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/

A poster earlier mentioned Boston Grammar

In 2014 the high attaining students achieved an average B- at GCSE, middle attainers averaged D

In the three neighbouring sec mods high attainers got average B- , C and B- and middle attainers C, D+ and C-

Obviously Boston Grammar has a higher 5 A-C because it has more high attainers, fewer of the middle and none of the lower. But when compared like with like it appears to be achieving worse than its secondary moderns, although when you account for the fact that it is all boys and the SMs are mixed it is probably about equal.

Clearly this is not typical of selective schools but it should warn us against assuming that grammars will automatically raise academic attainment in deprived area.

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

Why would she be? They're (super?) selectives not comps.

I'm really surprised that so many 18-24 year olds have a view on grammar schools. I thought them
So outdated they were only held onto by a small number of old fashioned, Tory LAs. They don't exist in most of the country do they?

Oh, ffs, you went to Oxbridge, but "comprehensives didn't work for you" so you support a system which disadvantages the already disadvantaged so that what- your kids get to study Samskrit or something? Or just don't mix with the hoi polloi?

teacher / bert Calling a school a comprehensive doesn't make it one. If it has a secondary modern range of subjects, and intake, and results, lacks the teachers and facilities for a full range of subjects etc and all the same social problems you get in sm's from creaming off the mc's then just because you allocate it based on address it doesn't become fair, or a comprehensive.

And actually bert I'd say the same if it was the reverse, and the bottom % were creamed off for a good school. It's still better than all in the bad school. Didn't you appeal your sons place? In which case why can't you at least acknowledge that it would be just as unfair if he'd been given the sm based on where you live?

Problem with this forum is that it's so mc orientated, many people don't seem to realise that their naice comprehensives aren't the full picture. Secondary moderns, and 'bad' schools still exist whether you call the desireable school a comprehensive or a grammar. And will continue to do so for as long as the majority are only willing to acknowledge the unfairness of grammars, whilst denying the comprehensive system is equally bad.

Lurkedforever1 And will continue to do so for as long as the majority are only willing to acknowledge the unfairness of grammars, whilst denying the comprehensive system is equally bad.

Do you live in an 11 plus area?

There are issues with admissions, yes. But the selective system is designed to be unfair and systemically further disadvantages the disadvantaged. The comprehensive system is not.

Peregrina I'm picking up from a long way back but I would have no problem whatever in telling any Sec of State for Ed what I said about leadership in relation to issues like that, and why.

Bertrand As someone who went to Oxford the students I knew there from comps all seemed to assume that their school was some weird anomaly and that every other comp was some kind of hell-hole.
A poster once said that she hated the fact that six students got into Oxbridge from her local comp because it made people think it was a good school which it couldn't be because it was a comp! There really does seem resentment of comps that dare to be good among a few grammar advocates.

Bertrand

No I don't support the grammar system. I acknowledge that it would undoubtedly advantage my kids but I don't support it. I think the words I used in my post included "shit" and "sucks". Not 100% support there.

I am someone who should be screaming about the brilliance of comprehensives. As I said - I ended up with a great result out of it. But I don't. Which is sad. The problem with it for me was that it completely destroyed my natural love of learning. I spent the ages 11 -16 often very bored and unstretched, sometimes very unhappy (I spent quite a lot of my lessons as an unpaid TA to a girl who was struggling and was also pretty unpleasant), occassionally very afraid (we had a charming character in my English class who liked to throw around bits of paper on fire) and with GCSEs that were not that great. Sixth form (where I was pretty happy apart from the usual boyfriend /friendship issues and the stress of trying to get my grades) turned it around for me but for many by then it is too late.

My comprehensive was not a bad one. Significantly above average I believe. It did its best. It is probably like democracy - "the worst solution apart from all the others". But wouldn't it be great if there was a better one?

It might not be designed to be bert but it is. We should be looking at the fact the whole system is unfair.

mum no. Why? Do you live in a deprived but fully comprehensive area, and spend most of your work hours in deprived areas ?

Excellent post SeekEveryKnownHidingPlace

The thing is, if we were farming off the lowest attaining to the best schools, I suspect this would possibly improve the attainment of those left behind, not reduce it.

The fact of the matter is that whilst a small proportion of children would benefit from this system (and I'm not denying that), a. stats show that grammar systems across the globe reduce social mobility, b. Stats show it would be at the expense of the children left behind and c. The children it would benefit are NOT the children most at need in our education system. I'm sorry but they're not, there are huge groups of children we should be prioritising supporting first.

HPFA - you mentioned earlier that you were trying to remember how the questions in that interview were posed. But those questions weren't mentioned in the report - it seems to allude to other questions. Do you have a link to the questions or more detail? It's pretty appalling if in fact they have reported it all incorrectly.

BertrandRussell - you said you have a child who is or was at a grammar school and one who was at a secondary modern. Do you live in Bucks, where the test is mandatory (as far as I am aware) or did you opt for one or both of your children to sit the test?

I do not like the term Secondary Modern'because it refers to schools from a bygone area . However, for those who like to use the term to denigrate some schools can you have a ' Secondary Modern' in a fully comprehensive area ? I.e schools that if lucky offer 1 GCSE foreign language , insist on the easiest science GCSE for pupils. These comprehensive schools offer no Chemistry, Physics or barely anything but lower tier Maths/English GCSE exams.

Dame Alice Owen Parmiters /Watford ETC are 'Grammar schools' that have to abide by odd rules meaning they have to have at least 2 % low achievers .

The new proposed rules would obviously be useful for admissions for the above schools meaning no more token pupils would need be admitted. This would surely be more transparent than the current circumventing of the rules undertaken by Dame Alice ..

Totally agree that lots of comps are rubbish. I live in the North West around some of the worst performing areas in terms of sec education. Removing the top 20% of ability will not help this at all.

Research has been done on this, and what will help is more funding, schools working together and in conjunction with each other, and offering other options for the lowest (and I mean bottom 20%) attaining children. Quality support/training for staff and resources. This is what turns a school around.

ERA...

Grammar supporters will do anything to muddy the waters, but all this "oh, most comprehensives are practically secondary moderns anyway, so it won,'t make any difference" is a new one.

The selective system tests 10 year olds and divides them into successes and failures. Publicly. Do you really want that?

Lurkedforever1 Do you live in a deprived but fully comprehensive area, and spend most of your work hours in deprived areas ?

My sister lives on the Isle of Wight (three children one in their final year of university, one in their 1st year at university and the other just about to start 6th form). She lived in Hertfordshire, in the catchment for Bucks Grammars and SW Herts selectives, before moving there.

My brother lives in Knowsley (two children one at Liverpool university the other due to start there).

For anyone who thinks Grammar schools are great, try living in an 11 plus area and put yourself and your kids through the experience. If you take a look at the Bucks region of the elevenplusexams forum the advice parents on there give is "don't move to the area unless you are happy with the Grammar alternatives".

Herds I just have a memory at the time of thinking that it was a silly question! But I'm afraid I don't have a link and of course my memory may be wrong.

I think grammar advocates may be a little over-optimistic about the polls. Supposedly 67% of people support new housebuilding. We all know how difficult it is to build new homes.

sandyholme - Dame Alice Owen Parmiters /Watford ETC are 'Grammar schools' that have to abide by odd rules meaning they have to have at least 2 % low achievers.

News to me, care to elaborate?

I think (or perhaps I hope) that many of those in favour of grammars on a superficial level, who haven't researched it, would be unaware of the facts surrounding grammars and the existing system. It is the job of those of us that oppose grammars to shout about those stats as loud as we can, so that people are aware of the reality.

Thanks HPFA - no worries I had hoped to see more detail on that. Doesn't matter really.

They are classed as 'Selective' comprehensives which is a very odd thing !

This is because they use every way to circumvent the fact that Hertfordshire is not a 'grammar county' . Selective comprehensives are able to select up to 30% of pupils via the 11+ other pupils can be admitted via musical aptitude or sporting ability .

Clearly it would not be 'legal' or advisable for any school that is deemed to be a comprehensive to have no low ability students. This therefore means the schools concerned accept a token number of low ability pupils to avoid becoming a 'grammar' school.

sandyholme perhaps you can explain how they limit the number of low ability pupils?

I do not like the term Secondary Modern'because it refers to schools from a bygone area .

I think the Government uses this term for those non-selective schools in areas such as Kent and Buckinghamshire, which still have the 11+.

Why is it from a 'bygone era' anymore than 'Grammar school' is?

Mum- I know same Alice has three points of entry. 1. Catchment- this is tiny, and mainly sibling, but it is totally untested and unselective. So there is you low ability criteria 2. Selective academic exam 3. Selective music exam