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 have known several who were off the scale! They had lessons tailored to their needs - maths in particular. They definitely reached their potential in an educational sense if not as a fully rounded human beings! This is more of a challenge and is really difficult for any school. Super selective or big standard.

Given the average age of cabinet ministers (50) this means that the vast majority were educated at the time of secondary modern/grammars.

I'm nearly this age and was post-11+. So any in her cabinet who are under this age could be private, grammar (if in one of the grammar areas) or comprehensive.

Guardian profiles seem to have 9 definitely under this age who were at comprehensives.

Priti Patel is under this age and educated at a grammar school, ditto James Brokenshire. Others are either older or definitely private.

Interestingly Patrick McLoughlin is much older but seems to have gone to a comprehensive.

So not the vast majority - yes lots were state educated but lots of those in grammars - including some of the younger ones.

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?

From memory I think the question they were asked was something like "would you have preferred to go to a grammar or a comprehensive" Which, unsurprisingly, given the constant narrative about the wonders of grammars, they answered Yes.

The trouble with opinion polls on grammars is not that they don't ask about secondary moderns but that they require a theoretical answer to a practical question . We can all have theoretical opinions but when it's a question of "Should we replace St Reasonably Good" with St Very Good and St Not Very Good in Anytown" then your opinion will come down to whether you think its worth the risk for your particular child. Which is why so far local campaigns (except in Sevenoaks which already had secondary moderns) have run into a lot of opposition.

I wonder if Theresa May is planning to allow new grammars in theory but relying on the practical difficulties to stop it happening. I don't think she wants to get involved in difficult local campaigns - she has given official support to the grammar in her constituency but hasn't really pushed it. This is what Blair did to appease his left-wingers - put in a process for abolishing grammars but made it so difficult that in practice it didn't happen.

By the way, we live in a grammar area but it's one of those small grammar areas surrounded by truly comprehensive areas (outs self). It has made our secondary provision a huge mess:

One of the grammars has boarding provision and this is taken by non-resident families (OK some are military which, fair enough, or families that have moved away, but some are families that do indeed live in Hong Kong). However it is also possible to get a lower mark on the exam and go boarding.

The grammars have a catchment area meaning that those even 4 or 5 miles down the road (so, same education district) have to achieve higher marks. This doesn't make the grammars local schools, though, children come in by bus, train and I'm sure Mummy and Daddy's taxi service (at least I don't see those as we don't live that near the grammars).

Families of course hothouse their children, I'm a Guide leader so see a lot of this, the one family I know who "just tried" with a very bright 10 year old missed the mark by a whisker.

There is one church school with a really good (and fairly academic) reputation but that is also very difficult to get into.

So the other children are left with secondary moderns by default, even though the grammar schools take a very small proportion of the population. This is partly a local oddity but it's also a result of the grammar schools. We could have "very popular church school" and "decent comps" but we can't have "very popular church school, grammar and comps".

Even if primary schools were able to tutor only the children who weren't getting extra tutoring (who? FSM children? Those whose parents weren't tutoring them, or who at least whose parents told them not to let on they were being tutored?), then the differences have set in by the time children start nursery.

Some families have less access to educational materials, some parents talk less to their children) and they continue while they are in nursery and primary school (so even if you say no tutoring, or we'll tutor all children the same, just the extra help from being in a home where parents use high level language, informally teach them maths as they go along, and talk about world events and logic.

"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."

How many heads of schools in really challenging circumstances do you know? The 'death spiral' which I described is extremely real, and for schools - however well led - poised on the edge of that spiral, it is good leadership, strong leadership to go 'no, we're not going that way, we're doing what avoids the spiral starting'.

Schools in better circumstances can sustain the narrative of 'we're taking a choice that will drop our place in the league tables, because it won't tip us into the death spiral'. Schools in worse circumstances genuinely can't.

From memory I think the question they were asked was something like "would you have preferred to go to a grammar or a comprehensive" Which, unsurprisingly, given the constant narrative about the wonders of grammars, they answered Yes.

I wonder where the majority of those polled lived? If they are typical of Mumsnetters, and live in London and Kent, then their idea of a Comprehensive may be a long way short of my idea of a comprehensive.

Says it was "random" and "across the country"

www.ngsa.org.uk/news-2010-01.php

So it's a six year old survey. I can remember the days when Comprehensives were being brought in. In some areas campaigners to retain local Grammar Schools were asking people, 'Do you want to see good schools continue'? The answer to this is of course yes, but not realising that the question was 'do you want to see xx grammar continue?'. Ideally people who conduct surveys should ask, do you want Secondary Moderns and Grammar Schools, but they never do.

BTW when my grammar school bit the dust, there was no campaign whatever to keep it. It has now become an extremely good Comprehensive. It helps that it's serving a mixed population although one which I would say was still predominantly working class, but with no extremes of wealth or poverty, no grammars or private schools particularly nearby, and so it can and does serve all comers.

Peregrina I don't think I explained myself very well. The people in this age group were effectively asked to compare their real(in most cases) comprehensive experience which even if they went to a good one would have all those imperfections that real life inevitably involves and a "grammar school education" which many of them won't have real experience of but have picked up the sort of idealized image which Bertrand picked up on earlier. You know, everyone goes to Oxbridge and becomes Prime Minister kind of thing. And of course if their comp wasn't very good the contrast is going to be even stronger. So it's perfectly rational to have a very high percentage for Yes.

It's like saying "Would you sooner have been married to your real husband or to George Clooney?"

I usually find the spiral down is not really a league table issue - there are very good schools near the lower end of such tables that are solely based on attainment. The measure of a good school is progress made by the children, good teaching and strong leadership. It is not necessarily exam results or no secondary modern could ever be outstanding! It is about doing the best for all children and proving that you have. Most schools only achieve this by good teaching and strong leadership.

If a grammar school was established and only took circa 2% of local children, the remaining schools are comprehensive in nature. Where the figure tops 30% this leaves the remaining schools as secondary moderns. If anyone thinks a new free school is looking to be selective in the future, given any change in government policy, I would look at the small print. I cannot see why areas with good and successful comprehensives would ever consider any change. In some areas the catchment to fill a gramnar would have to be huge and that may cause problems in recruitment of suitable children. There are areas where there are not enough high achieving children to fill 1000 grammar school places (given that in Bucks it is estimated only 3/4 of high achieving children are recruited into the grammars) anyway. So if there are low numbers of high achieving children, what would be the point of a tiny expensive grammar school for a small minority of children?

To the poster who thought grammar s hooks came into existence after ww2- you are mistaken. My former grammar was established in 1480. It was the technical and secondary schools that were new after ww2. They were established alongside grammars. Until then, if you did not pass the 11 plus, you stayed in your local primary school that went age 14 or 15.

It is, actually incredibly difficult for a secondary modern to be "outstanding".

Ah OK HPFA.

I have asked quite a few women of my generation (sixties) who went to girls grammar schools, what their schools were like. Generally the answer is that the school had a good opinion of itself which wasn't born out in practice. My school never sent anyone to Oxford ever, and sent one every ten years or so to Cambridge. As a Comprehensive it does both those things quite regularly.

The exceptions to the above were the Direct Grant Grammar Schools, which were indeed a cut above the average any town grammar. I think they were independent schools prior to the 1944 education act, and once comprehensives came in, went back to being Independent pretty smartish.

Endeavour High school in Hull is a true Comprehensive school !. It also improved its GCSE pass rate by 75% from 2014- 2015 to an 'Outstanding 22%'.

Seriously how could an academically selective school in Hull further harm such schools. They would be a god send to children or parents just wanting to escape a real 'Comprehensive 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.

Yes, you've just described why I don't send my DC to grammar school. The grammar schools around us aren't offering anything to very bright children that isn't already offered to the top sets in our local comprehensivs.

BTW (as an academic in maths) I would say that it is very rare for kids in grammar schools to be taught maths which is not on the curriculum and to have had maths lessons tailored to their needs. Schools don't have the time or resources to do this.

Agree with Bertrand - in part due to the 'raw resuklts' issue, and in part due to the statistical link between low %FSM and outstanding status vs high %FSM and RI / Special Measures i have referred to already in this thread.

The difference in %FSM between grammars and SM serving the same community tens to be quite striking. In my local area, I calculated the 'community' %FSM to be just below the national average - around 24-25%. The grammars have %FSM of less than 10%, usually low single figures. The schools nearest to those grammars - and thus closest in nature to Kent SMs - have 35-40%+

Until then, if you did not pass the 11 plus, you stayed in your local primary school that went age 14 or 15.

This wasn't entirely true. Some progressive authorities established proper secondary schools. Sheffield City was one, I think Carlisle may have been another.

Sandy, isn't Endeavour cklosing / hasn't it closed? Schools that close do tend to end with very poor results, because those with engaged parents leave to other schools while places are available.

What was its %FSM when it closed? In the case of another school in a challenging area that closed, I know it was close to 100% FSM at the end.

seriously how could an academically selective school in Hull further harm such schools. They would be a god send to children or parents just wanting to escape a real 'Comprehensive school'

Well it would mean that the middle classes in th avenues could stop sending their kids to Cottingham/Beverley/Pocklington/HYmers, so a win for them I guess! But how does it help schools like the one you've just identified, which had made the improvements you've explained?

Sandy- there are several schools called Endeavour- you might want to check your're not mixing them up.

I also cannot believe that whether a family is eligible for FSM or not is the designation to decide whether a family is well of or not.

The FSM rate of grammar schools is always talked about as 'proof' that grammar schools are only for well of children.

Do you really think schools such as the Chatham/Fort Pitt or Boston grammar schools are full of 'wealthy' children.

FSM % is a relative measure it is therefore not singular or either collective proof in determining the socio -economic mix of a schools cohort.

OK, so for the last school year that there were records, it had only 101 pupils, and a %FSM of 44.6%.

FSM isn't relative! I don't understand your confusion about how it indicates a family's wealth, or a school's intake.

Also grammars aren't a god send for parents who just want them - they might be a god send for parents whose children they allow in, but wanting won't do it!

It's not the case for everyone that the question would be 'would you like St reasonably good to become st great and St not so good'. Round here it would be 'would you like a small chance of getting in to St great or St good'. Because even those who wouldn't get a grammar place would have more chance of a place at St good, if the mc kids that live in catchment were reduced because some went to the grammar.

It's also the case that not all of those who said they would have preferred to have gone to a grammar school would have got in. If the question were worded, 'Would you like a grammar school system with the knowledge that you wouldn't get in to the grammar school' I suspect there would be less support.

The question might just as well be worded 'Would you like to be part of a privileged elite?' Most would say yes please but by definition most people cannot be part of a privileged elite!