To believe that we need to create two hundred more Grammar Schools for the Shires of England.

[redange]

To believe England needs two hundred new Grammar schools across the country and in doing this take the number of English Grammar Schools to 363.

I appreciate this is a post that is going to lead to me being called names and for posters to be looking at spelling and grammar mistakes as a means of belittlement .

Nonetheless, there must be support among some posters for the lifting of the 1998 Labour Ban on the creation of Grammar Schools where there is a desire or clear need. The only Grammar School that has been built since 1965 being the Weal Of Kent Grammar Annexe in Sevenoaks . Surely if the country is going to be able to grow economically, we need to revisit the idea of selective education across Sport, Art and academic rigour. It is also not impossible that a fairer and more equitable system of selection could be introduced alongside the 11+ exam. Thus, in doing so access to selective education should not be a 'one and only' chance. I think this is where a lot of people have problems, because they see selective education through the prism of pass or fail. Pass or Fail does not mean the same today as it meant in 1965 because firstly the advent of a single exam system of GCSE's and A levels that all pupils take or can advance to.

Building more SEN schools, PRUs would do more for the country as both the children needing alternative provision and the comprehensives that they attended would improve. Teachers would have an easier time which helps retention , the other pupils would have fewer disrupted days. Children needing alternative provision would also be happier and receive some education.

It’s more to guarantee they have future options than deciding their future at 11.

No one ever wants to bring back Secondary Moderns on these threads only Grammar schools.

As someone who attended a grammar school, I can tell you this is not true. They won't spend extra time and resources on the capable but struggling students who can get reasonable grades but aren't the straight A*/9 students that will benefit the school league table performance.

Instead they encourage the struggling students to leave, via a variety of legal but morally dubious methods, and focus the resources on their high flyers. Thus ensuring that their results stay high so they can keep attracting the crème de la crème of students and staff.

Great for the high flyers. Terrible for the students that would have been the upper-middle of a mixed ability comprehensive, who are instead chewed up and spat out by the grammar.

Why not make all the other schools better? Have great provisions for gifted and talented students within their current schools.

I’m in favour of grammar schools. I travelled to a different county to go to one for 6th form and it was brilliant. But I got there because I also went to an outstanding comp beforehand.

Now living in an area with grammar schools it feels like we’re a bit fucked tbh if DC, especially the boys don’t pass the 11+ because here the non grammar schools are single sex and most of the boys schools are terrible. I would much prefer that those schools were improved, which would
improve outcomes for many more people than there being new grammar schools.

If anything we need more focus on vocational/technical training from a younger age as is found in most of Europe.

Also SSEF was a big grammar school expansion program under the tories. New schools may not have been built but many of the existing ones received government funding to expand considerably.

Not in the areas where the Grammar School system is still fully operational, but you still find few children who haven't been tutored, and hardly any on FSM in Grammar Schools.

Agreed, this would improve outcomes for a lot more pupils and allow teachers in mainstream schools to focus more on teaching than behavioural control.

There are many children with SEN at grammar schools too, they seem to make the necessary adjustments and teach them just fine.

The grammar school system fails far more children than it helps! My dc would have failed the 11+ miserably, only got 2 in literacy year 6 sats yet got a star aab at a level … late developer basically so if had been relegated to a sink school, which is what happened under the grammar school system, she wouldn’t have had a chance to do what she does, which is critical work!

They are an entirely different SEN cohort and when you say "many" the % is tiny compared to mainstream comps.

In our area they allocate 25% of places to students with pupil premium, providing they meet a qualifying score. They widen the catchment until they have enough students with pupil premium to fill the 25%. This is before places are allocated to students who achieve a higher, priority score but don’t have pupil premium.

What @JulietteNichols said. A system that was set up at a time of rocketing birth rates, still quite rigid class boundaries and a completely different economy isn’t necessarily the way forward, no. I do recognise that grammar schools offer something that is valued, but I am extremely relieved that ds didn’t have to go through a grammar selection system.

Rather than focusing on the SYSTEM I would rather look at what the outcomes are that people are desiring and look at ways to achieve that. Like Sure Start, except that got scrapped didn’t it. Like a properly funded peripatetic music tutor system, except that got scrapped as well. I simply don’t give a shit about making more kids wear blazers and uniform knickers, which was rather my experience of grammar school. I can see though that if your child’s peer group is disaffected and disruptive, you would do anything to get them out of that. That needs to be the focus. Yy to more PRUs, EBD schools and maybe reinstate the school counsellors who, oh yes, got scrapped.

No, I wouldn't call the English system successful. It is desperately underfunded, hugely over-pressured and on the verge of collapse.

I was just asking a question, not claiming anything.

This was the position we were in. With so many grammar schools locally it left all the comprehensives ofsted rated ‘inadequate’. Everyone tutors for the 11+ as the alternative really isn’t what any parent wants for their child.

The level of need is often not the same though. At my grammar school there were quite a few autistic and dyslexic students. But their behaviour wasn’t disruptive. It didn’t require a whole team or specialist unit to manage.

They were also much better at diagnosing non disruptive, intelligent students with SEN who would not have received any extra support with learning in a mainstream school.

@Spirael Absolutely this. Grammar schools are brutal places for anyone not up to the pace of work and exams.

I went to a grammar school I can pass exams well cos my school had exams at after Xmas and at the end of every school year, if you did not get at least 50% in every subject your parent would be asked to consider of this was the right school you.

Anyone falling below B or C would be excluded from taking that subject at GCSE. Choices were from a very narrow academic range of subjects.

I have two GCSEs in maths, one C grade and one A grade. I was forced to re do my Maths as they would not take me at 6th form with a C in maths - because I could do better (I was studying all humanities at A Level) I migjt add the context was my mum died suddently after my GCSE exams but before results - i think that A was made of pure fuck you.

Yes this was the 1990s but still .. I will never understand why all the advocates of grammar schools are so convinced that a. their child will get in to one and b. they will thrive.

As noted above the expereince for a decent but sometimes borderline student s miserable.

The grammar systems works well in Northern Ireland for the people who get into them - the rest of the kids not so much...

What did you do? My DC are young so there’s a chance the schools will improve but really the options are move house or pay private. I doubt we’d be able to afford private school.

Well by the same logic the same applies to England except the children who don’t get into grammars is significantly, significantly higher.

If such a higher percentage of children in NI can achieve high GCSE results it suggests the approach of most children going to a state comp actually doesn’t improve the educational attainment of students? It merely holds a huge percentage of children back. __

I absolutely agree with this. The child needs to be academically able for a grammar school to be the right fit.

What are the benefits of this plan for the children who miss the mark at age 10 or 11?

My local grammar school pulls in parents before the GCSEs and tells them what exams they are letting their children do - basically the ones where they are expected to get at least a B grade - and if they wanted their child to take the subjects the school wouldn't enter them for they could pay for the exam themselves.
If the child got an A or a B in the exams the parents paid for the school would reimburse them the costs of taking the exam privately.
Of course this meant that the school could claim the credit for a child who did better than expected whilst keeping the lower grades off their reported results - got to hold onto that "98% of our pupils got an A or B at GCSE this year!"

No, my dream society doesn't involve creating further privilege for successful dc or writing any dc off at the age of 11 as unsuccessful.

I don't believe there's any correlation between the reduction in grammar schools and the economic success of the country.

We need all dc to have a good quality education.

Kids who are good at sport go to selective sports colleges
Kids who are good at music go to selective dance achools
Kids who are good at the performing arts go to selective performing arts schools
Kids who are good at ballet go to selective ballet schools

It follows, to me anyway, that kids who are academic should go to selective academic schools.

I’d also like to bring back the old technical colleges where kids who wanted a career I a technical disciple would go.

Interesting that this is always framed as 'bringing back grammar schools' not 'bringing back secondary moderns' which is what is really meant