'new' grammar schools in kent...

[oliverreed]

well, not technically. The local authority have been given the go-ahead for two (I think) annexe grammar schools in Sevenoaks. Gove is surely rubbing his hands with glee. I agree with the decision as pressure on places in this area is causing a lot of heartache for many families whose children are travelling a long way, but is it paving the way for the creation of new grammar schools.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts?

"(just punting an idea here)
should EVERY grammar be forced to "federate" with a non grammar and provide opportunities to switch between the two, train across the two and generally give full spread education, with the bright kids not distracted and the thick kids not looked down on."

Yes, that is a good idea and similar to the bilateral school I would recommend. The over coached thick middle class children could be transfered to the secondary modern stream after a term and vice a versa. I see no point in an eleven plus system as children are so heavily assessed with SATS.

I think a lot of low level distruption is caused by inappriopiate courses for children. Children need a choice between vocational courses and academic courses. It is stupid getting every secondary school level child in the land to study the same curriculumn. Some children at the age of eleven are level 6 in the three main subjects where as some children are level 3. Their needs are very different.

I am a total advocate for comprehensive education and personally did very well from it. I went to a tough school with a tough and very mixed intake and I came out with very good results and have a strong degree from a Russell Group Uni. I should also add that apart from maths and science, my teaching was mixed ability.

I didn't do well because I was an exception, or because of strength of character or whatever - I did well because of a teaching staff who worked hard, knew their kids, and constantly innovated. I don't think my school was unusual in my area either. Comprehensive schooling worked for me and for my peers.

The idea that unless a ridiculously high number of kids from each school are getting into Russell Group Universities and above then the school is failing frustrates the hell out of me. School is about more than academic success surely?

I just wish people would be honest - they like grammar schools as long as their kids are in them. What they really want is for kids who are less able than they perceive theirs to be, to be out of the way so that they won't 'hold their kids back.'

When did it become the case that a less academically able kid is always going to be disruptive and a negative influence? I had absolutely no sense of being 'held back' by my being taught alongside all levels of ability, and on top of that I learnt to exist in a mixed community. Personally I think that's set me up well for real life. I worry more about the kids who are tutored and tutored to within an inch of their lives to get into grammar and then struggle for the entirety of their secondary career.

Incidentally there is more than one grammar school teacher in my extended group of friends / acquaintances who would dearly like to shift into comprehensive education because they don't feel able to actually 'teach' at their schools. There's a feeling of stagnation, and not being allowed to try new things in case it rocks the 'outstanding' boat. I'm absolutely sure that this isn't the case at every grammar (and that there are non- grammars which are guilty of the same thing). My point is that teaching is not necessarily better at grammars - lots of actual teachers don't think so.

But this is my opinion and I appreciate not everyone agrees with me. Each to their own and all that!

Interestingly my DH had a very positive and successful time at grammar, but as an adult is principally against grammar school education because it is not and can never be fair. In his opinion of course.

"I just wish people would be honest - they like grammar schools as long as their kids are in them."

Not me. My child is in one and it's a fantastic school. But I still hate the system and want it abolished.

Also re academic / vocational learning opportunities - wasn't the diploma supposed to offer a new way of learning which offered parity between different sorts of courses? I think initially it was supposed to replace GCSEs / A-Levels but the gov got cold feet. The new gov is really not into it, it would seem.

A friend of mine who teaches at my DDs grammar school, says that students entering at 6th form from comprehensives are much less well prepared, as they have been taught to pass exams, rather than being taught to learn. The problem here is not with the grammar, but that other schools are, in that way, failing the bright children who go to them.

Wrt the new Sevenoaks school, the reason many Kent children miss out is because of pressure from out of area children. The boys grammars within commuting distance from us are all super selectives. So you can commute from the moon, if you get a high enough score. The girls grammars (aside from the one my Dd attends) have small catchment areas, which discriminate against those who live further away. There are usually a few super selective places, but in the main if you pass, and live close to the school, you will get in.

Of these two systems, which is more fair? The "boys" system where the brightest get the chance regardless of postcode, or the "girls" system, where those who live near a grammar get to benefit from it?

Hi Seeker. I actually completely get your point (having read back through the thread). If I lived in a grammar system and my DC were able, they'd go to grammar. A comprehensive system only works if it's across the board I suspect.

I don't know what the solution is. My friend's DC have all attended a very sought after comprehensive where after yr9 they are streamed into "population 1" and "population 2". "Population 2" are mostly streamed into "easier GCSEs" BTECs and there is NO opportunity to move out of the stream once you are in it. My friend's son, who is bright but a late August birthday and consequently only just turned 13 at the start of yr 9, was oriented into BTECs and population 2 just recently. He was only "saved" from pop 2 by his mother kicking up a fuss and the fact that his older sister is extremely high-achieving (thereby convincing the head that he is from a "good stable" so to speak, and just a late bloomer). I find that system at least as bad as the secondary modern/grammar school system, and several times more hypocritical.

At least they are streamed after they've had a chance to show what they can do- not by a random test when they are 10.

HandMade having gone from a comp to a grammar the big difference I noticed was attitude to revision: all my friends at the grammar said they hadn't bothered revising for their GCSEs as they were 'so easy'. I was shocked as I had worked so hard to get the grades to get into their school!

I think a lot of them were shocked out of complacency by how hard A Levels were in comparison. NB says the girl who got the highest mark & prize in the mock English exam in her year! notsohumblebrag

One other thing worth mentioning: I really appreciated the smaller class sizes at the grammar & level of support & understanding I had from the teachers, but of course the A Level classes would have been smaller than GCSE at my old school too, so I don't have a fair comparison to make there.

Perhaps I would have found the teachers at my old school much more sympathetic towards me in the 6th form, but it would have been hard to forgive the way I'd been ignored by them for the past 5 years.

A friend of mine who teaches at my DDs grammar school, says that students entering at 6th form from comprehensives are much less well prepared, as they have been taught to pass exams, rather than being taught to learn. The problem here is not with the grammar, but that other schools are, in that way, failing the bright children who go to them

Sorry...but I really do have a problem with large, sweeping generalisations based on anecdotal evidence.

@Duchesse Ottery?

Ooh, do they do that at Ottery as well? No, my friend still lives in the town in Surrey where we used to live.

I'm in same situation as seeker
If you are blessed with an academic, neurotic child in a selective area where a grammar has agood pastoral reputation, it would be failing your child to send them to the local 'academy' (actually sec.mod) because the 'grammar stream' are at the grammars

@duchesse No, sorry, I don't know what they do at Ottery, I was assuming (stupidly) that you were talking about round here and it was the only comp I could think of that's 'highly regarded' apart from St Ps and I know they don't do that at St Ps.

seeker where are you?

East Kent, Julia- and I am in a very vocal but very small minority. People guard the grammar schools with a zeal worth of a better cause, and nobody cares what the cannon fodder think!

I'm in East Kent as well,seeker. I know many people who are very pro-selection (at least until their child fails the Kent Test). However, in my experience many other people are ideologically opposed to it. Doesn't stop them getting extra tuition when their child hits year 5 though.

I'm in Medway; dd's school is now an Academy with expansionist ambitions
We've never found even a very small group here

Any ideas what to do? The only people who are eligible to vote are those with kids at grammars afaik. Not biassed, then

I don't think there's a hope in hell. Abolishing the remaining grammar schools would not be a vote winner. For example, there's only about 4 of us on all on Mumsnet!

I fear you're right until we get a complete overhaul of secondary education

What exactly would be the benefit of abolishing grammars??? They tried that in NI and all that happened was the schools got together to set their own test, not one set by the education authority, so it is now even more elitist as the schools themselves can choose who gets a place.

Well, if grammars were abolished in my area, there would be comprehensive schools. The children who would have gone to a grammar school would probably initially form the majority of the top set. But the other 77% would have the chqnce to move into that top set. And for subjects like games, the technology subjects and art the children would mix and not, as now, exist in parallel universes. And crucially, the children of the area would not have been divided into successes and failures based on one day when they were 10.

But as someone previously mentioned children in the grammar stream of comps do not do as well as those in a normal grammar school. So how is abolishing it helping those who would have went to the grammar? Yes, it is shit for those who don't pass, but for those who do they do have better opportunities and I don't think that those children should be denied those opportunities because it is deemed unfair to those that did not pass. The solution is to raise the overall standards of secondaries so that they are seen as just as good. And people need to be realistic, putting all children into a truly comprehensive system benefits no one. The weakest children are left to flounder and the brightest don't do as well as they would in a selective environment. I went to a grammar and it was still streamed into five streams. I was top in English and second from bottom in maths. I haven't been damaged by this, I know I just wasn't great at maths. Of those in the top stream, several are now doctors, optometrists and engineers, no doubt helped by not being held back by the likes of me.

I'd like to see some hard evidence about the grammar stream children not doing as well as grammar school kids. The fact that it's called a "grammar stream" suggests that these schools are in grammar school areas. If they are they are not comprehensives. And obviously won't do as well as a grammar school, because the grammar school candidates are mostly in th grammar schools.

And I am prepared to put my neck on the line and say that if you have a system which materially advantages 23% while materially disadvantaging 77%, then it should go an it's tough on the 23%. particularly bearing in mind that the 23% are going to be generally more "advantaged" than the 77%.