Changes to 11-plus to stop middle-class parents 'buying' access to grammars by hiring tutors

[breadandbutterfly]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241411/Changes-11-plus-stop-parents-buying-access-selective-schools-hiring-tutors-children.html

Similar article in the Times apparently but paywall.

Do you want to link to some results tables showing that grammars are - what would they have to be - bang in the middle average - for a convincing argument that they be abolished?

Actually to justify dismantling them, as opposed to not introducing them, I think grammars would have to be doing worse.

I think there is plenty of evidence to prove that a high achieving student in Warwickshire (no Grammars) is just as likely to do well at school as the same student in Gloucestershire (Grammars) I have taught in both counties.

Is this an attempt to convince me? It certainly has nothing to do with principle.

No. In Gloucestershire, where I currently work, the grammar schools do better in the league tables, but they're going to, aren't they? I was at a meeting after school today with teachers from across the county who teach the same subject as me. We were discussing CPD, and a visitor suggested a workshop on inclusivity. The grammar school teacher said that wouldn't be useful for her because they don't really have any SEND or EAL students. The league tables will not shoe grammars failing to achieve. That is not a good reason to keep them.

What benefit derives from dismantling them?

Not trying to convince you. I am mature enough to accept that different people have different opinions.

What is the difference between educating EAL and SEND students separately in a set and educating them separately in another building?

Not mature enough not to come onto the thread without a little sneer though

I'm worried about this concept of "good or outstanding teachers". My DS went to a very selective school. He was taught by "albatross" subject experts and by young teachers with energy and flair. Both commanded respect. I would suggest that only the latter would hack it in many schools. But both types are / can be great teachers.

What benefits? It means that a student who shines at maths but not at English gets the opportunity to be in top set maths with similarly high achieving students, whilst still getting the support to reach their potential in English. It means that children can move up and down sets as and where necessary. It means that kids aren't written off at 11. Students capable of hitting A*s will still do so- enough comprehensive schools in non-grammar areas do it.

On a personal level, I wouldn't have to attend meetings with people who think they must be better teachers because they work in a grammar school

Seriously? Why on earth should kids with special needs have to be educated elsewhere? I'll tell that to the Yr7 girl I teach who is in a wheelchair, shall I?

" It means that kids aren't written off at 11. "

Why are they written off if the standard of education at High Schools is comparable?

If it's not comparable, why would you rather see a better education downgraded than a worse education upgraded?

Wheelchairs? Do they make a difference to your exam results now? I had no idea?

In other words, stop making me out to be disablist - what a ridiculous smear.

Unless you are claiming that grammar schools discriminate against children in wheelchairs? Wouldn't that be illegal?

If high schools offer the same as grammars, why bother with a two-tier system?

And it was you who said "what's the difference between education SEND and EAL students in a separate set and a separate building?" Personally, I don't think students with additional needs should be educated separately at all. Do you?

Sorry, I misquoted. You said "separately in a set". Presumably you know what SEND and EAL mean? Because putting all the students with additional needs into a separate set, regardless of that need would be immoral, no matter what type of school.

Yes I did - I was talking about different intellectual needs. The thought of wheelchairs was not in my head as I do believe that using a wheelchair doesn't affect your intellectual ability rather a stretch to try to imply some disablism there but hey - you managed it. Must be desperate.

As you were talking about setting earlier I assumed you approved of setting. Perhaps you are about to change your mind? If you are in favour of setting you must be in favour of setting along the lines of intellectual ability? Perhaps not? If you are setting would you set in the same room? Or in different rooms? So the difference between separate rooms and separate buildings would be ..?

I guess you don't know what SEND means then.

Yes, I am in favour of setting. However, I understand that the bottom set will not automatically be full of students with additional needs. Students can be clever but also have additional needs.

I don't think I need to make you out to be disablist- you're doing a good job of that yourself.

I didn't say EAL and all SEND students should be in a separate set. What on earth are you talking about? It was you who said a teacher told you that results would be worse in a High School because of the proportion of SEND and EAL students. It's YOU implying they automatically do worse. If you're going to assume that, and at the same time you approve of setting, then what am I to think? That you don't approve of setting where EAL and SEND students are concerned?

What ARE you going on about?

I've reported your post. It is desperate (and completely wrong) to accuse me of disablism when YOU said that results of schools with a lot of EAL and SEND children would be worse. What shocking hypocrisy.

Perhaps I don't: I thought it meant special or additional educational needs, intellectually speaking.

If you know that it means people who use wheelchairs, then you have told me that SEND students downgrade results and couldn't be expected not to. Which is a pretty disgusting thing to say if it's not about intellectual but physical differences.

Oh dear, backtracking now, which is exactly what you criticise others for doing. Mind you, I do see where you might have misunderstood.

Grammar schools are always going to do better in league tables because they don't have the full range of abilities - that was my point. The grammar teacher I was with made the comment about not having many SEND/EAL students and therefore not needing training on inclusivity. To an extent, not having students with ADHD or who barely speak English will indeed keep results high.

However, your response was
"What is the difference between educating EAL and SEND students separately in a set and educating them separately in another building?"

I don't assume that they automatically do worse. You seem to think they should be kept separate, either through setting or in a separate building.

You followed up with "As you were talking about setting earlier I assumed you approved of setting. Perhaps you are about to change your mind? If you are in favour of setting you must be in favour of setting along the lines of intellectual ability? Perhaps not? If you are setting would you set in the same room? Or in different rooms? So the difference between separate rooms and separate buildings would be ..?" so it is you who thinks that SEND = unintelligent. I am going to assume that you don't actually think that, but you can see where I got that impression

"I don't think students with additional needs should be educated separately at all. Do you?"

Well if you approve of setting you do. Unless you are talking about additional physical needs rather than intellectual needs.

Backtracking? Are you kidding me? Or just fantasising?

"I don't assume that they automatically do worse."

In that case what does this mean:

"I was at a meeting after school today with teachers from across the county who teach the same subject as me. We were discussing CPD, and a visitor suggested a workshop on inclusivity. The grammar school teacher said that wouldn't be useful for her because they don't really have any SEND or EAL students. The league tables will not shoe grammars failing to achieve. "

Clear implication: grammar table league positions are improved by "not really having any SEND or EAL students".

So in that case - we can revisit your argument and decide that league tables are a good indicator of success and the number of SEND or EAL students will not affect results, not affect league table positions, and have no bearing on the argument.

I'm glad to hear it. But I have no idea why you brought it up.