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/

( why is it always maths?)

I think maths is very different to other subjects. It's a subject where you either "get it" with each topic quickly or you don't. If you "get it", then you've got it and can move onto the next topic. Otherwise it can take a lot of practising and having it explained in different ways until it clicks.

Often a "top" class in Maths is streets ahead of the other groups whereas in other subjects, the differential between streams/sets is a lot narrower. That means it's harder to move up from a lower set to a higher set as the higher set will have moved on and covered many new topics. That's why it's more important to stream/set for Maths at the earliest stage possible.

That's also why some schools offer further maths, but there's no equivalent "further" French or "further" geography. Basically, in a top Maths set you've probably done the entire GCSE syllabus by the end of year 10 (or maybe even year 9), so you either tread water for a year, do the GCSE a year early, or move onto further maths.

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

Quite the opposite actually. I'm a strong supporter of grammar schools, and always have been, even before I had a child myself. Yet, I went to a comp. I'd have far rather gone to a grammar, and was online to do so (at top of year in primary), but I was unfortunate in that our local grammar converted into a comp just 2 years before I left primary. My parents, like lots of others, were conned by the lie that the comp would give everyone a "grammar" education so never even thought to apply for the grammar in the next town (where we later found out that the other "top" kids in my primary class had applied for as they weren't quite so gullible). I had a horrid experience at comp - it was a shit-hole with disruption in every lesson, abuse, bullying, theft, assault, etc. all due to the influx of the low-achieving pupils that were parachuted in from the local sec-mod which was subject to a phased closure. Teachers and other staff couldn't cope and there was an epidemic of nervous breakdowns and an exodus of those leaving the school. The comp absolutely wrecked my education and my self confidence. I laugh at all the crap people say about bright kids doing well anywhere - not if you're stuck in a cesspit of a school you won't!

We all have our experiences and reasons for & against grammar schools.

Well, they must be, 2stripedsocks. Otherwise so many parents of high ability children wouldn't be so shit scared of them sharing the same school building..........

Bertrand did your own child attend a super selective or was it a normal grammar? Was it in an area where kids have to take the 11+ or was it an option.
Was it awkward being a governor at a grammar school - their role is to be a critical friend to the school.

Well I went to a girls grammar which turned co-ed and comprehensive part way, so it ended up not quite knowing what it was supposed to be for my last 4 years there. It didn't make much difference for the sixth form, because you had to have 5 O levels to get in, so that bumbled on, much as it had done before. And I do mean bumble. In those days, you only needed 5 O levels to go into teaching, so it was full of girls marking time.

There are no grammar schools where I live, and I wouldn't chose to live in a grammar county. Of my two DC the one who has done best academically is the one who might well have not passed the 11+ being good at maths, but not so good at English.

The 11+ also favoured the child who was quick - so the slow painstaking child often missed out. Yet being slow and painstaking can very much be an asset in later life.

Yes, you did get the nice middle class children in the top sets in their Comprehensives, but they weren't top sets for all subjects, and similarly there were very few children who were always in the bottom set. Most children had a chance to succeed at something.

CodyKing actually yes, the stats suggest children in sec mods do get lower GCSEs than if they were at a comp. This could be for several reasons - lower expectations, fewer opportunities, poorer teachers as best have gone to teach at the grammar. Impossible to know but that is the pattern.

There's also the point that grammar schools encourage a 'fixed' mindsets about intelligence, you can either do it or you can't. This is very damaging for lower attaining children.

Getting a little tired of people using anecdotal evidence on this thread - just because your friend failed the 11+ and was fine, or your local sec mod is a good school, doesn't change the overall pattern.

Why would it be awkward? Particularly why do you think not would be more awkward than bro the governor of a secondary modern? I am opposed to the system, not to individual schools.

I live in an area which is wholly selective. No comprehensive schools at all.

DS1 has now been at his GS for 4 years and its not all its cracked up to be. There is little support for dcs who struggle and parents are resorting to constant tutoring just for them to keep up. If you're dc is at the lower end of the ability range it can be soul destroying for them and some in DS1's class have left for other schools. There is a lot of pressure to do well and some children find it difficult to cope with a lot of MH issues. DS1 finds there is a lack of diversity in terms of interests, backgrounds, personalities of his GS peers also its single sex and is now looking to go to a non GS 6th form.

We all have our experiences and reasons for & against grammar schools

One person's (or even a few people's) experience is not enough to drive a huge change in the education system. You have to look at the wider picture, and what the data says on a bigger scale. And that data tells us that yes, those at grammars do do better (and I've never denied that) but it is at the expense of the majority left behind. That is what I am not happy with. If this was a system to support lower attaining children which research had shown reduced the scores of higher attaining children, I'm sure some of your views would be different.

I would think it's hard to be a critical friend to a school when you are opposed to their whole premise. I would think it would be easier to be a governor at a school where the ethos was more in line with your own beliefs.

So is it compulsory to do the 11+ in your area? I think it is in Bucks (not sure though) but I know in Kent for example it's not compulsory and a lot of parents don't put their child in for the 11+ for various reasons.

Unfortunately the educated or socially liberal minded people believe they can save the world though education!

This means liberally minded people believe that their achievements i.e passing 11+ , A levels, Masters or advancement through career is by 'Luck' rather than ability and hard work.

Bad will no doubt agree the vast majority of the great 'unwashed' ( which consists of a large no of the white working class) in our society do not want help !.

They are on the whole quite happy with their lives, educationalists and liberally minded people don't understand they are wasting their time , trying to save the world .

funnily enough we were watching "Child Genius" last week and DS1 said those children competing on it were very like a large number in his class

Thealchemist - really?! That must be exhausting!

"would think it's hard to be a critical friend to a school when you are opposed to their whole premise. I would think it would be easier to be a governor at a school where the ethos was more in line with your own beliefs"
As I said. I have no problem with the ethos of the school.Nor, indeed, of the ethos of the secondary modern school I am governor of. My problem is with the system. Not with individual schools. It does not seem to me to take. huge leap of imagination to understand that. Many members of staff in both schools are also opposed to the selective system, but still manage to teach!

I don't think the 11+ is compulsory anywhere, is it? Maybe in Northern Ireland?

GetAHaircutCarl Well here's the thing mum it was identified a long time ago that there was an issue with regards to lack of provision and ultimate outcome for high ability DC in the state system.

Just to be clear, what exactly is the definition of a "high ability" DC?

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

I think I understand this comment - those who have received selective education themselves have already benefitted from social mobility and academic advantage - university education/Oxbridge/professional jobs etc. - they can pass this advantage on to their own children whether that's sending them to the very best comprehensive schools available/helping with school work/advising which A level subjects to take/which universities to apply for. For those who haven't benefitted from such a background, then grammar schools are seen as a way to achieve this educational advantage and social mobility and escape the mediocrity/glass ceiling imposed at many 'good' comprehensive schools. I don't think social mobility is just about rescuing children on fsm - it's about raising the aspirations of the lower middle classes as well and I can see this effect in the private schools that my dc attend.

So bad you're not actually pro-grammar schools per se, but anti disruption, theft, assault and bullying? I think we're all anti that. At least your argument for grammars is honest in that you want a school that keeps the riff-raff out, and think that grammar schools are the way to achieve that because you believe that low achiever = socially unacceptable.

If being born into an aspirational stable supportive financially secure family isn't luck, then I don't know what it is.

funnily enough we were watching "Child Genius" last week and DS1 said those children competing on it were very like a large number in his class

Luckily that isn't the same for all grammars. We had that kind of misconception before we went to the local grammar open day, but the schools' friendliness and "normality" won over my son. We watched that program and I asked him if he had kids in school like that, and he simply replied "1 or 2". We've met a dozen or so of his friends at parties, sleepovers, etc., and they're perfectly normal kids, nothing like those on the program at all. I suspect the kids on TV were from super-selectives or private schools rather than "normal" grammars!

Really thealchemist ? Which school is that?

I've had dealings and visited quite a few and the DC have been perfectly normal.

Indeed, my DC attend a ridiculously selective private school and the kids there are ... Well just kids.

" disruption in every lesson, abuse, bullying, theft, assault, etc. all due to the influx of the low-achieving pupils"

I really admire people who are honest enough to to say why they are in favour of grammar schools. They think (erroneously) that there is no bullying, abuse, theft or assault in them- because only low achieving children bully, abuse, steal or assault.

I might even be persuaded to pay money to keep my children and myself away from the children and parents on Child Genius. Imagine being on the PTA...............

you believe that low achiever = socially unacceptable

No, I believe disruption and criminal behaviour is socially unacceptable yet it is condoned/accepted in too many schools and wrecks the education of everyone (high and low achievers) who does want to learn!