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/

Bertrand at the moment a lot of the farming children miss school to work on the farm at home as they and their parents consider the vocational learning more important than academic learning in school. YFC is more respected than school. Attendance figures are dire.

Not sure what you mean about how many people the family farms support? Most families have 2 or 3 children. Not every child wants to carry on on the farm, of those who do some will marry another farmer and go and live on their farm. Income is supplemented by contracting etc anyway.

I think most children know by 11 whether they want to stay in farming or not.

So you've got a nice new grammar school, well funded, with new resources

Oh no don't worry about good funding or new resources. Grammar schools really really struggle with funding. They will be set up in old office blocks with crappy resourcing. That is one area not to be concerned with. It's the comps and secondary moderns which have all the money pumped into them.

I read the first few replies and really thought these were jokey, sarcastic responses to the news. Sadly I then realised that some people actually do think this is a good idea. And as for the suggestion of academic and vocational schools Imagine getting 98% in the 11+ and all the places were taken by those with 99%. Don't you think the child that 'failed' deserves an 'academic' education as well? That's why comprehensives were invented.

My DD is very good at certain subjects but not at others. She probably wouldn't have passed the 11+ because of her weakness at Maths but we very much hope she will get top grades in her best subjects.
It makes me absolutely boilingly, furiously angry that there are people on this thread and countless others who want to consign her to a so-called "vocational" education especially as she is, in fact, not terribly good at those subjects!!. Why should she, and 80% of our children be denied the chance to aim for the best?

I'm not sure that more grammar schools is the answer but I do think that the current system isn't working well for academic kids.

Ofsted said in 2013 that over 40% of state non-selective schools were failing to help their brightest pupils (ie those who achieved Level 5 and above at KS2) achieve their potential.

And if you read the threads in Higher Education on MN there are often very frustrated posts from university lecturers and admissions staff who are trying to widen access but are often faced with applications from bright DC who have been badly advised and simply haven't taken the subjects necessary to get on their chosen university course.

The return of grammar schools may not be the answer but neither can the current system be said to be working well as it currently stands. The danger is that it becomes a debate around the return of grammar schools, rather than around how outcomes can be improved.

antiqueroadhoe schools are given additional funding for children from low income backgrounds (pupil premium). If grammars don't get this, it's because they don't take these children (this has been backed up by evidence, even grammars in highly deprived areas take well bellow national average of children receiving pupil premium).

"Private schools (educating about 8% of the population) will be terrified about this news. The thought that millions of poor children could benefit from the selection process that they enjoy, for free, will not go down at all well. They will lose a lot of customers I expect."

I don't think they need to worry about the "millions of poor children"

I think that one thing that could change would be to alter the mind set of parents who had not engaged with education themselves. Many want their child to have the chances they did not, but also have the belief that their child will not be clever enough for grammar and are told not to push them as they will struggle if they do get in. If only all the middle and upper class families hiring tutors also take this view, it would be a level playing field.
If she is going to make these changes I would like all parents to be informed of what help is on the internet.
Have the option of their child having 11+ lessons at school.
Be informed that maths is something that can be taught if there is a maths test in the 11+
Realise that in the open evening for grammar, when the head teacher says she does not want children tutored for the 11+. the rest of the room is nodding in polite agreement because they are middle class.
Stop all this nonsense of this idea of an exam which can't be tutored for.

Also, make the 11+ compulsory, then any child not passing would not be in a minority and a child who could possibly get in would not be put off.
Lastly I would say that any child whose parents can afford private in primary should not be on a fast track for grammar in secondary. It would be so easy to say the number entering from private should reflect the proportion in private.

The traditional middle classes can no longer afford private schooling.

The move to open more GSs will be supported by them.

That said, if proper measures are out in place to widen GS access some MC parents may be in for a shock when their DC don't get in.

My parents and both of their sisters, born into very poor families in the 1930s, benefited from grammar educations and are prime examples of social mobility having worked well. However, my parents don't recall any examples of the sharp-elbowed tutoring/hothousing of the more financially fortunate children that exists now - such tutoring would skew the figures and deny social mobility to clever kids from the bottom of the socioeconomic pile. PPs have said that measures would have to be taken to ensure that this doesn't happen - what form could these measures take? We can't ban tutors. Quotas based on taking a certain percentage of FSM-receiving children? But what about children who aren't quite poor enough to qualify for meals but don't have ambitious parents either? How do we achieve true fairness, that's my question.

Report from Kent CC talks explicitly about the barriers that stop kids from poor families getting into grammar schools: social, physical and financial. They also recommend (but leave it to individual schools to implement any of this as policy) that grammars ring fence places for kids from the poorest backgrounds.

Private schools will not be terrified by this news. There will be loads of opportunities to set up prep schools to cram for the 11+. And non-selective private schools will cater for all those people who thought that a "vocational" education was great until it was the one their own children were deemed to be suitable for. And millions of poor children won't be going to grammars.
The whole idea is just nonsense. Imagine if we applied this to health:

" We've tested this new drug on 164 cancer patients and it actually made their condition worse. That's why we're going to give it to 1000 people, because we know it'll work then"

That's the logic of people who say grammars are needed for social mobility.

I very much support the principle of tailoring educational facilities to the needs of students on an equal, funded basis. We also have a huge shortage of school places in our area which is only set to get worse as the recent baby boomers (who are currently experiencing the shortages in primary places) grow to secondary age.

However, I think in the current environment there would also be a lot of unintended consequences to reintroduction of grammar schools. Specifically, that a lot of the new places would be taken up by kids moving from private schools.

Less and less people are able to afford private education though to 18, which is why a number of independent schools are starting to close down. Two in my area recently (both pre-prep and prep). I think you would start to see a strong shift from private to state if grammars were reintroduced, and many of the places would be taken by kids who were either privately educated or tutored until age 11.

This would adversely impact social mobility and also lead to an even greater squeeze on school places and government costs as more children move away from independent and into the state sector.

On don't think the state can ever provide true fairness. As in 100%.

It certainly offers nothing of the kind now via the comprehensive state system. And social mobility has worsened. The decline began during the Blair administration and has got gradually worse.

Betweentwolungs - thank you - yes I am very well aware of how the funding works. The "additional funding" you mention is an absolutely huge amount, and I know full well how much it's needed, having taught in a comprehensive for nearly 2 decades, but the basic funding is not nearly enough.

Bertrand oh yes they will panic. Small independents end up having to make staff redundant when students are taken out due to recessions etc. Fewer staff means a narrower curriculum, making the school less attractive. It won't make a difference to the large rich well-established public schools, but to smaller ones it definitely will.

I agree, the funding for grammar schools is dire in Kent where I am, having had three DC go to a mixture of grammar, Sec modern and superselective here, the Sec modern facilities were far better and the teachers better than the 'normal' grammar.

There also has been enthusiasm for a new secondary modern school, one of the grammar schools has taken it over and turned it around, lots of money pumped in to it and integration of pupils between both schools.

m.courier.co.uk/tunbridge-wells-biggest-success-story-just-keeps-on-winning/story-29488025-detail/story.html

I do worry that we stream children as"academic" or not so young. I am ththe son am of a building worker, because of my parentage, the way I spoke and the area I lived in it was expected that I'd go into the trades. I waa given the 11 plus one morning without preperstion and assume I fsiled. Well many years latter with as much luck as hard work I am a succesfull engineer and have worked in truley world leading organisations. My worry is I was obviously capable but my success largely boiled down to luck. What we need are strong comprehensive schools which offer a good core education to all (Maths, Science, English, Humanities. Around this core should be a wide range of option modules from Latin, to welding. Why? Because the core will give the ability to access opportunities in FE, university or enployment and the options will give kids and understanding of what they are interested in.

Bah. As BetweenTwoLungs says,new grammars equals the old comprehensives becoming secondary moderns - this is a good thing how,exactly?
And being told you are not good enough at 11 isn't great either.

Kent has always had selection and grammar schools,DH and I both went through it,I passed,went to school I loved ,my best friend failed, I thought the whole system was wrong then and I still think so now.

At my DCs primary school parents with multiple children were known to put up banners congratulating the child who had passed - lovely for them,again what about the others?
And for those people who will say it isn't a question of passing or failing,just being selected for the most appropriate school,have a .
As I said,Kent has never stopped selecting children at 11. If all children do better under this system,then children in Kent at all levels should out perform other children nationally. AFAIK there is no evidence of this.

HPFA Of course smaller independent schools will be worried. Not prep schools of course, but independent secondary schools rely on their results to sell their places.

Sorry the decline didn't start burning the Blair years. It reached an all time low ( since before WW2) and has worsened since.

There are plenty of private schools in Kent and Bucks catering for those who "passed" for the secondary moderns.

Indeed. And there are plenty if highly selective independents too for parents who want to opt out of the state system however it works.

I just fail to see how this can work in practise beyond the usual government (not matter what the flavour) policies of dumping the idea on schools without thinking it through.

I teach Year 5 and can envisage the way the curriculum, already squeezed to breaking point, becoming much narrower than it already is. The first things to be cut will be the arts which my school offers very well despite being in an area of social deprivation. If we cut anymore to make way for 11+ preperation then a whole generation of children will be disenchanted with education far more than they currently are.

I did my teacher training over a decade ago in the grammar system in Kent, I had a placement in one of the Sec Moderns and even then you could see the issues of staff retention, disenchanted children and the high rate of SEN, EAL, FSM etc that were in those schools compared to the grammars. Why would you choose to teach in a school like that when down the road there is a school paying the same salary for a far easier working life?

tortoise thanks for that link - what a great outcome for them!

(Beautiful facilities as well - how lucky to attend a school whose £21m building is inspired by the Guggenheim museum!)