If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

[Rosaluxemberg]

Do you think it would help social mobility ? And that children on FSM or from very disadvantaged backgrounds who showed academic promise could gain entry with contextual 11 plus marks (like Unis).
To me the fact that privately educated children can benefit from 7 years of great education, with small classes, lots of attention, and to cap it all, preparation towards the 11 plus just seems so unfair and defeats the whole objective of it. Maybe there’d be more mixing of kids as middle class parents had to decide which path to take.
Who knows ? Any thoughts ?

However, for GCSE choice subjects, mixed ability classes may be the norm - Art, Music, DT, Drama etc were all mixed ability at my dc’s comp.

My DC’s experience, both in secondary schools with a wide mix of abilities and in parts of the UK with different education systems, is of setting and not streaming (as was my experience at comprehensive in the 70s/80s). We all also had the opportunity to either take exams early, take additional maths courses or skip to a higher level qualification.

This million times!

And there is absolutely nothing that government can do about it, it's coming from families. Just read those threads "should I take my child for holiday during term time"

So let's force those PS out of their schools, deny them grammars and chuck them to sinking comps where majority of families simply don't care hoping that those proverbial 7% will make these schools thrive

You’re quite right, I was using streaming as an umbrella term for both setting and streaming. The point is that one way or another, you need the abilities to be separated. Unfortunately, it’s not the case universally and plenty of schools actively discourage it and insist on mixed ability classes

@nearlylovemyusername Having an engaged parent/s makes a world of difference, regardless of the child’s ability - it is even more important if a child finds a particular area or subject challenging.

@FancyBiscuitsLevel Why would it be selfish to want your own child to do as well as possible? It’s almost as if there is contempt for children who do well academically, and the idea that if they are so intelligent they will get there anyway. All children need to be nurtured.

It’s no wonder being smart in most schools automatically makes you uncool. It starts at home.

So let's force those PS out of their schools, deny them grammars and chuck them to sinking comps where majority of families simply don't care hoping that those proverbial 7% will make these schools thrive

The thing is, comprehensive state schools tend to reflect their local area. It is unlikely that the majority pf parents currently using grammar or private schools live in the deprived areas (post-industrial; large council estates; coastal towns) where the schools described as ‘sink’ (for their outcomes, which are massively affected by their intake) tend to be situated.

Comprehensive state schools are universally struggling due to lack of funding (both direct and for support services such as SEN and social services) and teachers leaving the profession. Properly funded and supported comprehensives would not be sinking - but this needs huge attention, and huge focus and funding of both education and support services to work.

The difference is in the culture of success that exists in independents - it's cool to do well.

That’s a very lazy trope - it is neither true that all independents have a culture of success (arrogance and machismo, perhaps) nor that all state schools - of all types - lack it.

This is factually incorrect.

London here - nice primaries but most professional/educated/middle class, whatever you call it, families send their kids to either multiple (and frequently top something in the UK) PS or to a few super selective grammars.

So perfectly nice and reasonably wealthy areas with pockets of social housing nearby which are spread over entire London have comps/academies filled with children who didn't make it to PSs or grammars. I live very close to one of such schools - I'm really scared of those teens when they go to/from school and see them very frequently shoplifting etc, straight in their uniforms.

I apologise, I should have made it clear that I was talking about non-London.

It is a very circular argument, though, isn’t it? The very habit of sending children to private or selective schools has created these ‘sink’ schools (probably not sink in national terms - in the same way as it is possible to mis-idolise a very nationally average school due to its outlier status in the surroundings, it is also possible to mis-demonise a very nationally average school in the same way) and it is not easy to see a way forward.

I haven't seen any evidence of schools round here putting this into practice. We are in a non grammar area and all high schools still currently set children in high school.

Setting is pretty much universal ime. Streaming is rare, rightly so. Why should children only do PE with those who are had similar Maths exam results as them? It makes no sense.

IIRC research suggests that it's only the very top (1%??) of the ability range who do better in sets (except maths). Other factors (such as good teaching) make much more of a difference.

My DC went to a school that taught mixed ability (except maths) throughout. A neighbouring school with similar socio economic profile and ability intake had a policy of "set for everything from Day 1". The GCSE results (allowing for some interpretation - for example neighbouring school only allowed top 10% to sit triple science) were virtually identical.

I actually think there needs to be more variety of schools to suit different children. Special schools, academic and high pressure schools, mixed ability schools, small schools, online schools, sporty schools, large schools with lots of subject options. Children might be happier if they could go to the school that suits them rather than head off to private schools. I get that there is a funding issue with this though!

Yes, I’ve heard that too but speak to any teacher and you’ll hear a different story. You can’t teach properly to the top end when you have illiterate children at the bottom end. You can’t teach to the bottom end because the top end are bored and unfulfilled. You end up teaching to the middle and the only ones that is suitable for is the middle. If you’re lucky enough to have a TA then you teach to the top. It very much depends on the makeup of the class and the area the school is in. You can manage if everyone is at least a 5 when they come in. If they range between a 2 and a 9 and you have 30 odd of them in your own, it’s impossible to teach properly for everyone. It also necessarily means you teach to the test.

Exactly. We need more choice not less. 1 size fits all has proven not to work.

Well said.

Yep. I don't for one minute think thqt schools are "bad" because of bad teachers - I have friends who teach in such schools who are excellent. But whst they have to put up with from some (most) parents and pupils is disgusting. We can throw as much money at those schools as we like but until the parents and pupils improve their attitude then nothing will change.

Rubbish, the Labour Party abolished them because they were perceived to be elitist and allowed children to outperform others.

Exactly. We need more choice not less. 1 size fits all has proven not to work.

This only works if all types of school have the same status and prestige.

We shout ‘keep grammars’, but we don’t shout ‘keep secondary moderns’.

We shout ‘Keep private schools’ but we don’t shout ‘Hugely expand Special Schools / Expand the range of PRUs’

While there are differences in the value people ascribe to different types of school, variety does not help.

If grammars were ‘good’, then grammar areas would perform better at a whole cohort level than comprehensive areas.

Comparison across areas of matched socio-economics but different systems shows that there is no advantage at a whole cohort level.

She says she failed two particular subjects. I assume she passed the others, as her post implies she went straight from school to university.

Separately though, there used to be a lot more adult education colleges. Low cost, many part-time, evening or weekend, sometimes free and sometimes funded by employers who also offered day release.

They offered both vocational and academic courses. Some people did them simply for enjoyment, others did it for a career change including people who wanted to go on to university after the course.

There were courses for people who wanted to go to university but hadn't passed or taken O Levels, CSEs, or GCSEs. There was also the Open University. It used to be much cheaper and with much more flexible options than it offers now. People could dip in and out and if studying for a degree they could do it in stages, sometimes taking years to complete (by their own choice).

Some basic stats on Grammars in England from the House of Commons Library, from March 2023. % at Grammar marginally higher than I thought - 5.3%; I incorrectly guesstimated 4-45.%

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07070/#:~:text=In%20January%202022%2C%20around%20188%2C000,in%20just%2011%20local%20authorities.

Then this is the link to the full report

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07070/SN07070.pdf

Then a slightly older one from 2020 which includes a brief history of grammar introduction and numbers.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01398/SN01398.pdf

Sort of related, HOCL published a report on Faith Schools (again England only) just last week. Stats - eg overall numbers; local concentrations, fsm %- start on page 18
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06972/SN06972.pdf

I think the ability to permanently expel disruptive kids from schools would do more to encourage motivated parents to try nonselective state school. In some areas gang members rule the roost and it’s so frustrating and frightening for parents that without the option of state grammar they leave.

A good example is Milton Keynes - the gang violence that occured there a few years ago was centred around state schools in the nicest areas. So parents with means were aiming for private or the buckinghamshre / aylesbury grammars - when the grammar option became unachievable due to stricter catchments the motivated parents left to move into catchments or try for private. These weren’t rich people but often people who centred their finances around tutoring / private school.

That actually highlights the real issue with inequality. Not private school versus state or comp versus grammar, but housing unaffordability and, linked to that, poverty. Both are the real causes of inequality.

London is a good example. It's the most extreme but it's becoming a problem elsewhere too. Average income households can no longer afford to live in London and have been forced out (hence why there's so many threads complaining about London 'blow-ins'). Only the wealthy can afford to stay or move there, unless one of the fortunate few to get social housing (I know people from London and social housing wait lists there can be 15 years).

Although that situation is most extreme in London, it is beginning to happen in other parts of the country to. Not everywhere but it's happening. But really the main thing to take from that is it's exactly what the poster you replied to says. The issue with inequality is less about state comp versus private or grammar. It's about the real causes of inequality, and housing is a big one.

To tackle it, we need more social housing (to include average income households, especially in places with extreme housing unaffordability like London). And ensure that social housing is spread evenly across all areas. That would ensure a better mix at schools, and in society in general. Also need to address poverty. Often linked to housing, but other needs are good job and training opportunities, supportive benefits system, improved child support system, and well funded public services. Everywhere in the UK.

Legislation for ballots to remove local selection (as introduced by the last Labour period in Government) still seem to exist. Only one ballot was ever held.

Comprehensive Future is, as the name suggest, not a lobby group for Grammars; however their relatively recent (2022) article is a not wholly unreasonable summary. https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/the-flawed-grammar-school-ballot-rules-discussed-in-the-lords/

and the BBC report on the only local ballot ever undertaken

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/673218.stm