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/

"It's just lifting the ban so that a new grammar can be built if there's a need, and I assume there will be regulations etc to control who, when and where."

The problem lies with the word "assume", I think. The grammar fanatics in the Tory party want a system where anyone can set up a selective free school anywhere.. So a group of parents could set up a grammar in a one-school town, the existing school becomes a de facto secondary modern (we all know this is what would happen) and there will be absolutely nothing that you, or your elected local representatives can do to stop it. It's a dream ticket for these fanatics because it puts all the power in the hands of pro-grammar parents who can effectively tell anyone who wants to keep their comp as it is to shove it.

I don't think TM will adopt this model, certainly not at first. But once the door is wedged open, there'll be continuing pressure on her to loosen the rules more and more. I could in theory buy into a superselective model - I think it's logically sound. In practice I think it'll be a Trojan horse
l

I think you could be right HPFA, but I do wonder just how successful the Free Schools in general are? At the moment, it seems by opting for one, parents and pupils are buying a pig in a poke.

2StripedSocks Tue 09-Aug-16 11:54:42 Mum oodles of comps happily exist in our large county alongside the 3 grammars.

Care to name any that rest in the catchment area of the 3 grammars?

2striped yes I know £300 is a huge amount for bus fares. Especially when you think how London boroughs have free travel for school kids.

I don't think TM will adopt this model, certainly not at first.

I'm not sure it will get through. She has a slim majority, Labour are against it, Lib Dems are against it, and some Tories are too.

Peregrina Yes, a free school would never normally be set up in a town where there is one great comp. But if it was a selective free school, even if you would personally prefer the comp for your bright child, you would think "every other bright child is going to be in the new school so mine had better be too". The great comp will become a secondary modern.

There is actually a procedure whereby you can trigger a ballot to abolish an existing grammar school. Yet there's no campaign from Pro Tory grammars MPS to change this legislation so that people could also vote FOR a grammar to be established. Because this would mean people who didn't want their local comp turned into an SM would also have a voice.

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!

It's mainly the rich kids in DD school who bully - have a belief they are better than anyone else have the latest everything showing off how superior they are -

Would be happy for them to go to a grammar - leave the rest in peace!!

"This means in reality the education the children received at Endeavour High School in Hull indicates a higher resemblance to a Secondary Modern education than Wellington School in Altrincham."

But is this due as much to the difference in e.g. unemployment, parental education, median income in Hull vs Altrincham, as the difference between the two schools?

This thread is frustrating because it does not differentiate between the difference between SCHOOLS and the difference between COMMUNITIES. Creating the same educational outcomes for children from areas with 14% unemployment and 66% FSM and children from areas with 2% unemployment and 10% FSM will involve MUCH more than simply the schools - and specifically it WON'T be achieved by creating more grammar schools.

the most sensible suggestion I saw came on another thread, that simply talked about redistribution of school funding based on a nuanced 'banded' assessment of deprivation / affluence of intake - with much higher funding per child for schools with more deprived intakes, to address the multiple problems that such intakes bring, and vice versa.

"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!"

Out of interest, can you back that statement up?

Why is the "greatest good for the greatest number" anti-grammar schools argument more defensible? Why shouldn't the needs or wants of the more academically able be prioritised?

Plenty of posters are saying we should not prioritise able children's needs (or wants!) because it would be at the detriment of the average masses - but why not? Why do we as a society not value academic achievement more?

Despite league tables, it sometimes seems that education has become so far removed from learning and is a process of grade accumulation - why can't we promote learning for education and enlightenment instead? And value those who enjoy it.

I'm not saying that grammar schools would necessarily achieve this, but neither will the attitude that we must sacrifice the more able kids at the altar of the average masses.

I repeat, if we have the money for any proposals for schools, the money should go towards all schools and all pupils. The way the system is currently organised should not be the focus of any spending - there are plenty of other things in our education system that could benefit from more spending, don't waste it on a re-organisation.

I object to the use of "failure" when it comes to the 11+. I can't believe that any parent would consider their child a failure or let their child consider themselves a failure if they don't gain a place at a grammr school.

As much as inherent ability, the test is one snapshot on one day and is not a definition of the child. For a parent to use that kind of language or let their kid think of themselves as a "failure" is completely wrong. Mindsets and perceptions need to be re-adjusted.

There is no such thing, by the way as a "secondary modern education" .

There are secondary modern schools- but the education available in them varies.

As much as inherent ability, the test is one snapshot on one day and is not a definition of the child

Which is precisely why it is so very wrong to determine the next 7 years of a child's schooling based on that!

Why shouldn't the needs or wants of the more academically able be prioritised?

Because what is actually happening is that the needs and the wants of the wealthier are being prioritised at the expense of the poorer.

Do you want to say 'why shouldn't the needs and the wants of the better off be prioritised over the needs and wants of the already disadvantaged' because that's what grammar schools do.

"I object to the use of "failure" when it comes to the 11+. I can't believe that any parent would consider their child a failure or let their child consider themselves a failure if they don't gain a place at a grammr school"

Any ideas how to stop a child considering themselves a failure when they go into school the day after results day and compares notes with their friends? Particularly, perhaps, a child who has been tutored?

And Lemon everything in your post indicates why a child who failed the test would feel a failure - you talk of value, of the able, of priority.... how is a child amongst the majority who aren't deemed capable of being prioritised and valued not to feel like a failure? Even apart from the obvious fact that they have failed the test which would have made them valued?

I object to the use of "failure" when it comes to the 11+. I can't believe that any parent would consider their child a failure or let their child consider themselves a failure if they don't gain a place at a grammr school.

Object away. Better still go and ask people in their 50s and 60s who went to a Secondary Modern why they didn't go to the Grammar School. I would be you that the vast majority would say 'I failed the 11+'. I doubt if any would say 'I was selected for a Sec Mod education'.

Or go and trawl a significant number of OU graduates, who now say 'I was an 11+ failure but now I've got a 1st/2.1/ Masters.....'

we must sacrifice the more able kids

Well no, we're not sacrificing the more able kids. We're not condemning them to a life of mediocrity. More able kids are still perfectly capable of a clutch of A*s in a comp.

Look at the graph. A small increase in the achievements of the wealthiest is paid for by a large decrease in the achievements of the poorest.

I object to the use of "failure" when it comes to the 11+. I can't believe that any parent would consider their child a failure or let their child consider themselves a failure if they don't gain a place at a grammr school.

Is this for real? When did children get a new bike when they passed for the secondary modern? What are you going to tell them when they're complaining about the hours of after-school tutoring they're having to do in Year 5 "you have to do this to give you the best chance of passing the test but of course it won't matter if you fail it?" A child in Year 6 DD's class got congratulated by the teacher for passing the test for a selective indie. My DD came home and said "Why aren't I going to this fantastic school? Am I not clever enough?" I'm sorry, the idea that kids won't know they've failed is just laughable.

I work in a deprived northern town. Out of interest I've looked up the GCSE results for 2015. As expected well below the national average of 53% A-C inc maths and english. The 3 comprehensives that take most of the children in town are 36/37/38%.

The best results in town and generally regarded as the best school is RC - 65%.The people I know tend to send children there if they are Catholic or comply with the requirements of the C of E school 62% pass in the next town - 2 years church attendance and a £500 a year bus pass. Moving the couple of miles needed to be catchment for the better area schools - the comps there with high 60s to high 70s pass rates is also popular.

Some sit out of catchment for grammars (so 12 miles one way and 8 miles the other are grammar schools) There is another selective school (former independent)and Islamic schools in the next big town that have way better than national results.

If there was a grammar built to my mind all it would do is is stop a lot of the bussing out and maybe that would give some of the poorer children in town an actual choice. At the minute to access a higher achieving school you need parents who will pay the bus fare. I can't see it impacting on the comprehensives.

Talk of top sets etc, my friends child is the only child predicted an A in English this year in one of the comprehensive schools mentioned in my first paragraph. So he has no academic peers to be in a set with him. With things this stark it's understandable why the out of town bussing goes on.

"I'm not saying that grammar schools would necessarily achieve this, but neither will the attitude that we must sacrifice the more able kids at the altar of the average masses"

Because that is of course what we all want to happen.

2StripedSocks - There is no catchment Mum.

I think you missed one of my points:

Care to give examples of where this is actually the case, with the exception of the handful of super selectives.

A super selective is a Grammar with no catchment. The reason the local comps. are not being affected is because a number of children getting places at the Grammar live outside the local area (or moved to get a place and have moved away again). This means the Grammar schools are not creaming off the top 25%. The comps. in this instance will likely still have a comprehensive intake.

noble "what is actually happening is that the needs and the wants of the wealthier are being prioritised at the expense of the poorer"

But life, childhood and education is not a level playing field. Try as we do, government cannot level the playing field and make the system fair for all, my question was is the "greatest good for the greatest number" any fairer than things currently stand?

Short of a revolution, there will always be inequalities in wealth. Human nature dictates selfishness, altruism comes in at a distance.

Bertrand by consistently telling that child that they are not a failure, that's not difficult to do surely? I've done this nunerous times with numerous children and I don't believe that they are / were failures: the parents would be the failures to let their child define themselves in such a way. It's your choice if you persist to hold on to a model of entry = success, no entry = failure.