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 would also offer assistance with travel in some circumstances.

"There is selection in comps too."

No there isn't. There is setting

If the entrance tests were based on pure potential that might be fair.
Instead, the tests are influenced by a huge amount of other factors to do with social background.
More grammar schools will not make the existing crap schools into better schools.

There isn't always setting. Quite often there is banding ( streaming by its new name).

Sometimes there are mixed ability classes.

I was pointing out that what happens in year 7 is not "selection"

Quite a lot more children in private schools in England than Scotland, which will have an effect on the Scottish comprehensives. (4.3% in Scotland, 7.2% in UK as a whole).

Grammars are working on battling against the tutoring industry.

The weird thing is that grammars believe that it's theoretically possible to accurately select out the bright kids based on any test. The best predictive tests we have will put 1 in 5 kids in the wrong school if you are selecting the top 25%. And unlike in a comp where if a kid is in the wrong set they can move, if you're in the wrong school things are much trickier to fix.

Why would it be unfortunate to be in the middle sets if you were a middle ability child?

And there is always the opportunity to move between sets. And to be in different sets for didfferent subjects. Which is not the case if you are at a different school from the higher sets. Or, indeed, from the lower ones.

What's actually the most likely thing to happen here, do we think? More grammars in already selective areas? (because, logically, if you like selection, and you want your kid to be selected, you want more selection, but also less ). Or free schools with academic entrance criteria? Or academies introducing those criteria?

I really genuinely hate to think what a grammar would do in our city.

I'm just glad my youngest is in year 10 already (and all we have to deal with is the new Maths and English GCSE.....)

setting selects those that have the advantage of pro active parents and a better primary education.

Setting isn't based on a 1-off test on a single day aged ten, and setting is at least based on tests in the actual subject being setted, in things that are on the curriculum.

If your projected targets aren't that great there is no incentive for anybody to push you

That's not true, teachers bloody love a kid who is doing better than their target grade. Their value added will make up for the kid who is missing their target. It's all about averages.

One of the differences between 'comps with setting' and grammar schools is the flexibility.

In my DC'c comp, there are children who are, for example, in top set Maths and a very low English set, and vice versa. Children who are top set Science but middle set for humanities. Top set PE but bottom sets for academic subjects - and vice versa. Higher set languages, lower set Art (looking at you, DS).

The setting also occurs gradually - Maths in Year 7, a couple of other subjects in Y8, more in Y9.

It is also perhaps worth noting that ALL our local grammars have sets as well..... but I do know that at least one or two who have got into Grammars on the (traditionally VR-based, though that has been replaced) test and then found to really struggle in Maths have not been provided for, because no set low enough was available, and then not been allowed to take GCSE Maths at that school, because it affects their 100% pass rate.....

"Top sets will have a limited number of places. Those there from the get go and with the more involved parents will be the ones who find it easier to get places."

Of course. But not bloody impossible which it is if the top set is in another school.

An excellent summary from the article posted above:

'We noted above the high academic standards achieved by grammar schools. The corollary of this is that a selective system appears to produce a longer tail of low-achieving schools. Almost all school systems involve some degree of social differentiation between schools. Furthermore, no school system has emerged to solve the problem of low-achieving schools. However, a selective system produces a disproportionate number of schools which combine low ability and social disadvantage in their enrolments, thereby compounding the educational disadvantages of both factors.'

The argument that some are putting forward suggesting that some comps are bad too is bizarre. Yes they are - I have already acknowledged that. And I have discussed research which has found what can change these failing schools around and it is absolutely not removing the top 20% of the cohort.

I actually agree that the poorest behaved should be taught elsewhere (and the research supports this idea). However, ofsted do not.

2striped - one way that DCs comp copes with the 'limited places in top set' situation is to flex the number of sets at each level.

So for some subjects there might be 2 or 3 parallel sets at particular levels. In DS's year, the Maths sets are 1 top, then 3x2 parallel sets, and 1very small very low set. DD's year, OTOH, has 2 parallel top sets, and then a collapsed middle set structure in which most are parallel, and again a small very low set.

opening some more super selective GSs will offer high ability children an appropriate education which is currently not on offer in the comprehensive system

Is it clear that this is what is really being proposed, and that this is how the new grammars would be implemented?

How are superselectives meant to work in areas of low population density, where to fill a superselective children would have to travel from afar? And in seaside towns with relatively low populations? I.e. in places where high achievers currently do particularly badly.

I agree with Bertrand. (As usual). Proper top sets within mixed ability schools is the way to go. It solves all the problems. It's achievable. It cut the need to segregate kids when they are 10/11. It allows slow burners to benefit at a later time. It means it's more likely that kids can go to the closest school

I don't understand what the disadvantages are of having proper top sets in all schools is.

2striped, what the school could do in that situation is to create 2 parallel top sets from the existing sets 1 and 2 - a much, much simpler approach than having to create a totally separate school....

I do not see how any selective system could overcome that disadvantage to lower income households, and also lower achieving children as they are disadvantaged too. You're making their schools worse. As stated above, no system has managed this yet, and a few anecdotal examples of 'my child goes to a great sec mod' does not change the overall stats, which paint a very clear picture.