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/

There are plenty of appalling schools which have had millions of pounds thrown at them.

It was in response to the FSM conclusions.

Tortoise,

The correlation between FSM and Ofsted rating is statistical, not predictive - I know very 'naice' primaries, in particular, where low FSM was no protection from Special Measures, and of course there will be schools with high FSM - not the very highest, but higher than average - that get good and Outstanding Ofsted ratings (and then tend to see their %FSM dropping as MC parents fight to get their children into them).

So perhaps it would be clearer to say that 'schools with very low %FSM are statistically much more likely to be Outstanding than schools with very high %FSM (and also, statistically, very likely to be selective)'. Schools with middling levels of FSM, like Skinners', are more mixed in terms of Ofsted.

Bertrand you were going to outline your experience teaching in different kinds of schools...

If we're talking about outliers, the King Solomon Academy has 67.3% FSM, 14.5% SEN in Y11, and 93% A*-C inc maths and English.

That's a comprehensive, with a non-selective intake. Isn't that what we should be aiming for if we want social mobility? Not schools for the middle-classes with the occasional breadcrumb thrown to the poor?

[whispers] Noble, I agree with your general point. King Solomon is in London - and so will get 2x as much funding per pupil as in my county and neighbouring counties....

Perhaps there is a relationship between funding - spent wisely - and successful outliers?

Most of the highly successful non-selective schools are in London, where, not only is there more funding per capita, but also the school's all worked together on improvement. It would be great if that happened all over. We tried it once in our town with shared staff training. However, no training was provided for A Level (the sixth form college didn't bother showing up) and what was provided wasn't really helpful to us. All schools working together can help improve things. Unfortunately, funding for this has been slashed dramatically. We used to share all manner of resources but under the current regime these things all get charged for. Anyway, I'm rambling and as I stated earlier, no one will be changing their minds on this thread.

teacher KSA is seriously impressive if you look at their whole approach, curriculum, ethos. It's not just about funding, it's about rethinking the educational approach to disadvantaged kids. Obviously the funding helps, but it's not just about throwing money at the problem.

So noble, the question boils down to how we extend that approach, curriculum and ethos to every school in a similar position, but with half the funding? If it can be done once, what are the barriers to it happening everywhere?

Ah, Bertrand, no need to respond. Just found your comments from March this year.

I'm not a teacher but I do volunteer in ds's school to help with reluctant and/or struggling readers. So I am an enthusiastic amateur, not a professional so feel free to ignore me.

Good for you being a volunteer. Schools could do with a lot more helpers, especially for reading.

"Bertrand you were going to outline your experience teaching in different kinds of schools.."
No I wasn't. I was going to outline my experience working in different kinds of school. I have been a governor of two grammars and a secondary modern. I have also been a governor and a classroom volunteer in a primary school in an area of significant socio economic deprivation. In my working life I was a senior civil servant in the Department f Education. I have also been guardian for 3 privately educated children, and a very involved aunt to 8 children educated in comprehensives in 4 different LEAs.
I have two children, one grammar
School educated, now at university, and one at a secondary modern.

e.g. Does the relatively high employment rate in London help - so the children can see that if they get qualifications, there are jobs? How can this be applied to poor coastal towns, post-industrial towns etc? Why are we not learning from the successful approaches BUT understanding the barriers that exist in other areas, rather than crude 'lets have grammars' approaches?

Is there any academic work looking at ksa then? I know nothing about it but surely on face value it's doing "what works" and those lessons need to be picked out and generalised

X post teacher!!

We can see that what works differs in differing situations. I personally (despite role in grammar school) favour the Finnish model if we're going for root and branch reform. The government have seen research supporting this method but ignore it. There is a real issue with the politicisation of education.

Teacher recruitment is difficult in deprived coastal areas in the back of beyond and not just in the traditionally difficult subjects like maths and science. I presume it is easier in London, even in spite of the insane cost of living there.

Gosh. Is it the "done" thing to AS people you are debating with?

Recruitment is really hard all over. In fact the issue is more with retention, as so many teachers choose to leave the profession after 5 years (I can't remember the figures but it's about a third I think).

I don't want this. I live in an area close to 2 sets of Granmars (both lots are single sex so 4 schools in total) which are in different LEA's but traditionally local children have gone. Over the last few years we've seen the numbers going to Grammar from our local cohort fall - 24 in 2010 to 11 in 2015 at one school. This is due to local school improving under a new Head and some good results coming out. Eg. One girl who failed 11 plus achieved 9 A* and 2 A's at GCSE.

The 2015 cohort is pretty high achieving and it was notable that there were a number of children whose parents had been saying their DC would sit the 11 plus, didn't when it came to it. At the same time local school improving one of the Grammars went from Outstanding to Requires Improvement at an Ofsted triggered as GCSE results weren't high enough . This was not at all unexpected to me as friend's DS who is at the Grammar has had to have a tutor for science as the teaching was so poor. The Ofsted confirmed whaf a friend had been saying about the Grammar - it was trading on its selectiveness rather than good teaching.

The situation across the country in education is so varied that I think before adding to the current mess that education is in, there needs to be some attempt to deal with the year on year changes that have been inflicted on schools and get the transition to the new GCSE sorted properly. It's only really parents of children in years 11 to 13 and teachers who know how extremely damaging the Gove/Morgan era has been . There is an almighty mess that needs sorting before adding another layer of mess to the equation.

And in Shanghai they spend around 29 days a year on professional development (UK has 4) and teach on average 14 hours a week. UK teachers teach about 22 hours a week.

It's hardly a surprise the Shanghai children get a better deal!

In France, teachers have 18 hours a week teaching, and 15 if they have a higher level degree. Teachers there have barely any admin and no cover or pastoral duties or marking of exercise books. And longer holidays. And only get inspected, from what I can work out, if they invite in an inspector to look at their lesson so they can go up to another salary level. But teaching is very very hard to get into there...

www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-2014-country-note-Shanghai.pdf

Sadly I think we are about to spend what little spare education budget there is converting schools to grammars rather than improving conditions for teachers.

Bert what's as?

I thought Shanghai results were a total con because there are lots of kids living there not in education at all: they are there illegally/out of regulations. Work in underground economy or help parents in whatever jobs. Also it's a very expensive city so most parents there legitimately are wealthy & well-educated by Chinese standards. It would be like comparing the kids in state school in Cambridge with the kids in state schools in Skegness & blaming all the differences on quality of teaching. You're not even looking at the same social groups.

There are other major problems in PISA comparisons... it's like pretending the Russians don't have a systematic doping regime in sport.