Theresa May to end ban on grammar schools

[noblegiraffe]

Theresa May to end ban on grammar schools, reports the Telegraph.

This is not a policy announcement, rather a testing of the waters, I suspect.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/06/theresa-may-to-end-ban-on-new-grammar-schools/

I honestly don't think this can be quite right. How many family farms are there? How many people can each family farm support? And why would you want to have a education system that made it impossible for children to go down a different path to one preordained by their birth on a farm? The purpose of education is to widen a child's outlook on the world- why should a farmer not know about anything but gate welding and foot trimming? Which they probably learn at the weekends anyway.........
Thank you Bert. The average age of a farmer in this country is 57. There is not enough of a living in farming nowadays to make it an attractive prospect. The industry is haemorrhaging people at an alarming rate.

You're not seriously suggesting that farmer's children are a very disruptive element in your DC's school. And breathe.

Bertrand I think it means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Supporters of grammars don't have a properly thought out policy for what happens to the rest. They either:
a) Claim that existing comprehensive schools will continue as before. Which is a bit odd considering these are the schools they keep telling us are so bad
b) Claim that there will be a new type of education for the rest -this is never defined as any attempt to define it would show up what an inferior education the kids in these schools would be getting.

If you look at forums where people are generally less polite than this one you'll see all sorts of things like " give the best schools to the best kids" or "separate out the good kids from the rest".

These days, we have a lot more choice in most places, so adding a selective academic into a choice of several schools shouldn't be a problem.

But a selective academic school isn't about parental choice. The school chooses, not the parent. And what about the many parents who want to choose a comprehensive? The existence of a grammar school means they now don't have that choice. Grammar schools are anti-parental choice.

Yep. Grammar supporters justify it by telling themselves that the other 75% are "good with their hands" and will learn the skills to work in 1960s Britain...........

It seems though that 70% of the population support grammar schools though.

Didn't they have to fiddle the 11+ results for boys and girls to ensure that equal numbers went to the mixed grammar school as boys tend to perform worse than girls?

So you'd have girls in a 'vocational school' who had scored higher than boys who went off to the grammar. But of course they must be suited to vocational education because that's the school they ended up in.

I would support grammar for DD2 - I would support an non academic school go DS - I would support an art school for DD1

I don't see DS as a failure - he will do well in life because we support him

Why are the pro grammar school supporters so keen on having separate schools for the 'academic' kids, why wouldn't you just argue for the provision be made within non-selective schools. This would allow kids to move between the highly selective classes and the 'normal' classes.

Why are people so keen that the highly academic kids are physically seperated from the general cohort? Surely it would make a lot more sense practically to have the kids educated in one place and for any streaming to take place within the school.

What are the disadvantages of mixed ability schools?

Cody- what happens in a "non academic school"?

I've just done a search for grammar schools on Twitter and the top two posts I could find supporting the return of grammars were Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins.

But we live in a post-facts age where people don't trust experts, or indeed the evidence. Theresa May will trumpet the end of the ban on grammars as a part of a social mobility agenda despite the vast swathes of evidence that show this is bollocks.

I think there is a need to have a system whereby practical subjects are taught for kids who might not be so academic in core subjects.
As opposed to sendings off to study media or business studies, which are, generally useless for getting a job.

Right. Talk to me about these practical skills.

antique have you got a source for this 70% figure of support for grammars?

I don't think more grammar schools is the way to go, I think more provision needs to be given to support students across the board. I say this as a parent to a grammar school child. She got in on her academic ability (no tutoring and no prep at school - we actually couldn't afford to get a tutor at all) and the last two years of her school career have been awful. There is no support (well not at this particular one) for students who don't fit the blue-print of a perfect child (she is being assessed for ASD and dyspraxia). I think more provision is needed to ensure children can cope in the schools they attend rather than writing them off early - this is basically what this grammar school has done (and I would put money on it not being the only grammar school to do this).

We are moving her to a new school in September which is what I would assume is a comprehensive (? non-selective, streaming). Already I am blown away with the support they are putting in place for my daughter even without diagnoses in place (and support other children are receiving was obvious during the few times we have been into the school) - it is a school that has a large proportion of "poor" students, but has excellent results with the children reaching their potential. TM needs to be concentrating on making sure all schools that are standing are given the provisions to ensure every child regardless of academic ability, what school they attend or family social standing, is given the required support to succeed, not introducing more chances for children to fail. In fact I would be happy to see the end of grammars completely (I actually never thought I would hear myself say that), introduction of more schools that can cater for ALL children - set them off on an equal footing from the start.

whereby practical subjects are taught for kids who might not be so academic in core subjects

What's the cut-off for 'not so academic' as to be pointless trying to teach them these subjects? Because even if the grammars take the top 25%, there are many left who would still get a decent pass.

Cody
I would support grammar for DD2 - I would support an non academic school go DS - I would support an art school for DD

Why wouldn't you support a school that would meet all of your children's needs. You kids could then go to school together and then your children could decide for themselves what type of things they would like to study.

Just because a child is not that academic doesn't actually mean that they can't do something academic and vice versa. It's very limiting to pigeon hole children at 10 or 11.

A beautiful quote from Twitter:

Grammar schools are Education's equivalent of homoeopathy. All evidence says they are terrible, but fanatics believe

I think faith schools have a far bigger impact. Our big town has two huge faith schools where everyone wants to go because they're higher rated. That leaves 2/3 poor comps which people try to avoid.

If you don't want academic selection, then there should be no selection at all - NO schools should have any kind of admission/selection criteria!

That way, all secondary schools would be more even. Allowing selection by one criteria but not another is not acceptable.

Why do people want the less academically able to be given the 'practical' training. Do we not need highly intelligent engineers, clever plumbers and so on?

Twolittleblooms What a great post.

We can see from this thread that's there's a lot of opposition out there. Can ose of us who want to campaign think hard about best ways to proceed? Obviously, writing to your MP etc but after that?

Noblegiraffe My nephew couldn't get an apprenticeship as a plumber because his academic qualifications weren't good enough. This idea of a "vocational" education is nonsense - love your posts, by the way.

noble ICM

An opinion poll carried out by ICM for the National Grammar Schools Association (NGSA) has found 70% of those questioned support the retention of grammar schools in England and Northern Ireland as self-governing state schools and additional, voluntary choice for parents. 19% oppose the idea and 10% don't know.

Asked if they would support the introduction of some new state grammar schools, especially in urban areas where there currently are none, 76% support the idea, 17% oppose it and 6% don't know.

Support for grammars is strong across all age and income groups with a remarkable 85% of 18 to 24 year-olds (many first time voters) wanting grammar schools.

Note for editors: ICM interviewed a random sample of 1015 adults aged 18+, by telephone between 5 and 7 February 2010. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Further information at www.icmresearch.co.uk

bertram vocational to me would be something practical and technical and also creative. I went to a girls grammar and it was v pressured and v dull! Destroyed the confidence of those of us who got in, but couldn't keep up. There were quite a few of us too. Always wanted to go the technical school where they did metal work.

On Twitter quotes, here are two from Tom Bennett (who I am a big fan of)

"The grammar system works about as well as a vehicle of mass social mobility as Daddy Warbucks adopting Annie."

And

"I don't want a handful of kids scooped out of sink schools by a Willy Wonka golden ticket. Every school should be a glass elevator"

We need opinion polls which ask people whether they want more secondary moderns and whether they would want their children to go to one. Suspect that might get different answers.