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/

Cody, you seem to have answered your own question, as you have said very clearly that 'the results the school puts out have changed' if the top set is removed ... exactly the same as the statement by Bertrand that you find so puzzling??

Yes the results would be lower - for the school

Not lower for the children

Blimey, I go away to have my hair cut and now can't keep up with it at all!

Seriously, would recommend everyone read the link posted Mum . It's fascinating, very well-balanced and will give both sides the opportunity to cherry-pick something to promote our cause.

On subject of setting, in Year 7 DD's comp had an immediate "superset" for Maths but the rest mixed until testing at six months. Meant that the real high flyers didn't get frustrated but no-one had the discouragement of immediately being in a bottom set. I thought it worked well.

I live in NI. I cant think of anyone I know who doesnt support the grammar school system. Most wish it was back to the 11+ rather that 5 tests in total. Is the current english system very differebt from NI?

We are currently in the middle of a summer of studying. Ds 1 in the study at the min doing his morning test. Tutor comes twice a week. He is a bright child but a June baby so i worry about him being the youngest. We are doing everything possible to get him to the best catholic grammar. It is attached to his primary and we moved house to get in. I feel I am doing my best for him as a parent. I dont want to have to do this but realise there is feirce competition for the best schools and want to give him all the help possible. After a similar thread on here I am aware that other children will not have parents doing this for numerous reasons and that leaves those children at a disadvantage. Dispite this I will not apologise for trying my best for my ds. I do not want him going to the local secondary schools and will be devastated if he has to. I do find as time goes on I am struggling slightly when I think of other children who may be smarter than my son but not offered the same opportunity but I will do exactly the same for dd and ds2.

Cody, actually, it can mean that the results are lower for some children.

Those with 'spiky' profiles - very able in Maths, for example, but didn't pass the 11+ due to difficulties in English - will not have their peers in the same school, and therefore may not be able to do e.g. the Further Maths they might have done had their peers been there.

It may also affect the teaching profiles - in this era of shortage of teachers, maths teachers interested in access to the teaching of the very able may no longer apply to teach in the 'non-grammar' school, and therefore the pupils remaining may no longer benefit from that particular teacher.

There are some interesting facts figures in this document. I presume it's been referred to already. It's a gov. Briefing paper dated 29th June Grammar School Statistics

Grammar schools reportedly take a relatively large proportion of their pupils from independent preparatory (primary) schools. This rate has been estimated at 13-15%. around double the proportion of 10 year olds who go to independent schools

This is not ok. It's unfair on the kids who will have missed out on grammar places because their parents couldn't afford to have them prep'ed.

There is also - and i have experienced this myself, teaching mixed ability classes which have a different ability profile each year - be a more indefinable but very real impact of the lack of the most able. In classes I have taught which happen to lack really high ability children due simply to the cohort, the attainment of the whole group does actually slip very slightly, despite identical teaching, perhaps because they do not see how high they can aspire if they really try, or because they don't have access to the same range of ideas from peers, or something. Whereas even one or two really able individuals can inspire others to emulate them and the whole attainment of the class moves (not always explicably, but definitely) slightly upwards.

I obviously keep books from previous years to sow 'what a good one looks like', and all the other techniques recommended in these cases, but it is a definite effect.

HPFA how was the school able to select the high fliers in maths ( why is it always maths?)?

MrsRyanGosling There is nothing wrong with wanting the best for your DC. It's what we all want. I vehemently dissaprove of selective state schools (grammar and/or religious ) but would have sent my own children to them if I had needed. I'd have even paid for private schools if necessary.

It's not hypocritical.

I don't know why it's always Maths, but it definitely seems to be the subject with the most exceptions - both in terms of children who excel at it but not other subjects, and vice versa.

GetAHaircut,
It is usually Maths because ability in Maths is somewhat separable from ability in other subjects, because the other subjects do tend to require a facility in language for initial success.

Maths also does not require 'emotional maturity' or 'knowledge of the world' - high ability e.g. in English or in Humanities tends to require either or both of these, which tend to be linked with age and thus 'flatten' the maximum attainment available to an 11 year old.

(DC's comp initially sets for Maths based on SATs + an initial assessment done after a couple of weeks of mixed ability teaching +, I suspect, a certain amount of 'common sense based on local historical knowledge' as to which feeder primaries coach hard for SATs and thus historically have children who arrive at secondary with very good SATs but perhaps not quite ready for the very highest sets. As I said, those initial sets do change quite a lot over at least the first 2 years.)

But teacher if those kids were in a super set as described below they wouldn't be with the rest anyway

They would in subjects other than Maths.

"no child should be held responsible for the achievement of others"

Not to their own specific disbenefit, no. But if it does not affect them negatively, whereas it affects the other child positively, why not? (See post early in the thread about child returned from PRU in DD's top Science set - no affect on the set as a whole, huge benefit for the single previously-disruptive child)

Having gone through the whole process of getting children through 11+ and one ending up in GS and the other in a comprehensive on the whole I think physically separating children at 11 is a bad idea.

I prefer ability banding in non selective secondary schools and children being able to mix together socially but taught according to their ability. I also think children develop academically at different rates and 11 is too young to decide if they are academic or not. Note all the major public schools and the Germanic countries still retain selection at 13/14 and I think this is a better age to see which way educationally they are inclined.

Interestingly St Olaves a GS in SE London now has introduced an admissions criteria at 16+ and some parents whose children got in at 11+ were incensed they would not automatically have entrance into the 6th form unless they met the new grades criteria. This demonstrates how the GS system has favoured early developers and those who were tutored to the max but not those who develop later and can over take them when older

I don't know whether i and my three School friends (all 11+ failures ) suffer from Stockholm Syndrome or not !

What i do know is that the four of us are very pro selection. I also know the four of us counteract the statistics that say grammar school pupils come from previously educated families.!

None of us went on to do A levels let alone go to University yet we have got 9 out of our 10 children to pass the 11+.

I also know that many of the fervent anti grammar school posters on here benefited from selective education themselves.

"Also no child should be held responsible for the achievement of others."

Well, apart from when it's middle or lower ability children being held responsible for the achievement of high ability ones.............

But they might not be very able in the other subjects

Exactly!

I also think children develop academically at different rates and 11 is too young to decide if they are academic or not

As a parent of 4 Uni age DC ^^ I think is the biggest fundamental flaw in the grammar system. Does anyone actually think kids can be accurately divided up at 10/11.

I also know that many of the fervent anti grammar school posters on here benefited from selective education themselves

Do you? Who? How do you know? And what would it prove if it were true?

So comps with top sets help the lower sets even if they don't mix?

Or does this hold the top sets back?

It seems to me that teacher teach the curriculum and not the children in their class

DD quite often goes over and over certain topics to enable the lowers to catch up and she's either bored or helping someone understand

I also know that many of the fervent anti grammar school posters on here benefited from selective education themselves.

What difference does that make to the argument? I didn't go to a grammar anyway but if grammars are so great wouldn't you expect people who went to them to be pro-grammar?