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 too think this is a positive move. It's nonsense to think that one school can cater for all abilities and interests and get the best outcomes for them all. Those who are academic should have a different sort of education to those better suited to vocational training. As others have said the key thing would be to make sure primary schools help prepare for testing to make sure the tests are truly accessible for all. And those kids whose presence at school ploughing through GCSE's they are not interested in and unsuited to and therefore don't see any point in doing can be offered courses geared towards skills and learning required for the workplace

Back in the Golden Age, public schools were for proper toffs who didn't need to work, proper bosses, very senior professionals and other "movers and shakers". Grammar schools were for some professionals and for managers, and secondary moderns were for the vast number of workers that our society needed then. Technical colleges, where they existed were for foremen, and for the one step up from the workers jobs- technical drawing, tool makers and that sort of thing.

Our society doesn't work like that any more. (Apart from the public school bit) So trying to impose an education system designed for a different world on today's society just won't work.

I live in a grammar area. My son is about to start y5. Some kids in his class have been having tutoring for the 11+ for a year already, some for longer.

I went to a grammar school (well mine was super-selective but I still don't completely understand what that means!). In my day, we all knew which girls had tuition before the test because they were all a bit less clever (there were v few of them). Now it seems the only way to get in is to tutor. Which means the schools are only accessible to well-off families.

Plus, when I went, my school and the boys' school, were only open to kids in the borough. Now they have no catchment. I've heard anecdotally that kids come from all over London and even further (have even heard that some come from Singapore and Hong Kong!) to take the test and then if they get in, their families move. The school's results are comparable to good private schools so it's a bargain for rich families.

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying back before there were comps then I can see that grammars gave a few poorer kids an opportunity. But now education has changed so much that forcing grammars into that system just won't work. It's a stupid idea.

Stupid idea. And I say that from a grammar area!

I went to a grammar school and this idea appalls me. Good comprehensives with streaming mean all children have the opportunity to meet their potential within one school and allow for movement across streams as children grow and mature. There's no need to hive off a proportion of children who seem to show the greatest academic potential at age 10 (and these days whose parents can afford tutoring) and put them in a separate school. It makes no sense - and that's without talking about the pressure taking the test puts on children, the impact on self esteem of being told you're not good enough for grammar school, etc, etc.

The other really important thing to remember is that the results from wholly selective areas are barely different from results from wholly comprehensive areas.

I may be looking at this with rose tinted glasses as I don't live in a grammar school area, but if admissions were properly managed and children from poorer backgrounds were given a fair crack at getting into grammar school I think it would be a good thing.

I live in a rural area. I have two DC in secondary, aged 12 and 14. A large number of their peers are from farming backgrounds and the expectation is that they will go into the family farm when they leave school. They see French and History and English Lit as completely irrelevant to their lives. They want to learn how to weld gates, how to improve the milk yield, how to prevent lameness. Vocational courses which included things like shearing, foot trimming, ATV driving, pesticides handling etc would be of far more use to them. Plus some business skills eg VAT and cashflow planning.

Currently there is the option from Y10 onwards to move towards more vocational subjects, but with a good secondary modern system this could be done from Y7. It might engage the pupils more with school too as they could see the relevance of what they were learning.

"but if admissions were properly managed and children from poorer backgrounds were given a fair crack at getting into grammar school I think it would be a good thing."

How would you do this?

Streaming within a comprehensive school still means that all children will have to try to pass the same exams which clearly doesn't suit their skills and talents. And not all comprehensive schools properly stream for all subjects. What is wrong with recognising that one size definitely does not fit all?

I'm not keen. Would much prefer decent secondary schools with good streaming.

I can't see how more grammer schools would help with social mobility.

"live in a rural area. I have two DC in secondary, aged 12 and 14. A large number of their peers are from farming backgrounds and the expectation is that they will go into the family farm when they leave school"

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.........

Can we (sorry) be clear about the differences between setting and streaming?

Setting is differentiating by ability in individual subjects- generally but not universally considered a good thing.

Streaming is differentiating in all subjects based on ability in one- usually English or Maths- universally considered a bad thing.

"What is wrong with recognising that one size definitely does not fit all?"

Absolutely nothing.

It baffles me why folk cling to the myth that grammar schools are good for deprived communities. What everyone wants is for their Default local School to be a good school. Parents shouldn't have to strategise to get their kids into the "good schools".

Many reports online to say that existing grammar schools do not boost social mobility, the opposite, mostly. If you want evidence to cite in writing your MP:

A "tutor proof" system was introduced in Buckinghamshire, and the result was still only 4% of kids at grammar schools were on FSM, 2015 report.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation assessment "Selective systems are bad for the prospects of children from poorer backgrounds. The debate around them is a distraction from what is really important", 2015.

Michael Wilshaw, Head of Ofsted, says grammar schools don't boost social mobility, they are "stuffed full of middle class kids", 2013.

Sutton Trust says the only fair grammar school system would be one that actively discriminates in favour of kids from poor backgrounds (so entry not on basis of ability), 2013.

Summary from Fullfact, 2013.

The way things are at the omen to. Areas with grammar schools does skew the intake to naice MC families who can afford to tutor because the primary schools do not teach the curriculum required to pass the 11+ so there is no alternative than to pay for help. If primary schools taught the curriculum and/or if entrance testing was done in such a way as to mean tutoring is not helpful then this would mitigate this effect.

"The way things are at the moment....."

Because there will be kids who DO want to follow the academic route, who won't be permitted to as they don't pass a test at 11.

What about the child who struggles in primary but is diagnosed with dyslexia and then flies in secondary with proper provision in place?

What about the child who arrives in the country in y5 speaking little English but is incredibly bright?

What about the child who it all suddenly clicks when they're 12,13?

What about the child in care that's bright as anything but the lack of stability means she underperforms on the test?

What about the child with anxiety who is excellent in class but does not show this on the test?

I agree that we need another pathway but I think this pathway needs to be a pathway that people CHOOSE, not one that is inflicted upon them at 11.

Also those suggesting we prepare them in primary, what do you want me to stop teaching? The primary curriculum is full to the brim so shall I stop teaching History? Art? Y5 would become a second Y6 in this case.

Why would pupils want to be " prepped" in primary? Maybe they would like to follow a wide and varied curriculum to prepare the for life, not just exams. Crazy. Hands off my kids please.

The problem is, there is still a difference between a good school as decided by ofsted, and the sort of good school you'd want your child to go to.

I also see it as a positive.

Something else that ed me, there was a MN thread comparing the uniform costs for comp. vs. state schools. (Can someone find that thread?) The grammar school kids', their uniform/kit list was 2-3x more expensive than the comprehensive lot (anecdotally on the thread). How much subsidy for uniform/kit is there for families receiving FSM with kids at grammar schools? I can't find anything specific online, although Kent CC (grammar school county?) says NO HELP WITH UNIFORM.

Plus any new scheme would need subsidised transport to make it equal access for poorer families.

Can we (sorry) be clear about the differences between setting and streaming? Setting is differentiating by ability in individual subjects- generally but not universally considered a good thing

Thanks bertrand it turns out I meant setting not streaming

Its elitist and divisive. Why are we making it easier for a few to make it to university, rather than improving it for all? Makes me so angry.

Please also bear in mind that many very good teachers might get swooped up by the grammar schools - the prospect of teaching only the most able (and generally with lots of parental support) is appealing, especially when there's a huge teaching shortage.

This link shows the evidence that secondary moderns struggle to recruit - educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/06/inequalities-in-access-to-teachers-in-selective-schooling-areas/

Private schools (educating about 8% of the population) will be terrified about this news. The thought that millions of poor children could benefit from the selection process that they enjoy, for free, will not go down at all well. They will lose a lot of customers I expect.

The 'new' schools will be grammar schools. No ones going to think, 'oh I really fancy opening a new secondary modern'. The existing comprehensives will become the sec mods.

So you've got a nice new grammar school, well funded, with new resources, taking only the top %, low SEN, some of the best teachers (as it'll be nice and easy to recruit for this set up!)

And some kids, based on a test at 11, are told that they've failed and they can't go there. Instead they'll go to the local tired comp, who's GCSEs have plummeted thanks to local grammar farming off highest achievers. There won't magically be new pathways, or new opportunities.

If you support grammar schools, would you be happy for your child to go there?