Grammar Schools : the debate is about what happens NOW

[TalkinPeace]

In the 20 years after WW2, when the baby boomers were kids, grammar schools did amazing things for social mobility.

But then, self preservation kicked back in
and since 1970, selective state schools have become progressively less inclusive
to the extent today where the (grammar school educated head of OFSTED) says
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25386784

the death knell has been rung
as it has for DB pensions (another great Baby Boomer nest lining idea)

so lets bite the bullet and put equal resources into all schools and reduce the carbon footprint of the grammar school madness.

And, the "More than half of new free schools opened with spare places" story is a red herring. Some of those schools have attracted significant numbers of in-year transfers, and have been full in their second year ... the Guardian conveniently doesn't cover their Year 2 figures.

If they're not full in their first year it's because they're new, and often in temporary accommodation. People want them to be a bit more established before they commit. That would be the same for a maintained school in temporary buildings. But if they deliver what they promise then the schools will fill.

Living in Medway and having children that have attended both grammar and secondary schools, I have seen both sides of the equation.

Yes, most grammar schools achieve excellent results, but it would be amazing if this wasn't the case. They cream off the most able children, together with those that have parents rich / committed enough to employ private tutors. The result is that a small number of children from disadvantaged backgrounds get better life chances, but the majority that attend high schools do much worse than the national average.

The high schools in Medway, particularly the boys schools, have disgraceful results. I can't find any logical justification for the system that operates in Medway; other than to serve the interest of the children of the vocal minority at the expense of thousands of failed children.

Can someone explain to me what is so special about a free school (genuine question) we dont have any in my area instead we have "outstanding academies" with very impressive results and spaces so I'm assuming there is considered to be no need for them. But then we are a largely rural MC affluent population.

A free school is an all new academy, that opens in a new site with no baggage
it can be started by any group - most are parents or churches
BUT
they do not have to prove shortage of places / need
unlike every other type of school
AND
its not clear what checks there have been on those allowed to set them up
or what will happen in the long term when the founders' children leave

I think its about £30 a year, although I am not a parent of a child there so not 100% sure what the school asks as a voluntary contribution.... Still, much better than the 4k I pay a term for DS1s private school fees as I could not send him to the local high school (no way!)

but are they where there is a NEED? or where parents and churches fancy opening them?
Yes, because demonstration of need is part of the application process. However, the definition of need used goes beyond "basic need" for more places and includes the need to address local performance issues.

There also needs to be demand so they will only be created where parents and other groups are motivated to open them.

In areas where no groups have come forward, LAs can use clause 6A of the Education Act to invite proposals. If nobody comes forward, then they can create a maintained school by the traditional route.

According to the NAO report, "The Department has received no applications to open primary Free Schools in half of all districts with high or severe forecast need (paragraphs 1.6, 1.7)"

Disagree entirely with the OP premise.

Michael Wilshaws criticism is based on the middle-class filling up grammar schools. By middle-class, presumably he means people who work hard, succeed, take some risks, have a rich cultural life, value education and raise their children's expectations. This is not a class issue it is an issue of rewarding and supporting children who will go on to be the wealth-creators, professionals and leaders of our country.

One size comprehensives do not fit all and probably fit no one.

An argument of moving back to a failed comprehensive system is quite bizarre; rather we should be looking to diversify secondary school provision and specialisation. That may be academic, technical, language, sporting, musical etc etc. Give children a greater choice not a lesser one.

UK is now ranked about 25th/26th in international league tables in education. I find it astonishing that no one is talking about the need to improve education all round.

Selection by postcode is very real - my labour friends in London who were so sneery about private schools and grammars would be fighting to get into expensive homes in "better catchments" when their kids were 3/4. The hypocrisy is incredible.

Can someone explain to me what is so special about a free school

happygardening, there doesn't need to be anything special about them. They can be set up exactly like any other academy, and use LA services. They can also form links with other local schools, in exactly the same way as a traditional maintained comprehensive.

There are a small number of badly managed free schools, and they're giving the rest a bad name in some people's eyes. (There are also a small number of badly managed private schools, and badly managed maintained schools, but people tend to look at individual schools when making judgements. The same will be true of free schools once they are less "new".)

What is a "need"? (Just curious) are they primarily in cities where there is a bigger and broader population?

Sorry skating just found your link.

happygardening, the definition of need is here, and relates to sufficiency or quality of local provision.

Talkin, I'm curious to know what you think of the Archer Academy Free School, which is so embedded in its LA that the Asst Director of Education has become its founding headteacher. Any objections to that one?

And how about this one, or this one, where the LA is actually part of the proposing trusts.

And what about the specialist free schools being set up by universities, like this one?

And even the Guardian sings the praises of this bilingual school in Brighton.

You consistently highlight the tiny number of high profile failures, but never seem to acknowledge that there are good examples of free schools.

Many seem hostile to free schools why is this? Are they free to teach what they like, like independent schools can if they wish to (although of course most don't in reality).

Thanks skating I've read it; interesting and I see why we don't have any in my neck of the woods.

Many seem hostile to free schools why is this?

Many are hostile for political reasons (they're a Tory construct). Others are hostile because they're suspicious of things that are new or different. The press has swayed things in their usual political directions. However, many of the open free schools are very popular with parents. The NAO report acknowledges that.

The free school programme was set up in haste, and probably made some errors along the way, which have been exploited by opponents. The Lib Dems officially support them but think they have too many freedoms and should follow the national curriculum (many do anyway) and employ only qualified teachers (most do anyway). Labour has said they will continue the concept of "Parent Proposed Academies" if they win power, but would make some reductions to their current freedoms.

Are they free to teach what they like
No. Their curriculum has to be broad an balanced. They don't (currently) have to follow the national curriculum though. That might change in future. There are also rules against teaching extremist views, such as creationism.

Happy,

I think the issue with free schools is that - at present - they seem to divert a large amount of money to create a relatively small number of places, and those places aren't always in a location, or at a quality, that seem - again at present - to justify that amount of money IYSWIM?

If you are sitting in an area with a very large shortfall of places, or in a school in dire need of refurbishment, and see a free school receiving lots of money, it is sometimes difficult not to wonder whether that money is being spent where there is the MOST need IYSWIM? It's not that there is NO need for free schools, just that they are not always where the need is greatest... and if they were less critical to the government's poilitical ideology, perhaps a slightly greater amount of central planning might have matched expenditure to urgency of need a little more accurately.

It's the perception that there is NO money for other things that might meake a greater contribution to educational improvement, but LOTS of money for free schools - and I acknowledge that this is as much perception as reality - that causes the resentment in this 'setting up' phase. Once the free schools are up and running, full and working under a similar funding scheme to all other established schools, then the issue may well go away.

Thank you all for taking the time to enlighten me. Now when I hear about free schools on the radio I will feel better informed. I'd sort of got it in my head they were mainly religious/Steiner schools set up to cater for a small minority who wanted something very different from education.

Its a shame that the Idiot Gove wants to dismantle networks between schools (which good LEA attached inspectors gave)

It angers me that Gove wants to do this, and generally seems to want to abolish LEAs. Why not instead look to see what the good LEAS are doing and find a way for the bad ones to learn from them?

I'd sort of got it in my head they were mainly religious/Steiner schools set up to cater for a small minority who wanted something very different from education.

There are many like that. The problem is that the legislation has been used by well organised groups to create schools. Religions are nothing if not organised! The more parents and teachers who get together to create "normal" free schools the better in my view, because it will swing the balance away from the niche interest groups. In many cases they might find that their LAs will support them to create something very similar to a traditional community school, if that's what is wanted by local people.

Traditional community school?
I feel a little out of touch with all these terms under my stone.

I add this comment on the free school/grammar school debate.

In a small town in rural Buckinghamshire called Winslow, the Freemantle Free School has opened. It is a free school for 11-18 year olds with no selection. It has about 120 pupils with obviously, as yet, no GCSE results or track record. Buckinghamshire operates a County wide 11+ Selection system. The Freemantle School is sponsored by the very wealthy family of Betsy Duncan Smith. If you live in the newly formed catchment area for the Freemantle School, Bucks CC has informed parents of children who are selected for the Royal Latin Grammar School (6 miles away) that they will no longer receive free transport to that prestigious Grammar School which is one if the oldest in the country. Parents will have to pay. This surely ensures even fewer ordinary children will go to the school, even if they are selected to do so. A few people may have wanted the Freemantle School as the secondary modern school in Buckingham is not so good but no parent of a Grammar school child would have preferred it to The Royal Latin School unless they were stark raving mad! Winslow now, apparently has a comprehensive school in a Local Authority with not a single comprehensive.

Traditional community school?
By which I mean a (high performing) comprehensive school, open to everyone in its community, and part of its local community, working in partnership with local primary schools and other local secondary schools, with local people on its governing body.

... and obviously working in partnership with its LA too.

Ah skating I understand our local schools are traditional community schools.

We have one of the most prominent Free School's in the country (HT spoke at the Tory conference). It's in its second year taking in 100 pupils per year and will cater 11-16 so will be a nice size school.

In our borough it created a need because we were in a 3 tier system which was due to change to two tier but due to lack of government funds this was all shelved ...so having the Free School opened the door for parents to consider moving their child out of the three tier system at 11.

We looked at the Free School but considered the risk too high and like someone else has stated they are using premises that are not ideally suited - the site in our town is just off the ring road - no parking - no sports field and I perceived it to be a risk in terms of safety too.

I do think the Grammar schools need to be closed but replaced with new schools with lots of facilities to suit a widened curriculum - there is a need to get children turned on to education so its cool to learn be it Academic or Vocational.... I also think this will happen sooner than expected given that the economy is now growing and there is a keen business/educational link now ....