To wish the extra funding for grammar schools was £500 million rather than £50 million.

[letstalk2000]

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/government-gives-16-grammar-schools-in-england-a-share-of-£50m-funding-pot-to-expand/ar-BBQqmk6

Instead of just 16 grammar schools sharing the pot of £50 million . It should be the full 164 of grammar schools hence the £500 million requirement.

Grammar schools as the flagships of the state education sector should have all the resources they require . In order to ensure a world class education is available to those that can make use of one.

I am not stupid and realise to make statements like this on here puts me on par with Nigel Farage or Katie Hopkins in the hearts and minds of the cohort which inhabits this parish !
However, I have a belief that if you have limited resources available you should make sure what you have got does not get wasted; i.e. put it in to areas such as selective education.

After all there are only about 220 good secondary schools in England with 164 of them being grammar schools. The other 56 being de facto grammar schools despite posing as comprehensives. This proves you cant be successful if you are all things to all people !

@letstalk2000

Nobody alive had anything to do with the British Empire fucking about countries

The effects are still kicking around. Do your research.

They are still elitist. Children are coached to get in. Fair enough if you can afford that, whilst still claiming all the whole that a state education is good enough for our kids.....so no. Not a fan of what grammar schools have become. Would prefer that every child, had access to even a tenth of the facilities and opportunities a grammar school gives. Would prefer 50 million went somewhere it can truly make a difference. And that's not a grammar school.

The argument of lets pop in a few more poor kids doesn't really wash. The issue with grammar schools is the elitism that now exists around them, much like independent schools but without the hefty price tag. So it's worth spending a considerable amount in the short term, for the long term gain of free education, already at an improved standard. I believe they should be funded in line with all other educational facilities, not above. And quite often their SEN capabilities are poor, leading to a less diverse classroom also.

I agree with the posters who would rather the money was spent on Dc with SEN- I have a child who has been failed terribly by the state system and CAHMS.

However, there are lots of myths bandied around on these threads about grammar school children having some sort of charmed life, poor SEN support and amazing facilities.

That’s not true, I have dc in grammar, private and state sector.
The grammar school has the worst facilities and lowest funding per pupil.
It’s also an often repeated fallacy about SEN, there is a high proportion of SEN at two of my dc grammar school, not on EHCP and therefore falling through the net of statistics and govt funding. I appreciate it’s the pupil premium that’s affecting the funding the most but it’s the secondary modern (high school)here which has the nicest facilities and who refused to take my dc with SN.

Grammar schools have significantly lower numbers of PP, SEN and EAL students and so recieve less funding than average.

Both the Crowther report of the 1950s and the Sutton Trust studies showed Grammar schools to be woefully inept at promoting social mobility, and had a much larger negative effect on those that didn't get in, than the 0.3 improvement in GCSE grade that the same children would have recieved at a satisfactory comprehensive.

There is no difference from a "good" school.

So yes YABU.

And quite often their SEN capabilities are poor, leading to a less diverse classroom also.

They lack diversity in other areas as well - 72% of grammar schools are single sex, just under 4% of pupils have SEN (without an education health care plan), 0.04% have SEN (with an EHC,) approximately 3% are eligible for the pupil premium.

For comprehensives it's 11% single sex, just over 2% with SEN (no EHC), 12% SEN with EHC, and 12% pupil premium.

The proportion of children with pupil premium was a fifth lower than the general population in their area and they have less pupils from low attaining ethic groups (Black African, Black Caribbean, Bangladeshi, Pakistani) - approx half that of in the local area. 40% of pupils come from the least deprived quartile of their local area compared with 25% in the local area. The proportion from the most deprived quartile was 8% compare to 20% in their local area.

They take around 13-15% of pupils from private prep. schools , around double the proportion of 10 year olds who go to private school. Of the 7% of high achieving children at primary level only just over 2% go to grammar school in areas with a grammar school.

I could go on but I've made my point.

First I'd be sorting out SEN funding which is in crisis

Then I'd be putting funding into the 50% of society that struggle to achieve that ebacc thing of 5 GCSE passes with English and Maths, don't do A levels and don't go to university.

I'd be developing a meaningful educational and set of qualifications for them that relate to the job market and sorting out the FE sector.

Then I don't think we'd need grammar schools anyway as the children studying the academic qualifications would be the ones that wanted to and were able to do them.

I have no idea where the figure of 220 good schools came from. But for the record, I find the idea that my children's comprehensive school is a grammar by another name quite insulting to the teachers who are delivering an amazing comprehensive education.

No selection. Very socially mixed. Caters for everyone, from those who will have done brilliantly if they scrape through English and maths to those who are getting 9s and A*s across the board.

It has a Good Ofsted rating and my goodness it could do with a wad of extra cash.

They lack diversity in other areas as well - 72% of grammar schools are single sex, just under 4% of pupils have SEN (without an education health care plan), 0.04% have SEN (with an EHC,) approximately 3% are eligible for the pupil premium

For comprehensives it's 11% single sex, just over 2% with SEN (no EHC), 12% SEN with EHC, and 12% pupil premium

That does back up exactly what I have said though, that grammars are taking a higher number of pupils with SN that aren’t on an EHCP.

As I said earlier, I have direct experience of dc with SN in a grammar and dc in all sectors in my area which I think is quite unusual.

Be careful of making assumptions that any of these children have a charmed life compared to everyone else.

I wish that more money was available for FE.
You know, the sector that delivers the skills and vocational education the country is crying out for.
feweek.co.uk/2018/09/17/ifs-report-further-education-has-been-the-biggest-loser-in-cuts-to-government-funding/

This is one of my ds schools

consultations.kent.gov.uk/consult.ti/thejuddschool/consultationHome

"That does back up exactly what I have said though, that grammars are taking a higher number of pupils with SN that aren’t on an EHCP."

In areas where there are no grammar schools where do you think those children will be going?

I wouldn't even know where the nearest grammar school to me is. What about we give £50 million to "normal" schools and raise the bar of education. If there wasn't any horrific schools and there was a basic level of education everywhere wouldn't that be better?
If all schools started at "good" every single child would be getting a decent education. Imagine what would happen to the country if everyone had a "good" education? Surely that's the answer?

"Be careful of making assumptions that any of these children have a charmed life compared to everyone else. "

Making the usual mumsnet mistake of taking a generality and making it personally specific.

In general Grammar school kids come from priviliged backgrounds and the schools do not take a proportionate number of deprived, SEN, or EAL students for the areas that they are in.

This suggests that on average most kids in grammar schools do have it better than other students.

Its why their are groups on here demanding they get more funding.

They shouldn't they are poor value for money and divisive, and only kept open because of political expediency. Funnily enough, most areas that still have Grammars are predominantly Conservative voting constituencies or were in the 1970s ( note the predominantly there), when Thatcher was closing grammar schools, which demonstrates this perfectly.

However, there are lots of myths bandied around on these threads about grammar school children having some sort of charmed life, poor SEN support and amazing facilities.

Have to agree with the "myth" about amazing facilities!

Our local state grammar is ancient and crumbling. The assembly hall and library look like some kind of Dickensian throwback and had buckets under the leaks on open day! An entire block is closed down as the leaky roof caused ceilings to collapse and there are ancient temporary classrooms dotted around the grounds. The sixth form centre is a basement!

By contrast, the local comps have clearly benefitted from millions of spending - state of the art sports halls, new sixth form centres with auditoriums, fantastic stage lighting & sound systems, and brand new science labs.

When you've visited all local state schools, it's definitely the comps that have had the money spent on them and the grammar has been left to rot. I asked the headmaster about it and he said that they have been applying for grants etc for improvements and new facilities but they were always getting turned down.

"By contrast, the local comps have clearly benefitted from millions of spending - state of the art sports halls, new sixth form centres with auditoriums, fantastic stage lighting & sound systems, and brand new science labs."

This would have been under the schools for the future program, terminated in 2010 by Michael Gove.

I wish all schools were as good as grammar schools and that there was adequate provision for children with additional needs.

I was educated at a private grammar, on a scholarship, and I never realised how lucky I was until years after I left school. The staff ratios, facilities, resources etc were far, far better than those at state schools friends went to, grammar, secondary modern or comprehensive (I was at school in the last years of the 11+).

Funnily enough, most areas that still have Grammars are predominantly Conservative voting constituencies or were in the 1970s ( note the predominantly there), when Thatcher was closing grammar schools, which demonstrates this perfectly.

Our county is Labour and always has been. Our city is Labour and always has been. We still have a grammar, and the county also has the odd grammar in other Labour towns. Funnily enough, the town I grew up in was Tory and it was the Labour county council who closed it. It does seem it was Labour council officials who wanted to keep grammars for themselves in their heartlands but to close down the ones in Tory towns.

Same has just happened with libraries. Again, Labour county council, who have closed a couple of dozen libraries - even single one of them in Tory voting villages and towns - not a single closure in a Labour village or town. Coincidence?

So much misinformation and prejudice on this thread about grammar schools and the children who go there.

You missed where I said "Not the predominantly there" .

The rest of your statement is a load of bollocks. The majority of Grammars are located in Tory constiuencies:

Lets look:

Penrith: Tory
All 4 in Lancashire: Tory

Trafford in Manchester - Two Labour one tory ( but in the 70s Trafford returned Tories under other boundaries).

Wirral - h now has a Labour MP, but used to elect Tories traditionally,.

Calderdale: Tory

Kirklees: Labour and was in the 70s.

North Yorkshire: All Tory seats.

West Midlands: Tory seats

Telford and Wrekin: Tory in the 70s and untill boundary changes.

I could go on and list Buckinghamshire and Kent which have the most ( but that's obvious) or Reading or Slough, ior the South West. But you know what the MPs for those areas are too don't you.

"So much misinformation and prejudice on this thread about grammar schools and the children who go there."

Not really, it all links to the facts.

But grammar schools disproportionately serve families that abuse state education. The funding should first and firemost go to children who otherwise wouldn’t have an issue fixation instead of going to children of unscrupulous parents who tutor their way into grammar schools to save money on their child’s education.

BorisBogtrotter did you even read the link?

Please don’t patronise me when you not only do I have a dc in Sec modern, SS grammar, normal grammar and private.
The cherry on the cake is the two have SN, one severe.

Perhaps take exception to the ridiculous generalisations on here about SN provision , all parents voting Tory and the ‘amazing facilities’?

I'd rather education was improved full stop. Special educational needs is far more in crisis than grammar schools and confidently grammars tend to weed out sen kids

This suggests that on average most kids in grammar schools do have it better than other students

Have what better? Funding? No, Family life? No.

Better results? Obviously because it’s selective.