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.

None of those are state funded, though.

I disagree totally. I live in West Kent, and actually myself went to one of the grammar schools a very long time ago. So not opposed to the grammar system. Academic children need stretching. Sevenoaks went giddy with excitement at the prospect of the 2 new annexes. There was at the same time a proposal for a state (free school) for specialist dyslexic provision. There is none in the county. Lots of local support, but declined by govt. So severely dyslexic children without an EHCP have to travel out of county to a quite poor specialist private provision. IMO this country needs to ensure that its less academically able are able to progress and gain suitable and robust qualifications for work. And no I dont mean t levels or whatever. It's very late leaving that to post-16 education.

As someone sending a child to grammar in Sept, in many ways I wish they weren't there, but when they are part of the system I want the best for my child.

They hollow out neighbouring schools and leave them less desirable. I'd say follow the Michaela model for any failing school and we'd have a very different population inside a generation, you can have grammar like expectations for all (and most important for that would be getting all children school ready at 4/5). Some Comps also have grammar streams, that may be something that should be more common, particularly if children can be moved into them at any age, rather than one chance aged 10 - which most of the kids are when they take 11+.

Undoubtedly, some of our comps are rotten; you don't improve them by taking the brightest, best-behaved, best-motivated kids out.

I don't think grammar schools need expanding. I would rather they didn't exist.

There's no evidence that grammar schools produce better results over and above equivalent non selective state schools.

They do better because they are selective, not because they are some kind of special sauce. They offer the same subjects as other schools. There's nothing to differentiate them other than they serve a very small population. Most of whom are middle class children who were tutored to pass the exam.

Grammar areas have no other schools that get close because they take the best and richest kids out of the true state system at 10yo. If you want more areas to have sink schools and traumatised kids who are left to fight out their school lives in schools where parents don't care and kids give up then you have a different vision to most people I know of the future of education in UK.

What we need are single sex state schools in every region - ones that are not selective, so the boys with ADHD can be taught away from the girls with ASD when they eventually get their educational care plans put in place. Mixing them in state senior schools does nobody any favours.

Grammar schools are objectively good. All 3 of my DC went. All received fabulous education and thrived in higher education. Youngest will soon start well paying degree apprenticeship.

The intelligent kids need the space from the slower ones to thrive and to go grow. If someone develops later on they can join in after doing 13+ or in sixth form

I dont think its the way forward. I dont really understand why children with different academic abilities have to be taught in different buildings. I can see they might need different groupings of subjects and levels within that building but, for example, further education colleges manage to exist with students doung level 1 foundation subject and level 3 students persuing universities or even doing actual degrees.

I dont like the concept of labeling somone being academic or not at a fixed point in time. I dont understand why a child cant do things like PE or assembly or pshe or socialise with children who are more or less academic or why academic children shouldn't do some vocational options.
I also think you can stretch very able children by working with other schools in the area for certain things.

I know prople want to get thier children away from naughty and disruptive children and feel this is the way to do that.

Not usually the case when the school is oversubscribed and they keep on current students who make their lowest grade to continue. Thick kids just need to do the bare minimum or be tutored throughout to get the minimum and they can effectively block a brighter kid from outside from getting a spot.

@redange
The issue with comprehensive schools is with behaviour and disruption. In schools that have a grip, and use exclusion effectively, the brightest pupils can flourish along with all the other pupils.

IMHO it is not more grammars that are needed, it is more places to send the worst behaved pupils (used to be called PRU's), and more SEN schools.
Instead of creaming off the top, get rid off the 'bottom', by which I don't mean the least-intellectually-able in the bottom sets, I mean the worst behaved and most disruptive pupils.
Bring back permanent exclusion. If you can't behave you are out.

Then instead of just the brightest pupils benefitting (from grammar schools), all the pupils will benefit, both who can stay in the comprehensive system and those who will get specialist provision elsewhere.

Trouble is, equipping and funding provision for badly behaved children (whether through trauma, mental health issues, social and family issues, or whatever) and SEN children, is always going to be far more expensive than setting up grammar schools. So no politician is going to go for it.

But any kind of academic selection for schools is grossly wrong, because children need to be able to go up and down the sets each year, and may be in different sets for different subjects. Comprehensive is far the most flexible academically.

There’s a huge amount of evidence that grammar schools produce better results than non selective comprehensives. People might disagree with the reason but you can’t actually argue they don’t have better results.

The alternative non grammars near me certainly didn’t offer Latin or an early maths GCSE in one year to allow you to complete another GCSE on the timetable, so you can’t say they all offer the same provision.

I am pro grammar schools for what they were originally established for, a level playing field for academic children from all walks of life.
Near me that’s not the case as all, they’re for the children of people who can afford the tutoring to get there. I don’t have empirical evidence to hand but I’d hazard a guess that no matter how bright a child from a poor background, it’s unlikely they get in, assuming they even apply in the first place, because they’re not tutored for the 11+.
Raw academic ability is not enough so by that definition, they’re not fit for purpose.

But they would if grammar schools didn't exist and the bright kids were all kept in the comp system.

How many secondary moderns would this create!

Also, the deliberately make themselves unattractive to poor families with all the fancy uniform and extracurricular expectations.

Here's a thought. Why not look at improving education for all?

Isn’t that only the case due to the rarity of them in England though?
Almost half of all children in NI attend grammar schools, NI ranks well below England economically. No part of me believes that anywhere near half of primary children in NI receive private tutoring.

All academically selective Grammar schools should be closed down

So no OP
we definitely don’t need more of them

The secondary moderns also achieve lower results. The evidence goes both ways.

I think grammars are better often for the kids who go there. But they are jam packed full of tutored middle classes at the expense of the rest. So overall comps are the way to go. Educational systems which achieve highest standards internationally are comprehensive.

It was the middle classes who were most anti-grammar school. Everyone is in favour of them until their child doesn’t get a place, and particularly when a working class child does. Then, suddenly, they seem like a bad idea-and even worse, the horror when all your mates kids get in and you are the one who has the least bright child.

But you can directly compare England to NI in more ways than countries outside the UK. The systems are similar in many ways however the grammar provision is exponentially higher.
95% of students in England attend state comps, and yet the attainment at GCSE is overall much lower than NI.

But they are jam packed full of tutored middle classes at the expense of the rest
Again, that is only the case in England where the numbers are so small, making it elites and competitive by design not nature.

I think we should make better use of the schools we have.

For example where I went to school there are 3 secondaries within less than a mile. They should merge these into 1 school, lower middle and high then you have more kids per year and you can stream them much better.

It’s bonkers that a maths class is based on who is in your specific year that might have 100 kids in it.

In this case they could effectively create a grammar system by streaming classes across multiple years.

Doesn’t help when there is only one school for miles around but could be done in towns and cities.

Some of the west mids has middle schools already!

There are concerns about the fairness of private schools. There are concerns about the fairness of grammar schools. The main concerns centre around how better off families manage to buy better (or better perceived) education for their children either through paying fees or paying for tutoring. Why is there no concern about the fairness of accessing state schools based on distance? This is largely based on family wealth too: the ‘better’ the school, generally the more expensive the rent or asking prices for homes within catchment.
Anyone who argues against grammar and private schools should back a lottery system for all state schools. It’s the only ‘fair’ way to ensure that family wealth does not come into play.

Personally I am very much in favour of single sex grammar schools.. However, when 1 in 4 young people leave school after 12 years in education and STILL dont have maths and english GCSEs I think thats the problem that needs to be tackled first and foremost. those kids dont get places at college or go on to apprenticeships. they enter the world of either endless retakes or they are smart enough to get PIP for "mental health" reasons. as the older population ages out to retirement can we really afford to have so many people claiming these benefits and unable to take part in society?

Having grown up in Birmingham the grammars have created a two-tier system. The kids who can afford tutoring go to the grammars. And the brightest poor kids. The kids who are well off but not bright enough for grammar go private. Meaning it's only the thick poor kids who go to the comps (I was one so feel OK using this language about myself). But it means the comps end up with a higher concentration of kids from deprived backgrounds, kids with social problems, English as a second language. Meaning more burden is put on teachers, meaning lower standards.

So basically grammar is a good solution for most rich kids and a few smart poor, making the schools for the other 90% actively worse.

Any government focus should be on making all schools better.

In comprehensives you can just as easily achieve high academic standards through streaming and setting and crucially having great, motivated teaching staff, nice buildings and facilities and good resources.

This is a fair point, and it is very difficult to mitigate against the unfairness of catchment areas. I would be fine with a lottery where there are schools fairly close together, but less so if it meant much longer journeys for some children, both because of the impact on them and the impact on traffic and environment. But yes, I think in a city with 12 secondary schools, say, there could be four schools deemed reasonable distance from a cluster of primary schools and a lottery system for the schools.