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.

Yes....but definitely cleverer too 😂

But, also did exceptionally well alongside the rest of the cohort who were also enjoying the same grade inflation. So natural ability not hindered by being in a non-leafy S London comprehensive.

My super bright DC1 wanted to sit the 11+. I was perfectly happy for DC1 to go to a grammar because I knew they were extremely academically able…. … but I’m not happy when the super bright can’t get through the 11+ (which is what happened to DC1) or vice versa. The 11+ is a failure as a selection system.

Where I also have a problem is where children are bright enough to get in to the grammar but are at the lower end of the grammar ability range - that can’t be a nice place to be.

@TheOnlyWayIsIlford most secondary schools in London are Academies (as is the rest of England) and many are run by very specific academy chains which may technically not be selective but in reality they are.
Parents will choose to apply to certain schools because they like their teaching style or ethos. Parents who don't like that academy chain won't put the schools on their list.
Many of the high performance academy schools are over subscribed so really there's not going to be any students there who didn't have it a choice 1 or 2 on their application list. There's plenty of different schools to choose from.
It's different in towns/rural where there may only be 2 or 3 schools to choose from and you have to like it or lump it regardless of what academy chain is running it.
In a city like London the only pupils in certain schools are there because they (or their parents) actually want them there.
So in theory they are selective.

So if your parents are not paying as much tax, because they're doing jobs like nursing or teaching, or caring, which are all very important, you get punished for it? If your parents don't work because of illness or any other reason, you deserve a poorer education? Yeah, that's totally fair on deprived kids.

The whole system needs a massive change/reboot/overturn.

When I was at school (comprehensive) we had 3 streams, and within the streams, we had sets. Only the top stream had the option of taking a second language, and only the top set had the choice of German or Latin. The others could only choose German (meaning it wasn't a choice as such.) There was some limited movement between streams and sets between years 9 and 10.

I don't know so much about curricular choices in the other streams, but they got more options for non-GCSE subjects, like city & guilds qualifications . Mind you, it was pre National Curriculum and league tables, so the school had more flexibility. I had a good education- I was able to take Latin as far as A-level, i was given support to take the Oxford entrance exam. But I think they also did a good job with the less academic girls, and that surely was the point of a comprehensive education?⁷

Yes, no doubt that this is a factor - But how come the overall average is higher? The schools aren't academically selective (though I agree that those who lure parents with various 'aptitude' scholarships skew towards aspirational families) . But then those that don't go to those schools are still doing better than elsewhere or contributing to an overall average that is higher than elsewhere.

And this effect (London v national average) pre-dates the majority move to academies.

London (with its higher per capita funding) has far more Good and Outstanding schools available - Approximately 95% of pupils in London attend a school rated "Good" or "Outstanding" (with roughly 30% in Outstanding and 65% in Good local authority schools).

The headline point for this thread still seems to be that well funded comprehensives can educate our young people very well - as they appear to do in London.

I would fund all schools more. Match incentive schemes for teachers in London with incentives for teachers to move to under-performing schools in other areas. Give schools in more deprived regions budgets for music and arts festivals. sports camps, travel to cultural and educational events, before I would spend money on separate buildings for kids of different academic abilities.!

Most of the South West and the city we live in doesn't have grammar schools. No problem with high levels of attainment in DC's school and also in the various other schools our friends kids went to. Lots if kids getting top scores, oxbridge, medicine and competitive places secured. Also plenty on apprenticeship routes, drama and arts pathways. They set and seem focused on getting the best out of each child and supporting their thing.Not big academy chains either. Just good leadership I think.

Have you forgotten, or never known, why grammars were ended first time around, by the conservatives?

It was because conservative voters’ children were too often among the 90% or so not to get in. And secondary moderns were shit.

If you want to reinstate grammar schools, the problem you need to solve is the ‘secondary modern problem’. How do you make the non-grammars useful and appealing enough to the parents of the 90% who won’t get into grammars?

Of course I didn't mean it literally. I meant find suitable alternative provision for those children who for whatever reason are unable to cope with mainstream schooling, for instance those suffering from trauma, mental health issues, social deprivation, or various types of special educational needs.

Only I couldn't be bothered to type all that.

All teachers kids get in to Grammar Schools in fact they tell the Union and those in the Staff Room how they are wrong but actively ensure their Children get to Grammar. For the record I bet many teachers are know approaching becoming Higher Rate Tax payers with the 40% rate at least £10K a year to low !

@TheOnlyWayIsIlford it is interesting.
Maybe it's just a different mindset.
In London (where I live) most people I know seem to like the secondary school their child/children end up at and say it's a good school (or at least "not bad")
In my home town area or my husband's home town area (Midlands industrial-ish towns) everyone seems to refer to the local secondary schools as "shit holes" and there is very negative feelings towards them.
All very curious 🤔

All teachers will public-ally criticise Selective education while doing there upmost to access Grammar schools or Scholarships for their own children. This apart from my Mother who was a ex Grammar School deputy head and my sister who is head of Sixth Form at a Lincolnshire Grammar ! Sister is a great advocate of fully selective education system across the country.

The real reason that teachers use Grammar Schools is because they know the score, but dare not say it out loud. Teachers who have children at Grammars always say conveniently, 'we could not help it because the local area is Selective' this of course is protection from being called a 'Tory' by the Militants who control education.

I live in a grammar area. It's shit. We just need good investment in state schools and some kind of national academic stream for those children who are very studious and academic and another stream or more for children who excel at vocational subjects.

Tell us about “the score” @redange. Oh, and about the teachers who don’t live in the catchment of the country’s 148 grammar schools….

Yabu.

For every grammar school you open, you will also need to de-facto create at least 3 "secondary modern" secondary schools for the kids who don't make the grade, who will by necessity have higher than average problem pupils, be more challenging and less likely to be able to help their students to meet their potential.

Everyone who campaigns for grammars assumes their darling little ones will get the jackpot prize of a free but exclusive education nicely separated from all the troubled kids who might take up teacher's time. But for every child in that elevated category there are plenty of others who have a worse outcome than they would have in a properly comprehensive school. It's incredibly selfish to deliberately disadvantage the more vulnerable, less privileged children in order to benefit those children who are already winning at life. A good comprehensive can and will stretch the kids with grammar potential just as much as a grammar would, if your local comprehensives aren't doing that, then focus on that being the problem to fix, rather than trying to make it worse for more children.

Grammar mistake ! their upmost

The local comprehensive the kids are so badly behaved. There was a stabbing 5 years ago.

The grammar my kids went out, yes bullying is always there. But violence is not tolerated. Even when my eldest cracked bully on face and delivered black eye. Grammars get better results.

No one in my DC's year group at the comprehensive got into Oxbridge. My DC's school sends around 20 to Oxbridge each year.

Good to direct resources and focus on those who are probably gonna have an economic return for the nation

I think many Comprehensive schools could just become Secondary Moderns with a change of name ! No work would be needed, actually many would get rejected from being Secondary Moderns because they would not meet the grade.

Not meeting the grade? Like your argument.

Parents of kids in primary who are hoping to send their kid to the nice comprehensive within walking distance should fight tooth and nail against the reintroduction of grammars. Either the nice comp becomes the grammar, in which case chances are that their kid won't get into it and suddenly they're faced with a bus ride to a school further away which will become worse due to all the top set kids being creamed off, or a different school becomes the grammar and chances are their kid won't get into it so the nice comp down the road now has all the top set kids being creamed off and sent elsewhere so it starts to struggle.

Nope.

Divisive and elitist.

I think all grammar schools should be abolished. There are none where I live anyway. But secondary schools are closing left, right and centre due to falling pupil numbers. I went to a comprehensive that had been a grammar in the past, and it was a great school. I had a far better general education and did far better than my DH who’d been to public school.