns, there isn't really enough to make a top set (Ive taught top sets where not everyone would get even a c). And that's in a comp area with no selective education.

My friends DD was picked out for extra lessons for a particular sport - no worry over whether she was FSM, she was just good, but we don't seem to do that with academic ability.

I think fsm is a bit of a red herring.
Children on fsm are less likely to have parents in good jobs.
Parents in less good jobs are less likely to have good academic quali faction themselves - and have less likely hood therefore of passing good at maths genes to their kids.
Hence smaller numbers if fsm in selective education.
They are also less likely to be tall too!
Or have the brca 1 gene.

ignoring where the teachers will come from, school funding etc.

I don't have any major concerns about the theory behind GS.

In reality they can cause huge issues.

My main complaint is that whilst spending the money at on the pupils those at the lower to middle end and those with a send diagnosis (or not) that need it more are being ignored and not catered for.

I went to a middle of the road comp and had a mixed experience, and overall would like something different/"better" (in my judgment I guess) for my DC. At that time there were no ability sets apart from maths, high disruption, social pressure not to be a "swot", and no extracurricular activities were offered, apart from music, for those who could pay for lessons, which the council ran.

Don't live in a grammar area, and am not in catchment for the popular comp and the local one is worse in terms of results than my old school so am not keen. If we did have grammars one of my DC might get in, the other would probably not. So for us as a family having them might be good, but I think entry is unfair as DC with parents with fewer resources or who don't assist with education are at such a disadvantage.

I went to Grammar and am now vehemently opposed to the re-introduction of selective education.

There is no point comparing our own school experiences with years ago. My DC's comp was ASBO on legs during my teen years, as were many that I had contact with during the 80's. Now they are all high performing functioning schools, ours is 'outstanding' and through steaming and setting supports kids with a huge range of abilities (from Inclusion groups to Oxbridge candidates) to their full potential.

I sympathise with parents who do not have good schools nearby, but firmly believe the answer is to address that, not hoik out a few high ability kids and leave the rest.

The Comprehensive model can and does work, and the evidence is there to prove it.

The PM's personal crusade to bring back the 50's is not evidence based.

"I think fsm is a bit of a red herring.
Children on fsm are less likely to have parents in good jobs."

Are you suggesting that poor children are inherently less intelligent than better off ones?

Green, I have posted these figures before. I have rounded them a little.

Leafiest of leafy comps:
PP c. 10%, progress for high ability children c. 0.6

Grammar schools:
A: PP

On a slightly different point, if you dig around the DfE statistics, there are some absolutely extraordinary examples of comprehensives making brilliant progress with children of all abilities even when they have very, very high levels of PP children.

Some are in London, so you could argue that is a funding issue, as they are so much better funded than anywhere else in the country, but there are others elsewhere.

Why don't we hear the cry 'Let's make every school like these [insert list of examples here]' rather than 'Let's create some grammars to collect together a few children while leaving the others in an even worse position'?

"I think fsm is a bit of a red herring.
Children on fsm are less likely to have parents in good jobs."

And there was me thinking that the whole point of the Pro-Grammar position was that it provided an educational step up for children in less good jobs!!

Without that they are surely merely refuges for an elite?

I think it is true that even good Comps have not always done as well as they might for their most able, especially while the performance benchmark was 5 A*-C. I think the new grade 9, and Progress 8 will change this, and Theresa May needs to wait and look at this before yet more meddling.

My Dc are in a non Leafy London comp and I am campaigning hard for investment in all schools nationally to be raised to the upper levels of funding, and then some.

We need a well educated new generation to make this country innovative and resilient, and we need to send them the message that their education, all education, is part of our national treasure chest.

" think it is true that even good Comps have not always done as well as they might for their most able, especially while the performance benchmark was 5 A*-C. "

To be fair, I think the same is true for many grammars - they have relied on their high ability intake to produce good-looking 'raw' results, even when these do not represent particularly good progress for those children.

Ranking schools by Progress8 for different prior abilities is a very interesting process, but the DfE do not make it particularly easy to do....

cantkeep I agree. About the results for grammars, and about the DoE tables. It used to be so easy to see progress amongst each ability cohort etc, in clear tables. Now you have to search for impenetrable spreadsheets.

TestTube,

If I were to be cynical, I would say that this is probably deliberate, because lots of the analysis it was possible to do on the old tables did not fit with the Government's educational plans....

I went to a grammar. school and I don't support them. I favour smaller comprehensives with flexible setting in subjects. Ideally mixed schools with good discipline. There should be units on site for specific learning difficulties

Poor dc are not less intelligent but studies have shown that dc from middle class backgrounds often overtake children from poor backgrounds during primary school years.

Being poor can mean
Over crowding, being hungry which affects ability to concentrate, lack of access to experiences, internet access, own IT equipment, not enough heating. All this affects an ability to learn.

My DS attends a school that has a very large estate in its catchment area. I was involved with research in my local area 7 years ago about the need for a food bank and it has some of the most deprived postcodes in the country. Lots of pupil premium, they give all the dc breakfast over GCSE periods.

All that is about is equality of access, we all have our raw material and a natural level of ability. Dc from wealthier backgrounds have more advantages. Let's not pretend they don't.

Free school meals information from TES

[[https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/free-school-meal-pupils-half-as-likely-to-attend-russell-group-university/2018231.article

I worked in two RG Universities for about 25 years, serious ill health meant early retirement for me as my brain doesn't function correctly anymore. Most of my English students were from MC backgrounds you could just tell that was their tribe by mannerisms, accents etc.

PeanutButter, we all know the stats and the factors that mitigate against poor kids.

The point is that exactly because of that Grammar schools actually exacerbate the divide by being less accessible to those very kids.

Meanwhile, socially/ economically challenged kids are doing very well indeed in our non-selective comp.

Draylon,

I would support a 'Special Education' model of 'selective education for those at the very extreme end of the ability spectrum' - because yes, up there in the 98/ 99th centile, there are children who are so rare that it is difficult to cater for their needs in some subjects in a mainstream comprehensive.

The thing is, in my perfect world, there might be a couple of these units per county (a bit like current special schools for those with profound and multiple learning disabilities), co-located with a large mainstream comprehensive. Children would be identified using a process akin to the 'statementing' process used for children with SEN - administered at a primary school's request, by Ed Psychs.

The children would only attend those units for their areas of strength (e.g. university level maths for an 11 year old; multiple languages for those exceptionally gifted at language). For all other areas of the curriculum - Drama, PE, RE, etc etc - they would attend the adjoining comprehensive.

Peanutbutter,

The point is that if poorer children are overtaken by rcher peers during the primary school years despite the same raw ability, we should be seeking the REVERSE that at secondary, not reinforce it.

If selective schools do exist, then they should be taking the same % of PP children as the surrounding area [tbh, I think the same for comprehensive schools - that if the area as a whole has 24% PP, then all schools should admit that percentage, even if it means that the effective catchment for PP children is much larger than for others]. Yes, it would mean that selective schools and leafy comps would have to do what many schools in poor areas already do - get involved with social services, provide free breakfasts, deal with homelessness and lack of uniform and gangs and substance abusing parents and having no facilities to do homework at home, but why should all that burden be borne only by some schools, as it is now? If the burden is fairly shared, it has less impact on any given school.