To think funding new grammar and faith schools is a bad idea.

[ConstantlyCold]

Just that really. This will benefit pushy middle classes (like me) but not the kids that really need investing in.

Stupid idea.

I don’t have grammar schools in my area so I can’t comment. The hostility towards faith schools on mumsnet saddens me. It comes across like intolerance. Someone earlier said that 40% of people have no faith- well that leaves 60% (the majority) who do have a faith. So why should there not be schools focused on the majority as well as the minority. Of course there are (and should be) limits on what can be taught in religious schools. But not everyone is the same. Those who have no faith can’t expect to impose their lack of faith on others. There needs to be tolerance and respect for all.

Ofc my dcs go to a (non Christian) religious school. It’s an excellent school with a diverse range of families which provides a fantastic education with space for kids of a minority religion to celebrate their festivals from their family background and not feel like the odd ones out from a young age. There are plenty of other schools locally for other families. I can’t see any reason why people would oppose that other than intolerance.

Often people are angry because the local faith school is good whereas the local non denominational school is not. That’s not an argument against faith schools.

@stopfuckingshoutingatme I feel exactly the same way. I would rather my DDs went to the local "good" non-faith school than the "outstanding" CofE school that requires proof of church attendance.
I would rather she went to a school with a kids from a wide range of backgrounds.

"The hostility towards faith schools on mumsnet saddens me. It comes across like intolerance. Someone earlier said that 40% of people have no faith- well that leaves 60% (the majority) who do have a faith"
It's more like 60:40-so the other way round.
Can you explain why it is intolerant to object to people of faith having access to a third more state funded schools than people who don't have a faith?

I am C of E I still have issues with faith schools and would never have picked one for DS. He is 8 now and has very fixed views of his own beliefs which make me sure I made the right decision to discount church schools as it wouldn’t have been right for him and his Beliefs

Yes, it's waste of time , efforts , money and resources. Secondary schools do a lot of streaming, so they do base their teaching on abilities and support differently gifted, disadvantaged, etc.
And why other taxpayers should pay for my child getting certain religious views? They shouldn't. Parents are responsible for their children's religious education.

3 out of 4 18-24 year olds say they have no religious beliefs.

Why are we plumping up a faith school sector for the children of this generation? It makes no sense, financially or democratically.

50% of people say they're CofE - it doesn't actually mean anything. My mum and dad would say they were but the only time they set foot in a church is for a wedding or a funeral.

Religion should have nothing to do with education

Dungeon: the super selectives are a way away. A very few parents locally (tutor like mad in order to) choose them. Very very few bright young people are beyond the scale of top sets getting 9s. And since the introduction of grave 9 material and standards. Yes, our rough comps got a significant number of 9s in Maths, sent several to the King’s maths school. My own mathematician is predicted the grades at A level this year that will fulfill the Cambridge offer. My friend’s Dd a couple of year’s ago got an unconditional offer for maths from Oxbridge. NONE of these kids required a seperate school in seperate grounds to achieve this

Very very few bright young people are beyond the scale of top sets getting 9s.

Quite of few of the children at DDs' school got marks which were well above the border for a 9 in Maths and English. Even my own DD who hates maths and was (according to her) quite average at her school for maths got a 9. I think being surrounded children who were very good at maths made her raise her game and work on a subject she hated.

Someone earlier said that 40% of people have no faith- well that leaves 60% (the majority) who do have a faith. So why should there not be schools focused on the majority as well as the minority.

But 60% of people are not churchgoers, and entrance to popular faith schools isn't dependent on "faith' but rather demonstration of faith by way of regular church attendance and more! So a child of parents with genuine faith could still be excluded over a child whose parents are clued up and willing to play the game. Also those parents still have the choice of popular non-faith schools but it doesn't work the other way around. And while a child from a no faith family will be excluded from a popular faith school they could still be allocated a place in an undersubcribed one that wasn't their choice at all.

Ofc my dcs go to a (non Christian) religious school. It’s an excellent school with a diverse range of families which provides a fantastic education with space for kids of a minority religion to celebrate their festivals from their family background and not feel like the odd ones out from a young age.

Then you are fortunate that there is a school for your minority religion in your area. You might feel differently if you lived in an area where no such school existed and your 5 nearest schools were RC or CofE and you stood no chance of a place in any of them.

bettyford

You made really interesting point a while back re people who went to the middling school where it was uncool to work, want thier dc in a different environment. Whereas how many posters actually went to grammar school don't want one for their dc.

Certainly on here this seems the case in the small snap shot we have. In government extraordinary amount of people who went to the grammar don't want that for thier dc.
Whereas some posters who slogged it out in a tough school would walk over coals to get something better.

And being against faith schools doesn't mean being hostile or intolerant towards religion. Not at all.
I strongly believe that it's not appropriate to divide children by faith. They need to get education at school about different religions but it must be the same at all schools.
Religious beliefs of particular family is their own responsibility. Parents are free to bring up their children as they wish. They could go to their church/mosque/ etc at the weekend and spend time with other families. What this to do with school?

I disagree with faith schools (as i do all selection). I am not hostile to religion. I have a religious faith.

Dungeon: that happens in comps, too!
There are 2 kids in Ds’s class that have never, from yr 7 onwards, got anything other than 100% in any test in Maths and Further Maths (currently in Yr 12) even when they were scoring them on actual past papers when they hadn’t yet finished the syllabus. In younger years they did Maths Club with older kids, then they have been doing maths club run for the top maths students with Oxbridge Maths mentors to ensure challenge.

Being in a comp does not reduce kids to a slough of mediocrity!

ScrubTheDecks I know what happens in comps as I went to one as did DH (we lived in different parts of the country compared with now). I didn't say that all kids are reduced to mediocrity at all so stop trying to put words in my mouth. Obviously, there will be a couple of kids who are really good at maths and get further maths at A levels etc. I did myself. However, there won't be that many compared with the highly selective grammars even in the top sets of comprehensive. That won't matter for many children but I do feel that for mine it helped them to raise their game.

I know what happens in super-selectives...I went to one...

Yes, you feel it helped your Dd - which is great. You don't actually know whether she would have done any worse in a comp. Many kids flourish on grammars, that much is indisputable.

However, anecdotal evidence about your children or mine is just that. The overall stats show that actually there is nothing in it when you compare selective education against comprehensive. Kent as a county does no better overall for having a full grammar system. So as a basis for £millions of investment in the system, our individual feelings about our children are interesting but not conclusive.

We know individual children do well in grammars and super-selectives (and to be fair, with such an intake the school would be doing a spectacularly bad job if they didn't do well). I am saying that bright children including super-bright also do well, VERY well, in comps. This is what seems to be in doubt in Theresa May's mind and the minds of many parents. That comps will fail bright children.

My DH's comp failed him (though he did OK in the end) because it was a truly terrible 80s comp in an inner-city. He can clearly see the difference between his comp then and the new school now built on the exact same site but run on current methods and approaches. So,,,,out of date info is pretty irrelevant too.

Which is where we started.

Yes, you feel it helped your Dd - which is great. You don't actually know whether she would have done any worse in a comp. Many kids flourish on grammars, that much is indisputable.

Equally, you don't know for sure that your DC wouldn't have done better at a superselective grammar. I do know from what my DDs say, that being at the grammar makes them work harder because they forget that they are at a grammar and if they get an average mark in a test they feel haven't done that well which makes them try harder. They say they wouldn't feel like that in a comprehensive because even if it was an average mark in the top set, the other classes would have lower marks.

However, anecdotal evidence about your children or mine is just that.

But you asked what could be delivered by superselective that could not be delivered in the top set of a comprehensive so I stated an advantage for some children.I didn’t state that it applies to everyone.

The overall stats show that actually there is nothing in it when you compare selective education against comprehensive. Kent as a county does no better overall for having a full grammar system.

I stated that there are no pros to the grammar secondary modern system as in Kent. I just think that there are pros as well as cons to the superselectives.

So as a basis for £millions of investment in the system, our individual feelings about our children are interesting but not conclusive.

Again, I have stated that I don't agree with extra funding or expansion. That could potentially bring back systems such as the one in Kent. I was just answering your question about what a superselective grammar school can offer vs. a comprehensive.

My DH's comp failed him (though he did OK in the end) because it was a truly terrible 80s comp in an inner-city. He can clearly see the difference between his comp then and the new school now built on the exact same site but run on current methods and approaches. So,,,,out of date info is pretty irrelevant too.

What out of date info is irrelevant? As I said, I went to a good comp in the 80s so I’m not comparing bad comprehensives with superselectives.

scrubthedecks I really don't think you have a clue if you use the Kent system when discussing super selective (I'll give you a clue, Kent isn't super selective)

My ds went to a Secondary. He is strong at maths, but weaker at English - although he passed all his GCSE's.
He scored a 9 in maths at GCSE - so top 2/3% nationally, but he couldn't do further maths at his secondary sixth form as they couldn't offer it. How is that a fair system?

Bumpowder: I am well aware that on the whole most Kent Grammars are not super-selective. (Though there is at least one I know of that takes the top scores regardless of distance.)

I was pointing out that a whole grammar system does not increase the overall achievement of average achievement over the whole county. As part of the argument against TM's £50m I wasn't talking about super-selective in that para

Dungeon - all fair enough.

(the comparing old comps to new ones was part of a convo further down the thread...sorry to be confusing)

In our town we have only comprehensive non-faith schools. So no extra funding for any of the local schools. And definitely no extra funding for SEN provision in mainstream. The schools are full to bursting. And still they vote for a Tory MP again and again.

ppot it isn't. And is another demonstration as to what is wrong with the 11+ segregation. He should be doing Maths and Further Maths (and no doubt triple science) in top sets and Literature etc in middle sets, or whatever, at a comprehensive school.

Write to your MP!

I am absolutely bloody outraged at this. For what it’s worth, we have a lot of fantastic grammar schools here (Midlands) and I’m not opposed to them in principle. I think what this funding has been earmarked for is, in a way, of secondary (no pun intended) importance.

HOW DARE the government acknowledge that budgets are tight and times are hard (as Damien Hinds said himself only last week) then announce that they’ve magically whipped up £50 mil for THIS???!

How dare they force schools to beg parents for contributions. How dare they put extra pressure on teachers to buy resources (I’ve spent a fortune on stuff my my class. Pens. Paper. Basic things that a school should have.)

But above all, how dare they force schools to cut TAs and other staff who do a, frankly, bloody amazing job supporting the children who need the most support?

The future for state education has never been bleaker than it is now yet THIS is the Tory priority?!!

Ironically, that £50 mil is more or less what our LEA will lose in education funding for state schools. That’s £50 mil less to educate the kids in poverty, in care, with SEN.

It’s fucking disgraceful.