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/

Cody you've got stuck in the last century. Contacts indeed.

But I agree with you though. Near me if your DC doesn't pass, it's perfectly acceptable to find God and send them to Benett.

I have friends who found the Lord in year 4 of DC school year so that there was a back up.

goodbye

From SchoolsWeek:

"It adds: “When the new grade 5 standard is introduced in place of the current “C” grade standard, we calculate that the percentage of children who secure this “good pass” level in English and maths will initially fall by around 23 per cent [percentage points], from 58 per cent to 35 per cent.”

To ensure England is keeping pace with “world class” standards of education, CentreForum recommends the government establishes a “new benchmark standard” which would measure pupils achievement across 8 GCSEs.

The report goes on to say: “This would mean securing an average grade of 5 or better in these specified eight subjects. We judge that this would be close to a world class standard.”

Current figures suggest only around 46 per cent of pupils in England reach this “world class” standard."

So it's expected that 35% of students will get a 5+ in Maths and English, and 46% will get an average of a 5+ in their 8 subjects. If grammars cream off the top 25%, then there are still a good percentage of students capable of a 'world class standard' left in the secondary modern. If secondary moderns are set up, as you suggest, to cater for those for whom the new GCSEs are out of reach (which I think is quite a small percentage, assuming that grades lower than a 5 are still acceptable for college courses as they are now) then there will be a large group of children in the middle who don't make it into the grammar, but who will also be poorly served by a school set up for the very bottom end.

I think the new maths GCSE is awful for the very bottom end, but the grade 1 will be aligned with the current G grade, so really it's no worse than it is now.

There was an attempt in 1983 to restore grammar schools to Solihull. It met with enormous opposition, especially from people who had bought houses next door to the excellent comps.
As it was pre-Internet days there isn't a huge amount of info about it but here is a fascinating piece from the then Shadow Secretary of State which could have been written today:
www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1983-12-06a.171.3

I am going to fight this as hard as I can but I really hope that the practical problems will prove overwhelming. There is a reason why Maggie, John Major and DC didn't re-introduce them. And I doubt it was concern for the welfare of those in the secondary moderns.

haybott what does your £15k buy that the state fundd £5k doesn't?

Small class sizes; subjects which are not taught at the grammars near us; advanced language tuition; PhD educated teachers for sciences; individual tuition for my DC in subjects in which they are advanced; participation in Olympiads (not done much in grammars near us); huge well-stocked library (much beloved by my DC). This is in addition to very nice facilities (sports, music, drama, science and DT etc) which however don't particularly interest me.

My point about the £5k versus £15k is that at least some problems of state schools do stem from underfunding. If all comprehensives had enough funding to provide properly both for high ability children and for those who need vocational courses, then there would be less hankering after grammar schools. Parents who see that their high ability children options at GCSE and A level are limited (no Further Maths, no triple science, not many language choices) think that a grammar would fix this, when actually just giving more targeted funding for comprehensives could help considerably.

My local (superselective) grammar schools are amongst the most underfunded state secondaries in the country and don't offer a big range of subject choices and co-curriculars. In fact, I think my DC would get more choices and more co-curriculars in our high performing catchment comprehensive (far enough away from the superselectives to have lots of high ability children) so the comprehensive would have been our choice above the grammars if we couldn't afford private school. (In addition the grammars are full of children who were heavily tutored, which is another off putting factor.)

then there will be a large group of children in the middle who don't make it into the grammar, but who will also be poorly served by a school set up for the very bottom end.

Wasn't this the case with many of the old Secondary Moderns? To get round this, wasn't this why the CSE was invented? Despite it being quite a rigorous qualification with some innovative subjects and testing regimes, it never managed to shake off its second best status.

What was before cses? Just o levels which yiu took or not?

B4 CSEs there was a general leaving school certificate that kids got at age 14, it more or less said they had attended regularly & not failed anything too badly.

Ah yes I have head of that. Thanks

HPFA : I have just read your link, which is very interesting. I do wonder if the climate has now changed, and there might be more appetite for Grammars, given that we have a more elitist society now, as reflected by old Etonians leading Government until the last few weeks? 40 years ago we would have thought an old Etonian Prime Minister belonged to a bygone age.

I have also heard it said that the Secondary Modern issue helped the Tories lose the 1964 election. I don't know how true that is, but I doubt whether it has changed. As others point out, you never see campaigns to bring back Secondary Moderns.

Yes. Most children who attended secondary moderns left school without taking national external qualifications. Until the raising of the school leaving age to 156, actually, many still did despite the introduction of the CSE.

cody

Is not necessarily wrong with the contact comment.
Schools do still exist like this and not only Eton, Harrow and the likes.
I don't think it's probably as widespread as previous generations, but it's alive and kicking at my dd school, and others I know too.
If you go to a famous/ well known school it will always exist.

Oops -typo! School leaving age of 16....

I took CSE's not clever enough for O' levels because not in top set for everything
Left school with a few all very low and not worth noting.
I just tell everyone I left with nothing, it's less embarrassing saying my CSE results were rubbish.

I just hate the automatic assumption that when thinking about an education system, the wants of the most able (I use wants not needs advisedly) are the most important.

teacherwith2kids qualifications weren't so important after the war as there was a massive boom in manufacturing and rebuilding, and there was a very well respected apprenticeship system. It was also much easier to make a decent living as a member of the working class. Not so much these days.
I think they have to work out what kind of a workforce we need and then work backwards. I personally think that school should be about much more than just preparing for work/university and there should be a much broader curriculum for everyone.
I like the idea of a comp consisting of 500 local kids learning anything from physics to photography no matter how 'intelligent' they are, and then a range of jobs/apprenticeships/university places offered at then end.

Exactly, Bertrand. What 'those in charge' should be thinking about - because who else has the overall view? - is how to ensure that the whole cohort makes the best educational progress that it can.

Interestingly, the Finnish model - mentioned earlier - as I understand it aims for the best possible, uniform, comprehensive, non-elitist education for the large numbers in the middle (academic ability being a rough bell curve, there are a LOT of people in the middle), and the main criticism I have heard against it is that this is perhaps at the expense of absolutely stretching the most able. Because the middle are so much more numerous, and so important at a 'cohort' level, their overall educational results are therefore extremely good. (I appreciate that I have simplified here, neglecting the fact that Finnish is a simple language and Finland is relative ethnically homogenous)

Wasn't the GCE O level designed for the top 25%, and the CSE for the next 35% or so, still leaving a rump of pupils who weren't expected to get anything?

The country could get away with this then because there were still manual jobs available which allowed people to find work and provide for themselves and their families. These jobs have now mostly gone to the Far East, so the idea of splitting children into sheep and goats at age 11 is more invidious now than it was then.

Sarf, I mostly agree with you - though as the grandchild / great grandchild of those who might best be discussed as 'underclass', or extremely impoverished working class, do not necessarily agree with you about availability of work - though tbh that lowest possible period for my family in living / family historical memory was 1920s / 1930s, not after the second world war.

"I think they have to work out what kind of a workforce we need and then work backwards."

^This

I have no indication that this will lead to deciding that the educational attainment of those below the top 10-25% should be sacrificed for marginal gain of that top group....

"I think they have to work out what kind of a workforce we need and then work backwards."

^This

I have no indication that this will lead to deciding that the educational attainment of those below the top 10-25% should be sacrificed for marginal gain of that top group....

It would be fantastic too if people weren't so sneery about BTecs. And that includes the powers that be. Ds's school up until recently offered a Btec in Horticulture, which, as we are in a rural area was a step towards a job for a lot of less academic children. Then the rug was pulled from under our feet as it stopped being one of the qualifications that "counted" for the league tables. So we could no longer offer it. The same applied to motor mechanics. Which is insane.

BTecs are good solid qualifications- but to hear mumsnetters on the subject you would think they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

I think we are mostly talking about the 1950s and early 60s; the time of the supposed heyday of the Grammar Schools.

Just talking about this now with DH. He passed, his sister failed (results rigged against girls), his younger brother went to the Comprehensive. Guess which one has the degree?

still sniggering that the Torygraph and the Fail fell for this bit of Tory Central Office kite flying.
If you read what May and Greening Actually said
"cannot rule it out"
is subtly different from
"going to bring it in"

Bertrand - I agree about BTecs. I think they are an extremely good qualification, and I wish people would find out about them instead of being sniffy.

I don't have a BTec myself, but got more mileage out of my HNC than I ever did from my degree.