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/

To be fair, grammars-as-they-were is how my family made its step from working class to its current aching MCness. My grandfather learned to read at 14 in night school to join the police, my mum went to grammar school and Oxford, and became a teacher - a much bigger 'setp up' than has happened in my family before or since.

However, grammar-schools-as-they-are no longer achieve this, and tbh statistically (rather than anecdotally) they probably never did very much.

I totally support comprehensive education coupled with setting for ability. My DC were slow burners so both failed at 11plus, they went to good comprehensives, DC1 now came in the top 10% at Medical school in his second year exams and DC2 has acheived all A's at GCSE. Fortunatly they went to schools which hadn[t had the high achieving pupils syphoned off to a grammer and had a suitable peer group and teaching.
Some students peak at age 11 and some havent even got started at age 11. Grammar schools artnt the answer

This is a Tory Party move to undermine UKIP. Again. Because there is no opposition on the left. Or if you prefer, there is no coherent national support at the moment for left solutions.

According to this
Senior Tories are also likely to resist the move to Grammar Schools.

I do wonder how many Tories would rebel though - it wouldn't take many to defeat this with the slender majority.

I should declare my inherent hypocrisy as I have children at grammar schools but am intrinsically ideologically against them

A few points: there is a vast chasm between what we want for society and what is for the greater good vs what we want for our own children (see above, my own hypocrisy). If anyone can solve that, they should have the gold star.

May's talk of bringing in new grammar schools is just a distraction: if we have money to spare, that money can go to improving all existing schools. God knows they need it, our grammar certainly does.

They are with other children who want to do well and not sneered at as some kind of weirdo or geek.

Well, just because it hasn't happened to you or yours (how lucky for you), you can't diminish the effects that being at the receiving end of such taunts and jeers has had for those of us who have been called swots, weirdos or worse...

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.

My experience with my kids' education is in direct contrast to Bert's statement above. Our overwhelming experience is that the system throughout primary school was focused on the low and middle attainers - the wants or needs of my academically able kids were not the most important thing to the school (I don't disagree with this on an impersonal scale). Focus and resources were given to "bring up" the bottom and high attainers were not stretched because they were already capable.

But as a poster said upthread, we're all fairly entrenched in our views and unlikely to persuade anyone else unfortunately.

lemon

The jibes of swots etc was mine.
It was in reference to a friend of dd who is so clever and bright at Maths and has this as a daily occurrence, she has no encouragement not even at home.
She is longing for "maths" and used to come round my house for workbooks as dd was H.ed at the time. I'd buy her GCSE revision books and work at that level she was not even 11.
There are other bright children in our town and I would love for them to get the opportunity, but they never do.
The parents aren't bad and support the school but they don't see the importance of them pursuing a career, especially the girls.
It's a bit like the 70's in some respects and hasn't moved on to some extent.

Our overwhelming experience is that the system throughout primary school was focused on the low and middle attainers - the wants or needs of my academically able kids

That's because teachers are targeted to get children to average or above - so high achievers generally achievers this early and drift - but hopefully don't switch off

Lowest get a lot more one to one

It's no wonder the high achievers parents are disillusioned with school.

Every child should have the right to a good school and a good education - unfortunately education isn't valued in all areas of life - they need to be more realistic and teach children about work and opportunities that are out there

One child where I work thought I just turned up for something to do - rather than being paid to do a job - he didn't know people worked! His family didn't have jobs and he wanted to be at home like his parents - so rally no aspirations.

Raise the bar - and you'll raise standards

Teachers are measured on the progress all pupils make from their starting point.

The Chairman of the Commons Education Committee who is a Conservative has come out against the move:

twitter.com/mikercameron/status/762410196379525121

As a bizaare side-effect of my day of amateur social media campaigning I now find I have Twitter followers!! What do I do with them??

I don't tweet, but don't you just keep tweeting links and stuff like you've just done above? And maybe follow some of your new followers back? But make sure you are following some who support the idea too?

Teachers are measured on the progress all pupils make from their starting point.

Indeed. And parents of very high achievers talk about how their DC were artificially marked down to ensure that they could make progress e.g. nothing beyond level 3 at the end of KS1 because reporting a level 4 in maths would mean a lot of pressure to get very high results at the end of KS2. Meanwhile for my own DC in private schools the teachers could be much more honest, as they were not under pressure to make specific (linear) progress according to the (old) NC levels.

While I agree in principle that it is more important for low and middle achievers to get extra support than for a very high achiever to get it (when resources are limited), it is difficult to accept when it is your own child who is getting bored and ignored.

I live in a super selective grammar area. (Without catchment)
The children are mostly heavily tutored for the exam. It takes only the very, very bright. We have a few prep schools that specialise in 11 plus education.

I see both sides of the argument, I have very bright children who currently can not be taught outside of the curriculum, who are not currently challenged in primary.
A super selective grammar would benefit them enormously. The pace of learning and stretch is what they need.

However grammar schools take out the brightes level of children and skew the comprehensives intake. It also changes the social mix as most of those children are middle class. They also skew the local private school as no one will pay if there child can go to the grammar.

Personally I can't see an argument for more grammar schools. True stretching for the able children in comprehensives would be more beneficial. If the government want to improve standards they should look at the able and stretch them. ( not cap learning)
They should also do more to help the poorer children with intervention. ( pupil premium should be spent directly on teaching/intervention for that child)

I can't see that forcing children to choose vocational schools would be a good thing.

It all seems a bit too divisive to me, and I am pleased that we live in grammar area.

I think there are bigger wins elsewhere.

I was wondering where Corbyn was in this (I just read an article with quotes from Tom Watson, Owen Smith and Angela Raynor), then I read that Corbyn sent his children to a grammar.

Then I googled and found this article from 1999 which says that Corbyn's marriage broke down because he disagreed with his wife over sending their son to a grammar. www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2 I guess he's opposed to grammars then!

The difficulty with offering an appropriate education to high ability children in a comprehensive setting is critical mass.

You just don't get that many children with similar ability in the same school. The top set in a comp will generally have quite a spread.

So it's hard to justify resources being diverted or policies being made to benefit what amounts to a handful of kids.

Also, some schools actively refuse to engage in things they consider elitist which can have a negative impact on the high ability pupils.

Which is a possible argument for superselectives.

It is not an argument for gearing an education system entirely towards the wants of the middle classes high ability children.

bert I don't think that's remotely on TM's agenda.

Which does beg the question of why some posters have spent so much of their weekend addressing it .

The Jeremy Corbyn article is hardly a glowing endorsement for his local comprehensive school though is it (Ofsted's failing list)? Corbyn himself was educated at a prep school and then a grammar school.

The top set in a comp will generally have quite a spread.

In comps with intakes of 250-300, it's hard to see how this argument works. Top 10% would still be 25-30 pupils, i.e. one whole set. Top 25% would be 60-70 pupils, i.e. two or more sets.

But of course in reality comps are not actually comps in many cases: my catchment comp has 50+% high achievers and less than 10% low achievers (almost a grammar) while a comp 15 miles away has almost the opposite demographics (a secondary modern in all but name). The high achievers in the latter certainly don't get what they deserve, but this reflects what would happen if we brought back grammars, as this school is already effectively a secondary modern.

BTW people arguing for superselectives seem very confident that you can accurately select for the top 10% or top 5% aged 10. Imo trying to pick out the top 10% is even more inaccurate than getting the top 25% needed for grammar school.

I have found this thread fascinating. I know very little about education but recently was told that UK education is poor and our children are at a disadvantage when compared with other countries which I was surprised by. Does anyone know where I might find some futher reading on this? I would like to think about future proofing my children!

I had an ex boyfriend from Kent and was gobsmacked by the grammar system, which seemed positively Victorian. My mother is also still pissed at 65 that she failed her 11+

What I don't understand is why can't all schools be like grammars? Are the simply better because they move at the speed of the slowest pupil, who by default is faster than the slowest would be in a comprehensive?

I see no reason why a less able pupil has to take woodwork rather than French or Latin. Its not like they're going for a PhD, it's secondary school!

I too think there is a possible argument for super-selectives. However I suspect that if one was set up in say, Oxford, it would conrain a lot of pupils who would otherwise be at Oxford High or Magdalen. Those bright but poor children currently in the poorer of the Oxford comps wouldn't have much of a chance of getting in.
But whilst I'm not thrilled with the idea of precious funding being used to offer a free private education I accept that such a school would not have an adverse effect on other Oxfordshire comps. So I guess it's a possible way forward for Theresa May to buy off her right-wing?

Anyone else think TM may be trying to soften up her right-wing before she delivers EEA membership?

We have super selectives in my area: I think it's generally accepted they are out of most pupils academic reach. It's not the same attitude I experienced in Kent where people seemed to expect any child above average would get in.

And whilst they get more than their share of sharp elbowed middle classes those who can try for the exam are actually restricted to the immediate local area and the surrounding areas but importantly, excluding the middle class enclaves of those areas. I imagine a long time ago it was designed to include the poorer areas in the catchment but now that house prices have gone up so much it's less relevant

Our comp streamers for maths in y7

Then maths and literacy in y8

That's it

All abilities lowest in DD class was 3a highest 6b her grade hasn't changed in 2 years. I have never met her form tutor or her English teacher - Ill both
Parents evenings - she's unavailable and off sick most this year - hence the supply teachers

You wouldn't have this in a grammar

"Parents evenings - she's unavailable and off sick most this year - hence the supply teachers

You wouldn't have this in a grammar"

Gosh- yet another magic property of grammar schools- teachers are never ill. It must be because they never come into contact with the Great Unwashed............

Jeremy Corbyn has nothing to say on this because his followers are already against selection and he has no interest in persuading those who don't already agree with him.