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/

If you have two schools a mile apart and one has 0%FSM and the other 37% something dodgy is going on, surely?

sandy, I agree it is an extremely coarse measure - but it is unfortunately the best we have. AS more nuanced one would, i agree, be much more useful.

The point is not the 'absolute' %FSM - though that is strongly correlated with Ofsted rating, sadly - but the difference between that of different schools, and between that of a specific school and its community.

There are of course many other societal factors that influence a school. Parental engagement with education is the big one, and that is linked to ethnic background. parental level of education. Level of worklessness in the community, and thus a link between 'doing well at school' and 'getting a job' - where many families are 4th or 5th generation workless, this link is severed. Levels of substance abuse, gang-related crime. Housing - where large numbers live in substandard housing, overcrowded housing, temporary housing or housing that makes them ill, it affects attainment.

Endeavour High School closed down on the 31st of August 2015 !

However, you could attach my point to a number of 'Comprehensive' schools in deprived city areas that do as bad as the dire Margate schools.

But why do you think taking the top kids out of those schools will help th schools be better?

A good and reasoned article about why I feel grammars are not a good step:
www.theconfidentteacher.com/2016/08/should-we-bring-back-grammar-schools/

Full of evidence (statistical, not anecdotal) that grammars reduce social mobility.

'In the same speech, May stated, “when it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few“. The lingering allure of grammar schools apparently ignores the evidence from our past, our present and across the world, when it comes to entrenching advantage amongst the mere few. So, should we bring back grammar schools? No. We can do so much more, and so much better, to create a world class school system that is founded upon equity for all and that drives social mobility.'

I don't think they will make the said schools better, they will however give the children who want to improve a chance.

Clearly the standard required for a child to attend an academically selective school in Hull would be lower than that of Bucks/Surrey. The likelihood is In all probability a 'selective' state school in Hull would only achieve the same academic standards as a good Comprehensive in Hertfordshire .

That being the standard taken for granted by posters advocating comprehensives for all.

No, they wont give a chance to the children who want one, they'll take the children they choose. And then what next for the ones they don't? Especially if they'd have liked that chance?

Ok, here's a notoriously awful school: www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/135904
It was a terrible state school that was closed down and reopened as a sponsored academy, which was terrible, then taken over by a new sponsor, and its results are still terrible.

If you look at the breakdown of Y11, there were 20 high achievers, and only 16 of them achieved 5 A*-C including English and Maths. So you could argue that they should be 'rescued' and sent to a grammar school where they should all have achieved that measure.
However, is it fair to leave the others behind? They should do better in other schools too.

Sounds awfully as though you're happy for existing schools to stay the same at best, or possibly even lose out, as long as a minority get something 'better'!

Noble, interestingly, that school has a FSM% of over 60%. In my analysis of local schools, over 50% was correlated with a 'below good' Ofsted grade (not that it meant that a 'not good' Ofsted grade was inevitable, but outside London, with its much higher per pupil funding, there was a correlation)

Sandy, another poster has referred to schools where parents from the better parts of Hull already send their children. Are those private schools? Or simply 'better' secondaries which suck higher attaining / more interested children out of the remaining Hull schools? (I don't know the area).

Coastal towns have notoriously poor educational outcomnes, possibly linked to high unemployment and lack of employment opportunities locally. the data I could find in a quick Google (2014) showed Hull's unemployment to be amongst the highest in the country, over double the national average at that point, and nearly double the lomnger term average. It is that high level of unemployment and worklessness in the community that is likely to have an impact on the schools, rather than the absence of a grammar school.

I'm not saying a grammar would improve our local schools. But I'd rather see some children have a good school than none. However the point I'm really making is that all the negatives of the grammar system are equally applicable to the comprehensive system.

"However the point I'm really making is that all the negatives of the grammar system are equally applicable to the comprehensive system."
Really? Not sure how that works out. For example, how about the psychological impact of dividing 10 year olds into successes and failures? And that's before they even leave primary school!

Lurked, one of the key problems in a grammar system is the artificial 'capping' of the attainment of those just below the 'cut off', or those who have spiky profiles, because the peers and the teaching that they need in some or all subjects are in a totally different institution. It also predetermines the access to specific types / levels of education based on a single day's testing (that does not reliably determine between e.g. the 9.99th centile and the 10th centile, despite that being the level of accuracy required) at the age of 10.

How are these negatives duplicated in a comprehensive system?

Perhaps the task asked of the comps is simply too much. I.e. too broad a range of subjects/activities, too broad a range of abilities etc. Perhaps their efforts are stretched too thinly. Is it really fair to expect a comp to give the best to a high performer heading for Cambridge and also their best to someone who doesn't value education and is disruptive in a classroom environment. Must be an absolute nightmare for the teachers and management. Yes, I appreciate there will be streaming/setting, but in some subjects there won't be enough pupils to have multiple sets so both ends of the spectrum can end up in the same group - I know that happened to me at my comp 30+ years ago for German when there was only one O level year group.

I think that where your town/city is big enough to warrant several secondary schools, then you'd be better having different schools doing different things rather than several schools all doing the same.

Badbadbunny Mon 08-Aug-16 19:51:47 Perhaps their efforts are stretched too thinly.

Or perhaps their budgets are.

The issue with the argument of 'I'd rather some children had a better chance' is that the data consistently shows that the children who don't get in actually do worse than if there was no grammar system. So you're sacrificing the success of those sent to the sec modern for the benefit of those in the grammar, and that is what I'm not okay with.

Also worth baring in mind that your local 'outstanding' comp will no longer be outstanding once a local grammar appears and it's GCSE results drop. OFSTED doesn't care if there's a local grammar taking the top %, it still expects the same.

" But I'd rather see some children have a good school than none. "

So long as it's the high ability "some" eh?

So you're sacrificing the success of those sent to the sec modern for the benefit of those in the grammar, and that is what I'm not okay with.

And vice versa. Some kids would have done better in a grammar than a comp, so you're sacrificing the success of those by removing the choice and forcing them into a comp. I'm not OK with that.

I am not a fan of grammar schools in principle. They do not differentiate by ability. They differentiate by a score in a test. A test that well off / educated parents are able to bump up their child's score through tutors and / or home support.

This is pretty obviously a shit system that sucks.

But.... But.... But

I am that parent. We have two (probably - they are still diddy) highly academically able kids. We are educated enough to be able to help them academically. We have enough money to pay for an army of tutors. And (most important of all) if it all went wrong and they didn't get in we have the money to go private.

Grammar schools are basically made for us! Although it would be more accurate to call them "save Mumoftwo a ton of private school fees so she doesn't have to give up her holidays in the Maldives. Hurrah!" Schools.

It is still a sucky system - it just happens that it would work well for us. So I don't support it. But there is a (selfish) little bit of me that can't help thinking "it wouldn't be the worst thing".

But.... But.... But....

As someone who us presumably a great example of a 'Comprehensive Success" (I'm Comp + Oxbridge) I also do think badbadbunny has a point. I'm not sure Comprehensives work for anyone. It didn't feel like they worked for me. From talking to friends who were "mid achiever" I don't think it worked for them either. Maybe it worked for "low achiever" - I'm not convinced though!

It feels like there should be "a better way". Not sure what it is though!

One thought I did have is - what about a staggered intake to grammar schools? So if you have a grammar that can take 1000 pupils from 11 - 16 then they have 100 in year 7, 175 in Year 8, 225 in Year 9, 250 in Years 10 and 11.

Would that solve some of the problems?

"Some kids would have done better in a grammar than a comp"

Well, actually, the statistics show otherwise. The ones who lose out in the selective system are the lower ability kids. But, once again, high ability kids have to come first. It really, really stinks.

sandyholme Mon 08-Aug-16 18:53:00 The likelihood is In all probability a 'selective' state school in Hull would only achieve the same academic standards as a good Comprehensive in Hertfordshire.

I wouldn't bank on it.

I live in an 11 plus area that is bombarded by "have score will travel" applicants. If the selective schools are easier to get into than others they will be used as a fall back option.

As for good comps. in Herts. I assume you are not referring to the likes of Dame Alice Owens, Parmiters etc.?

badbunny

1. A secondary modern isn't a comprehensive.
2. By their nature, grammars take a minority. So you're selling more down the secondary modern river than you would ever be arguably failing to advantage by leaving in a comprehensive.
3. If you feel that comprehensives aren't good enough for the brightest, why are secondary moderns good enough for anyone?
4. If you feel that each system disadvantages someone, why go for the system that disadvantages more, and disadvantages those already less advantaged?

Mumoftwoyoungkids As someone who us presumably a great example of a 'Comprehensive Success" (I'm Comp + Oxbridge) ... It didn't feel like they worked for me.

So as a "Comprehesive Success" who went to Oxbridge, why did the comp. school not work for you?