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/

Both DDs have noticed, as I remember noticing at school, that there are always some surprising faces in the top sets for Maths, in particular - of course there is probably a 'core' who are top set for everything, but always some who are then absent from set 1 in Maths, or vice versa.

How can an 11+ negotiate this?

Great post Bomb

If you have only lost a few out of a huge catchment you haven't lost the top set at all"

Oh, so the idea is to open a few more supers electives?

How is that going to work in practice abs how is it going to help social mobility?

SeekEvery it can't at all, but the argument on this thread so far seems to be 'well that's only a few children and why should others miss out just because of a few anomalies'

Absolutely, Seek. In every class I have taught in my time in primary, there has been at least 1 of my most able mathematicians who has been amongst the lowest achievers in English (and vice versa).

Interesting concept re-super selective as previously an idea put forward by pro-grammar posters was that primaries should be preparing all children for the 11+.

I'm a teacher, I'm not spending a year preparing for a test so that the top 1 or 2 will get in. So it will come down to again, who has the post prenatal support amongst the high achieving children, and who's parents spend the most on a tutor.

If you are in the top set, struggle and do badly in tests you'll find yourself moved out of it pretty sharpish. Getting into a top set of day 1 in Y7 isn't a golden ticket for the rest of your secondary career.

Parental support although tbh these differences do begin prenatally!!

Equally, I suspect at least one of my children would have had at best a stressful time with the 11+ because neither of them really 'got' Maths until 1st/2nd year in comprehensive secondary school. One of them then took it for A level and the other wants to do her degree in it - but at 10, it might well have been their achilles' heel.

I've never known anyone move up in maths - only down -

If you haven't covered the work in set 2 they aren't going to push you into set 1 - it doesn't happen

Pretending it might doesn't make it happen.

Oh, I know of children who've moved up, Cody! I agree that down is perhaps more likely, but certainly there are moves up too.

Pretending it doesn't happen doesn't make it not happen!

2striped because if 3 out of all the 'oodles of primaries' that feed the school go to the grammar, you've lost the top set. By default, that schools GCSE results will now be lower than they were. Plus, if more grammar schools were allowed to open, as suggested, you'd find more going to the grammars, so naturally less going to the comp.

We're saying that the sec moderns are made worse because that's what the stats show. Consistently, children attending sec mods perform worse than if they'd gone to a comp. Yes there might be examples where this is not the case but most of the time it is, and the research shows this.

What's all this about 'lucky' to have parents who are interested and push the kids?

Do you know how much time and effort parents go to so that and resources?

Most parents will take the kids out museums or day trips find online maths games or talk to their child about the world, sit and watch nature programs - not everything cost money

This isn't done to upset the lower ability kids - it's to help your own.

Yes I think lower ability have a disadvantage but we can't hold others back to shorten the gap can we?

Cody I'm a maths teacher and have moved countless children both up and down sets in my career. I'm not pretending it might happen, it does happen. Before we broke up for the summer we spent ages as a maths department looking at spreadsheets of results and rejigging the sets for September. Lots of movement between all sets, including set 1.

If they only move children down, then they are going to end up with half empty classrooms at the top, which is a totally bizarre idea.

down is perhaps more likely

Why? Class sizes need to be maintained so set movements are 1 for 1 swaps.

2striped I'm a primary teacher, the new curriculum absolutely does not teach what is required for the 11+

Cody, just asked DD (just finished Y8). Her estimation is that around a third of the children who started in her parallel-top Maths set have moved down, and been replaced by children from the parallel-middle set below. Moves happen termly. The number has reduced gradually over time, as 'actual performance in secondary maths' becomes clearer, and the differences between the feeder primaries becomes a smaller factor. DS (Y100 reports than movement between his top set and the one below does still happen, but is rarer now - perhaps 1 or 2 down, 1 or 2 up each termly cycle.

CodyKing yes but the point is that some very able children have parents who would NOT do those things. These children are able but not likely to perform in the 11+ as well as a child with parental support.

Noble I just meant that I took on board the idea that a set 2 child might struggle more to be 'ready' for top set than a top set child to slack off and be moved down - however, your point about even distribution makes more sense than mine, and I can see it might not be more likely after all!

2stripedsocks. You appear to be talking about a super selective grammar school. Everyone agrees that they have less impact on surrounding schools than "ordinary" grammars. However, if you are, I am puzzled by your claim that the new curriculum will cover everything needed to pass the test........

By default, that schools GCSE results will now be lower than they were

This seems odd thinking! You think comps do better with bright children - let's say 30 kids - these kids are removed to grammar -

That still means the rest of the kids get X grades - this hasn't changed - just the results the school puts out have changed -

Joe does one bright set moving to a different school actually affect the kids in the comp?

The second highest would be the top set surely?

The second highest would be the top set surely?

yes - so then the overall results will be lower, won't they?