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 can remember my mum saying that it was a labour government that changed the system

More grammars closed under Thatcher than under Labour, I believe. Here’s part of the Conservative manifesto - clearly states it’s generally accepted that selection at 11 isn’t a good idea.

noble, that is interesting. i was 14 when the Tories got in ( 1979) so by then i only had two years to go, so wasnt aware of that facet, plus i was
in a comprehensive , our borough had done away with grammar schools.

Some kids also pass the Kent test and choose not to go to grammar school. And many kids don't pass the test who are high ability, because it measures how you do in a test in particular things specific to the test on one day aged 10, not how well you perform across a whole spectrum of subjects.

This is not an argument in favour of the Kent system, but just that it's wrong to say that the grammar schools "cream off the top 25%".

I can only speak for the local non-selective schools, but they perform at above national average in GCSE and A Level results and I know of many children of friends getting fantastic exam results there. If DD2 doesn't pass the 11+ I have no worries about her going to local non-selective schools as they are very good. We are in a much better position than a lot of parents in the country.

Come on! Seriously?!
Clever kids need to be given the chance to learn even if they come from a background where the parents are literally lying around, sleeping all day, training devil dogs, getting tattooed and generally being an absolute fucking disgrace. The brain is there let’s train it.

Anyone want to have a go? Cos I don’t care! It’s an absolute outrage. There are really bright kids out there with stupid bloody parents thicker than a fucking navies sandwich, it’s wrong and it should be stopped and that’s why the country is going to fuck.

Not sure how Faith schools get away with it! In employment, you would not be able to discriminate on grounds of religion. Why is it allowed for schools? Faith schools can still play a valuable role in education, but they should not be allowed to exclude children based on their faith.

“I can only speak for the local non-selective schools, but they perform at above national average in GCSE and A Level results and I know of many children of friends getting fantastic exam results there”

So why have the grammar school, then?

@BertrandRussell - worth noting that not all towns in Kent do have grammar schools- or only have one for boys or girls, not both. In those towns, the "comps" are closer to comps as a large number of parents can't facilitate their dcs going to another town to school.

Interesting- could you give an example of a couple of those towns?

I'm really cross at this. I have three children. One went to grammar. Two comp. one is at sixth form grammar now.
It's true that families with more money have access to tutors and 'know how' to support them through coaching.
As I say to mine ...grammar children get better grades because they are the brightest 10% ( or whatever) of kids taken. In the same way you expect a special needs school to produce lower results. It's not a reflection really of teaching. It's because they are cleverer kids.
My son is at a grammar sixth form. I can honestly say the teaching is awful and the care and support is shocking . No comparison to the high school he was at. It's all just copying from board work. I asked ' will there be holiday revision classes?' No. No point'.
On the other hand the high school teachers stay after school and open on hols.
I'm actually so glad he hasn't been there throughout. They do coast along with ancient teachers and just know they will get results.
All kids deserve support and resources in school, I'd love all schools to get help. The high schools must despair. It's so unfair and elitist and will make other schools look second class.

"My son is at a grammar sixth form. I can honestly say the teaching is awful and the care and support is shocking"
Yes, my ds is at a grammar 6th as well-but he chose it because it is stupendous school that meets his needs exactly. If he hadn't got in,, he would not have gone to the other available grammar 6ths but to a high school for the reasons you say.

I don’t think it has been mentioned on this thread the effect that grammars have on neighbouring schools by hoovering up the most experienced teachers. We know that grammars have far fewer problems with recruitment and retention than secondary moderns and this will affect the surrounding schools by draining the recruitment pool at the top end.

I’m on the fence re grammars and against faith schools.

My understanding is that grammars tend to wick away the ‘talent’ leaving other schools worse.

In my town there are actually two sets of grammars and some of the other schools are truly dreadful. If govt is offering to expand them the situation will get worse.

Barnet LB has plenty of faith schools meaning my dc had fewer options as we wouldn’t be eligible for any of them. How is that fair?

It’s great to give people more choices but in doing so it’s taking away choices for others.

DD goes to a grammar school. I will say that being surrounded by bright kids all day does make a difference; everybody she's talking to, all the time, is fairly intelligent. I think this atmosphere makes a big difference in turning out clever kids.

There's a big mix of classes, which I understand isn't generally the norm. One girl went to a private school - DD was told she was coached with 11+ tests since year 2! Other girls are lower/working class. DD's school is quite good with balancing out the playing field here - funds so that they can still go on expensive trips their parents can't afford, free equipment that the parents would generally have to buy etc. From my understanding all grammar schools requesting the money would have to show they're trying to improve social mobility during the selection before they can get it. If that actually does happen, I don't see a problem with it.

Faith schools are a different issue.

"DD goes to a grammar school. I will say that being surrounded by bright kids all day does make a difference"

Yes-that's what happens in top sets.
The difference in a comprehensive school is that in non academic subjects you discover that the people who aren't in top sets might be good at stuff too. And there is no risk of becoming the sort of person who might say, as I heard recently on the streets of our small town "Oh, we're playing the thick school on Wednesday-that should be easy"

I'm actually agreeing with Bertrand for once!

Mixed ability schools are a far more balanced environment for children. They always put children in sets for core subjects so you have the advantages of your bright child being stimulated by other bright children in languages, maths, science, etc but they don't get overly absorbed by the important of academic ability.

I don't just mean that in class she is around top-performing kids. I mean that that's what she lives and breathes. Honestly sometimes I find it a bit unnerving, but also it does definitely contribute to academic success. Every day she is around kids who either a) have an incredible work ethic or b) are extremely intelligent or c) both. There's selective trips. There's prizes and muse boards dedicated to kids who have done well. They get handed out photocopies of stellar work from children in their year as an incentive. I know it sounds awful typing it, but it's actually a wonderful motivator for her. And it's not just focused on things like Maths and Science- there's lots of these selective trips and honourable mentions about sport, art, music etc.

I remember once I said, "it's okay to just get good results in your GCSE, you know. They don't have to be fantastic." I do worry that it pressures her!
DD replied, "oh, I know. It wouldn't be the end of the world to get 7's in one or two."

I'm not sure if it's just DD's school that's so highly competitive or all grammar schools. I doubt it would work for all kids but the atmosphere of competition, the work ethic, the aspiration coming from all corners undoubtedly motivates DD. I think in comprehensives, even in top sets, you're coming into contact with kids who just don't care and the general atmosphere of schools is affected by that. While I don't doubt that DD could do excellently in a comprehensive, it's made a massive difference in how much work she puts in (she's always been very intelligent, but could be a bit lazy).

Roses - I would be interested to know how many pupils at the school are in receipt of pupil premium. I asked another poster who made that assertion about her child's grammar and she never replied.

Obviously I recognize there's problems with the current school system and that it's not impossible to get good results in a comprehensive. But I definitely don't regret making this choice for DD, and she absolutely adores her school. The competitiveness definitely works for her - it's probably the most effective part of being in a grammar school (and possibly one that it would be hard to replicate somewhere else.)

I don't know and I doubt DD would either. It's not something that the school puts up publicly, obviously.
I know that one of DD's very close friends receives it because DD mentioned it once. Other than that, I wouldn't know - I'm not sure DD even knows the finances of all the people in her school, let alone discusses them with me!
Generally I think they don't really discuss who went to private and who gets pupil premium at DD's school. I know in some schools class can be quite obvious and prevalent. At hers I don't think they really care.

I doubt it would work for all kids but the atmosphere of competition, the work ethic, the aspiration coming from all corners undoubtedly motivates DD. I think in comprehensives, even in top sets, you're coming into contact with kids who just don't care and the general atmosphere of schools is affected by that. While I don't doubt that DD could do excellently in a comprehensive, it's made a massive difference in how much work she puts in (she's always been very intelligent, but could be a bit lazy).

This has been the case for my children and I agree that it wouldn't be replicated in the top set of a comprehensive (it wasn't for me anyway). While it's not a good reason for expanding grammars I don't agree with the argument that top sets in comprehensives are just the same.

I asked another poster who made that assertion about her child's grammar and she never replied.

Perhaps the poster lives in Birmingham where I think it is about 14 to 25% now.

I think it's more of a case for having grammar schools than expanding them. I know some people would like to do away with them completely.

I think it gave DS a shock too - at primary school he didn't have to work much to be top of the class. At his secondary grammar school, he actually has to study if he wants the top mark. His intelligence only got him to the middle or so - because there were lots of kids putting a load of work in. I almost cried when I came in and saw him voluntarily studying for a maths exam because he wanted to get 100% and beat John!

"I don't know and I doubt DD would either. It's not something that the school puts up publicly, obviously."

You can easily find out- it's part of the DFES league tables so very public.. It will probably be about 2% at the most. In our town-with a grammar and a high school about a mile apart serving the same communities, the grammar has slightly less than 2% PP- a slight improvement from 0 last year, and the high school consistently around 36%.

I doubt it would work for all kids but the atmosphere of competition, the work ethic, the aspiration coming from all corners undoubtedly motivates DD. I think in comprehensives, even in top sets, you're coming into contact with kids who just don't care and the general atmosphere of schools is affected by that. While I don't doubt that DD could do excellently in a comprehensive, it's made a massive difference in how much work she puts in (she's always been very intelligent, but could be a bit lazy).

Isn't this harking back to the idea that grammar schools are basically cheaper private schools though? I'm sure you only get that high concentration of crazily motivated children because their parents have pushed them to be that way.