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/

" 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."

Exactly. Most successful heads - and CEOs of MATs IME even more so - essentially look at the world through a 'how can I turn this to the best advantage / least disadvantage for my school?' prism.

I wonder what my DCs' comp might do. It is a highly successful, honeypot 'other' school in a partially grammar area, that increasingly draws in MC children who do pass the 11+ but see no point in taking up their places given the travel involved, and thus has an unusually low %FSM.

The risk to them would come if another local school decided to become or was set up as a grammar - there is already some risk because the grammars are increasing their PANs - and thus the school risked losing a higher proportion of its most able pupils to grammars than it already does. I think in that case it would turn grammar 'protectively', rather than fight the consequences of that exodus, despite clearly stating in the past that they believe that comprehensives are best placed to meet the needs of all pupils.

I'll ask my DCs about movement. They are re-setted every year in every group of subjects (Maths/ Sciences / History, Geography, RE etc), and DS in particular has moved both ways as part of this. They do start with a whole year being taught in classes, with sets only for Maths and PE, so at least the sets are based on 'genuine day to day performance in the secondary context' rather than a 1-day exam, or SATs, or whatever.

I could see the head of my local good ex-grammar comprehensive wanting to turn grammar because it would help boost the school in the league tables compared with other good comprehensives in the wider area, who I am sure he sees as his main competition, but I would expect local opposition.

I could also imagine a new one being set up in York - iirc, a failing comprehensive was closed down recently with little regard to the fact that there is going to be a shortage of places a few years down the line. I would expect there to be strong support for that from parents in the outlying towns and villages and catchments of the worse comprehensives, who currently have little or no choice of school.

At last a return to some standards and real opportunity for poorer children.

You do realise this has never been the reason for grammar schools. The origin of them is that after WWII there were not enough people to be managers / professionals so the schools were set up to allow a limited number of children have the education that had previously only been available in private schools.

There have been several threads recently where parents have complained that their dc are not being allowed to take triple science solely on the basis that the triple science sets are already full.

At my DS's comprehnsive school there was a lot of movement between the sets in each subject for the first two years as children found their natural level. my DS was in top set for everything except maths which he was in set 3 for. by his choice as the pace was slower and he wasnt expected to do further maths in set 3, he still got an A though as it was at the right pace for him. i think there were 8 sets in total though.
In years 7 and 8 the top 6 in each set were moved up and the bottom 6 moved down so that by the time they had reached year 10 they were working at the right level for their ability. I really don't think that this differentiation style of teaching in mixed ability classes really helps anyone and I say that as an ex teacher.

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).

Yes, this is like the proposals to make all schools Academies - the howls of protest came from the Tory shires.

John Redwood must know that his constituents have the best of both worlds currently - they can try for the Reading Grammars but if not, fall back on good Comprehensives.

In the same way that some residents on the Bucks/Oxon borders do - try for the Bucks Grammars but then put the Oxfordshire Comprehensives 2nd.

Peregrina This is pretty well shown in the current Maidenhead grammar proposal. It's fairly clear now that there isn't widespread support for this (although I suspect most people are indifferent rather than opposed). No-one's bothered to set up a campaign group in support. Letters to the local paper have so far been 100% opposed . The council assumed that because a fair number of people go to Bucks for the grammars they would want one nearer home, which I imagine is true if their kid passes. But they ignored the fact that a lot of these people like having the Maidenhead comps rather than Bucks SMs to fall back on.

I think because a lot of the really ardent grammar supporters see comps and SMs as basically being the same they don't take into account the fact that most people would much prefer a comp to an SM. If their local comp is good they won't generally want to trade the big risk of their child being in the SM for the small chance of their child having a "better" education in the grammar.

Bertrand you may think teacher has answered the point to my satisfaction but I'm afraid she hasn't, and I'm not especially nervous of you losing your temper. The vocational qualification you drew attention to was especially valuable for the children at your school, on your own admission, and yet the leadership team chose to drop it and for the shallowest of reasons. Leadership should be just that, not rolling over in the face of league tables to the significant detriment of the pupils. It's extremely weak. Plenty of schools out there have implemented changes which cause their place on the league tables to decline significantly but the ones I'm thinking of do tend to be good, well led schools. One massive problem is the lack of dynamic HTs; there's a huge dearth. Incidentally, all schools, including top superselectives, face the same teacher recruitment crisis at a lower level as well and Bertrand you're quite wrong about supply teaching: it's far, far higher in the non selective sector. You really do talk off the top of your head with soundbites a lot of the time.

Can I just ask you again Bertrand about the new specifications for GCSE and A2? You haven't answered that on either (as to whether you think they'll fail the less academically able, and what you think the short and medium term holds for those kids under the current system).

Leadership should be just that, not rolling over in the face of league tables to the significant detriment of the pupils.

Did you try telling that to Gove or Morgan? I suspect not.

BossWitch leadership of a grammar school may not involve as much management of bad behaviour, but it is no picnic.

DD sets for maths have only seen pupils go lower never higher

She has been assessed at A*for most subjects (great) so to 10% of her cohort

This was based in assessments done in year 7 and continues through out school - so either good/not good on attainment

If all pupils have a start point then the finish line should be adjusted accordingly

I.e. We predicted 10% A * or 5% A 15% B and so on

That way the schools would show how they started and finished rather than just finished

Sorry for the bold - does that with the A* thing!!!

There is no way on this earth that anyone is going to prioritise vocational qualifications over academic when you choose a school for a 10 year old. The most popular secondary moderns -Waddesdon in Bucks, Bennett in Kent, Wellington in Trafford- are all ones with the best academic results.

If new grammar schools happen then the new secondary moderns are going to look exactly like the current ones - trying to get the best academic results they can for their students whilst navigating Ofsted which expects them to achieve as well as leafy comps.( Secondary moderns have very legitimate complaints about Ofsted criteria).

You actually need at least 4 GCSEs to be a plumber and I expect in practice it could be quite a lot more. For top apprenticeships like the ones at BAE systems you need to have 5 GCSEs to go in at lower level, 3 A-Levels at the Higher. Rightly or wrongly, well-paid jobs for those without academic qualifications are few and far between.

I think where posters have discussed a town where 3000 pupils are in two comprehensives and that setting up a geamnar would not work is not understanding how grammars pull in pupils from outside their immediate area. A new free grammar could easily be established and take the top children from other schools 10-20 miles away. Even from other counties or LAs. In my local area of a grammar school county there are 4 grammar schools and 7 secondary modern schools and one tiny free school. The secondaries and the free school are described by the LA as "all ability"
Schools. They are not, of course, but it means the LA refuses to pay transport costs to the grammars. The secondaries generally recruit from catchment and the grammars recruit from miles around including from another major urban comprehensive school area and from other LA areas.

The money per pupil is the same - grammar and secondary. Parental financial support is much higher in the grammars. The secondaries get way more pp and Send funding as you would expect.

Also , few children move to a grammar after they are in a secondary school. The vast majority accept the situation, especially if the secondary is one of the better ones. The grammars do not always have spaces either. The 12 plus is still an option but it is usually the most pushy parents who go down this route and ones who, in my experience, have done everything they possibly can to rubbish the secondary school their child is attending. This usually results in the child not fitting in - that is the plan though!

But if each town had a grammar then the pulling in of pupils from a wide area wouldn't happen, and the Comps would effectively become Sec Mods. There is some argument for superselectives - the genuinely very very bright, but you are talking about the top 1 -2 % here and a bog standard grammar wouldn't know what to do with those either.

I'm not claiming managing a grammar would be a picnic - but I still think it would be easier than managing what was a good comp which is being turned by default into a secondary modern due to a new grammar school setting up and creaming off the top 10-20%, results dropping, increased ofsted scrutiny, falling ofsted grade due to lower results, loss of teaching staff due to increased ofsted pressure / being poached by the grammar school, difficulty in recruiting quality new staff due to ofsted judgment... if I could spare my school that downward spiral, I reckon I'd do it, even though I generally think grammars are a bad idea and their effectiveness at raising standards and bettering social mobility not supported by evidence.

Does anyone have any idea why it is that support for grammar schools appears to be highest among 18-24 year olds? What's that all about?

Is it Countess? Where is that info?

I can assure you that 'bog standard ' grammars do have gifted children in them!!! Where else would they go? There are no super selective grammars where I live and believe me, there are some truly bright children in them who would have walked into any super selective or indeed Eton had they applied! They are not short changed by any grammar school.

No idea. I was surprised that support was at around 70% across the country as well according to the link put up by a pp.

Maybe it's like strict discipline. Parents really like the thought of it, as long as their own child is not held accountable.

Bosswitch, it's an ICM poll commissioned by the National Grammar Schools Association, here, so I would take the overall figure with a pinch of salt, but the difference between young and older people polled is still perplexing - 85% of 18-24 year olds compared with 70% overall.

Maybe they feel that it's a good idea, because they haven't yet thought through how they might cope when their own future children don't necessarily get in!

'Support for grammar schools' is such a bullshit notion though - it should be 'support for the 11+' people have to profess to.

.... there are some truly bright children in them who would have walked into any super selective or indeed Eton had they applied! They are not short changed by any grammar school.

I was thinking of my own Grammar School where we had a couple who were off the scale in terms of ability. The school hadn't got a clue what to do with them and it's only after they left school that they began to achieve anything like their potential.