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 might try to imagine the lottery numbers next 😃

I think the huge dangers of creating grammar schools is that comprehensives will become secondary moderns - this will be inevitable. For any parents with good comprehensive schools, this will be a very backward step as 10% or even 30% will be in the grammar school.
I live in a geamnar school county and there are clearly 1st and 2nd division grammar schools and parents see themselves as fitting in to the elite or the few that were the old technical high schools. Often the poorer children are in the former technical high schools. They are all grammar schools however. There is a very pronounced pecking order of secondary modern schools and many professional parents are very happy with some of them but run a mile from others. They move into the good school catchment areas to avoid the mediocre and failing secondaries. The poorer people have no choice so their children get mediocre education. In this county there is no free transport to grammar schools, only to the nearest school. This is a very big expense for poorer parents.

When I was young, the primary schools coached and there were plenty of ordinary children in the grammar schools. All children who were bright had a chance. The removal of coaching changed everything. Those with money do trample over those who don't have the money. It is not a level playing field and it needs to be.

Having said that, I think more grammars would be a backward step. I started a thread on this a few weeks ago - obviously my crystal ball was working well ! We need to ensure there are enough good teachers for all children. It is plain in my county that the grammars tend to get the best teachers and the secondary schools struggle. The job of teaching in a secondary is a much wider job than those in the grammar schools due to class management and SEN being far more demanding. Mrs May has been keen on the grammar in nearby Marlow opening up a satellite school in her constituency so I think gramnar schools are a possibility. Politically, it could be suicide. All those conservative voters who find their children in secondary moderns rather than a well respected comp with lots of bright children will not be happy. Start campaigning!

Apparently someone on Radio 5 this morning had this view.

twitter.com/SteveHartUnite/status/762603521229385728

Of course I don't think there is anything wrong with being a plumber or an electrician! But no child should have there life decided at 10!

By the way, why shouldn't a grammar child be given the choice of being a plumber?

"Well, you should be in a very good position to model a suitable system for the less academically able Bertrand, but you've told us that you went along with the abolition of the very valuable vocational qualification at your school!"

Just responding to this dig at Bertrand.

Schools live or die, reputationally, by their position in the league table of raw results - and that league table is based on the qualifications that the powers that be allow to be taken into account.

A secondary modern school is already hugely disadvantaged in terms of raw results, because starting points are not taken into account, so in the league table they are measured directly against those schools that contain the 'top 25%', while the SM contains the 'lower 75%. This obvious fallacy is glibly parroted as fact on MN and elsewhere 'the grammar school is better because it gets better results'... well it would, wouldn't it, given its selective intake?

Ofsted is also strongly swayed by raw results - it is not good at taking context into account - so these schools get a 'double whammy' reputationally - they have a lower position in the league able of raw results AND get a lower Ofsted rating as a direct function of these results. (There is also a complicating factor in that Outstanding schools are inspected much less often, while the requirements to gain an outstanding have gone up considerably over time - so a historic 'Outstanding' is only equivalent to a new 'Good', even if the school has not changed, but the school is never inspected to be regraded).

As a result, the school cannot risk offering options that cannot be taken into account in raw results, however useful they would be to their pupils, unless they wish to risk the 'death spiral', in terms of public perception: 'dropping raw results' = 'dropping Ofsted grade' = decline in quality of intake because more educationally engaged parents (the strongest predictor of attainment) will choose to send their children elsewhere ... and so on.

The schools that can 'afford' to offer personally valuable but 'not counted' qualifications will be those comprehensives, or even selective schools, that have sufficient able students, or a secure enough Ofsted results, to take the risk in terms of raw results.

[Our plumber had a very expensive private education. Great plumber, too]

I would be interested to know if there are differing levels of support for grammar schools in areas with good comprehensives and areas with bad ones.

Just to add another factor the the death spiral mentioned above - when numbers on roll drop and schools have available places in their cohort, they become the dumping ground of choice for the local authority when they need to find a new school place for a child who has been permanently excluded from another setting, is returning to mainstream from a PRU, or is for any other reason out of education. This is a nightmare for the school, as they end up having to take kids with severe behavioural and/or SEND problems, mid year, with very little time to prepare.

I think the huge dangers of creating grammar schools is that comprehensives will become secondary moderns - this will be inevitable.

Why? Just don't see it myself.

Remember there are no plans to roll out grammars into every town and city. The proposal is simply getting rid of the stupid ban, so in theory, new grammars could be opened. At this time, there is no information as to criteria for determining where new grammars could be opened, if any.

There WILL be plenty of towns and cities where a grammar can be fitted alongside existing comps, faith schools and specialist schools, to broaden choice, without affecting the other schools at all as it will be insignificant compared to the thousands of kids in other local schools.

Conversely, if you're in a small town with just a couple of comps, then suddenly bringing in a new grammar could well be highly damaging to those comps - if a new school is needed, then another comp is more likely the answer.

It's all a matter of proportion.

But the same applies to selection by other criteria which is just as bad. In my town, there are two huge faith schools which are the outstanding ones, the comps don't stand a chance. Despite empty churches, it seems a majority of parents find religion just around the time of school admission applications to get into a well-performing school rather than the failing comps!

Choice is a good thing. In densely populated areas, you're always going to have more choice, whether it's shops, GP surgeries, hospitals, etc., so a wide range of different kinds of schools is fine. In small towns and villages, then you have much smaller range of choice, there may only be one hospital, fewer shops, etc so there is no scope for different kinds of school - all being comps is the optimum. That's life - yes, disadvantaging the residents, but that's all part of the pros and cons of choosing where you live.

By the way, why shouldn't a grammar child be given the choice of being a plumber?

And this is related to the question of what we mean by social mobility and how we measure it (by economic, social or economic capital).

In the UK there is a lot of emphasis on those from backgrounds with no history of higher education having the opportunity to go to university. Yet nowadays many graduate jobs (teaching, midwifery, office jobs etc) pay comparable salaries to skilled jobs such as plumbers, electricians etc. In the SE I would suspect that a successful plumber could easily out earn a teacher. And it's well known that a London tube driver earns more/around the same as a university lecturer.

I think the problem is that we don't have any detail as to how this would work. Can any existing school apply to become a grammar? Just free schools? Just academies? Just those rated 'outstanding' by Ofsted?

I know if I was a head I might well be wanting to convert my comp to a grammar - if I did so I would probably have an easier time recruiting and retaining staff (a big concern given the current teaching staff crisis), I could avoid a lot of behavioural problems, I wouldn't need to employ as many support staff as the number of kids with SEN would drop dramatically, I'd be almost guaranteed good results, and I'd have engaged parents too. Win! Why would I not?

There WILL be plenty of towns and cities where a grammar can be fitted alongside existing comps, faith schools and specialist schools, to broaden choice, without affecting the other schools at all as it will be insignificant compared to the thousands of kids in other local schools.

I honestly doubt whether there are that many towns which are big enough to have 'thousands' of children in other schools. I live in a town of c 30, 000, and the comprehensives cater for about 3000 children. Add to the mix a number of private schools, with the caveat that they take children from a 25 mile radius and that is perhaps another 1500 children.

A new grammar school here would hit the comprehensives undoubtedly, but would also scupper some of the private schools.

Why would I not?

I don't know, you might be a principled type who went into education because you wanted to provide it for everyone, not just the well-behaved/clever/middle class? You might feel that this was an abhorrent and immoral thing to do? I really hope there are some heads who do feel that way, anyway!

Seek,

I know heads like the ones you describe - even to the extent of actively choosing to be heads in some of the UK's most deprived schools.

None of those I know have emerged with their health intact. One at least is very, very lucky to be alive.

I live in a town of c 30, 000, and the comprehensives cater for about 3000 children

That's exactly the kind of town I was meaning as I guess it has just a couple of comps with average 1,500 kids in each. Exactly why I mentioned in my post that such as town was probably not viable for a new grammar. Whilst I am supportive of new grammars, I also want them to be in the right places, i.e. where there is a demand and where it won't be detrimental to others. I am confident that there won't be a free-for-all.

You could easily imagine Academies declaring that they will become Grammar Schools, and then the Local Authority will have the impossible task of trying to find school places for those children who don't pass but no schools to put them in. It sounds a bigger nightmare than the current mess.

I expect the CEO of our MAT would give serious consideration to converting my school to a grammar. It already has a high attaining middle-class intake, and in our MAT we've also got a much lower attaining school. We could shuffle off all the low attainers who are ruining our headline figures to our lower attaining school which could be our secondary modern, and then we wouldn't have to bother trying to improve its academic results as it would then be all about the vocational skills.

Thank you for that, teacher- you put it so much better than I could. And I would probably have lost my temper.

There WILL be plenty of towns and cities where a grammar can be fitted alongside existing comps, faith schools and specialist schools, to broaden choice, without affecting the other schools at all as it will be insignificant compared to the thousands of kids in other local schools

This is similar to schools like the Tiffins, which do co-exist with some genuine and successful comprehensive schools. There is somewhere an old Mumsnet thread where someone tried to gather support for turning Tiffin into a non superselctive. Opinion was pretty negative - people preferred the fact that the schools were not impacting negatively on the comps.

I would be interested to know if there are differing levels of support for grammar schools in areas with good comprehensives and areas with bad ones.

I don't know if there's any research but it would be interesting to know. I think for most people it's a trade-off, grammar might give a better education if they pass but at the risk of a worse one if they fail. If you're near a good comp then the trade-off will seem more of a risk than if you're living near a bad one. Hope that makes sense.

Well I think there's probably some kind of middle ground between driving yourself to an early death and not wishing cynically to become part of the social segregation grammars would bring about - I would hope so, anyway!

I'd be astounded if our headteacher decided to do this - it would go against everything that's every been said, directly or indirectly, about the ethos of the school! I'm sure he's not the only one who'd recoil from such a plan.

John Redwood MP has written to Justine Greening giving his support to grammar schools and explaining why they'd be keen to open more in his constituency.

johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/08/08/letter-to-the-secretary-of-state-for-education/

There's also a huge difference between allowing existing schools to become grammars and allowing new schools to be selective. If I were running the implementation I would fold it into the existing Free School process and assess applications in the same way (demand, need, sponsor capacity etc) but allow the entry criteria to include academic selection

Incidentally, when I say my MAT CEO would give serious consideration to converting my school to a grammar, it's not because I think they are a big fan of social segregation, but because they are exceptionally canny at seeing which way the wind is blowing and taking the course of action which will best ensure the future of the MAT.

High achieving students at local comprehensives obtain places at top universities, as well as pupils from the grammars doing so, so it is not right to argue the presence of the grammars undermines the local comprehensives academically.

John Redwood is being disingenuous. He has got some very good comprehensives in his constituency and why? Because it's serving a University and parts of the UK's silicon valley. The two Grammars that he mentions in Reading are trawling from a wide area. Open a grammar and some of his Comprehensive children will inevitably go there, to the detriment of the schools losing their top sets.

Nationally I read that children of better off families have more success at getting grammar places. This in part reflects the location of current grammars, with a concentration in higher income areas like Buckinghamshire, parts of Berkshire and Kent. It's time the man got out of his Westminster/South East bubble - parts of Kent, Bucks and Berks have real rural deprivation, but it's obviously hidden from his view.

We need a system which allows those late developers who wish to go to a grammar for a more specialist academic education to have opportunity after 11,

Mostly transfers after 11 didn't happen.

I think Redwood is talking rubbish. However, if buying John Redwood and co off with the promise of grammars keeps us in the EEA, then personally I can live with it. I think that EEA plus a few more grammars would be better for disadvantaged people than a hard Brexit and no more grammars.

As several posters have said above, it's far from obvious that new grammars will be a vote winner in areas with good comprehensives (which are probably more Tory than Labour).

Mostly transfers after 11 didn't happen.

And mostly transfers between sets/streams doesn't happen in comps either. It's usually a one-way street with pupils who struggle being moved down with very few pupils being moved up.

Whether you're talking about moving up from a comp to a grammar or from a lower to higher set/stream in a comp, the same problems arise, which is that the grammar/higher group will be more advanced so you'd have a lot of catching up to do and would have missed large parts of the syllabus.

I'd really like to see some statistics showing the number of pupils who do manage to move to higher streams/groups in a comp. My experience of a comp education is that it was a one-way street, I barely remember anyone moving up, but knew lots who moved down. In fact, that was expected as the top groups were usually very large whereas the lower groups had fewer pupils, which suggested they knew what was going to happen and had spare places in the lower groups in anticipation.