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/

Bad bunny then all you would end up with is selection based on house prices. Poorer kids would then have zero chance of a good education if there were no grammars or faith schools.
Haybott very few families could not afford £9.61 a week for the child's education.

noble some schools are very receptive ( though many suggestions probably won't help their league table positions).

Things that will make the day to day education more appropriate. Or help with ultimate destinations etc.

But some schools have too much already on their plate to do much ( which I do understand) and others are backed into an ideological corner so to speak.

That's a whole other issue though. The town itself and schools are very segregated (race riots in town in early 2000s) The school my friends child goes to is virtually all white. I grew up elsewhere and it is totally different. Bussing kids out has a long tradition, there has never been a c of e school in the town. Getting rid of the best schools (RC) would be vehemently opposed. I'd imagine in Blackburn there would be the same opposition to getting rid of the outstanding Islamic state secondary schools.

They opened this and it has had virtually no pupils and is closing.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-36203857

Stunning building and facilities but not enough to tempt children and parents away from the comps with their way below average outcomes.

I work there don't live there for many reasons inc schooling.

"It's one of the very nasty double standards around this debate that whilst we're supposed to pity the bright kid in a bad comp who is supposedly ruined by that experience and will spend their life scarred by the memory , the kid in the bad SM is meant to treat their failure and subsequent bad education as a valuable learning experience"

Absolutely. And even if they are, like my ds, at a good Secondary Modern and probably going to get roughly similar GCSEs to the ones he would have got at a grammar school, the social and psychological divide is still there. So pleased yours are so robust, Carl. Shame about the empathy bypass................

If you are restricted to nearest comp, no faith or grammar all that will happen is more will move the over the catchment line (6 miles from town centre) to access the better comps in the ribble valley. More will go private - remember we are miles from London silliness, £10,000 a year is the norm for private secondary (not per term) House prices are very low so many will have paid mortgages off by secondary school.

They opened this and it has had virtually no pupils and is closing.

But this isn't a secondary school. It was a University Technical College for 14-19 year olds, and just helps to illustrate the country's problem with technical education. If it had been part of a wholesale restructuring of education for that age group, which technical and vocational education not seen as a second best option for the non academic, then it might have been more successful.

Successive governement's attitudes towards technical education have been dismal.

What if there are no good comprehensives though? The reason many sit for the grammar out of catchment is it is highly likely they wont get roughly the same gcses at the grammar or the comp.

I can see in a full 11 plus area the impact is worse but around here only the kids with a chance sit and of those, especially out of catchment they know it is a long shot. Only 4 out of my DD's class are sitting to my knowledge.

Once again we agree Peregrina. I think UTCs could have been a really good option, but they seem often to be seen as an option only for those who are struggling. Although perhaps those who see "technical schools" as a panacea might take note.

It was designed to take children from 14 to do GSCEs. If you are at the nearby comp with a 36% 5 A-C pass rate you think some children would have looked at it, transferred in yr10 for a chance to get specialist tuition and small classes in state of the art facilities.

Apparently schools didn't promote it or let them in to speak to pupils/let them invite them in for taster days. The comps are under subscribed and needed the pupil income. I'd been for a course and was amazed at the ghost town building with empty classrooms full of state of the art computers etc.

There is a very entrenched small town I went to x school you will go there attitude.

These were the courses for 14 year olds

www.utclancashire.co.uk/year-10-year-11/

Agree Peregrina and HPFA. There are a number where I am but other schools see them as a way to get potential permanent exclusion kids to leave and join them.

Not all other schools of course. Just a few morally bankrupt ones.

'highly likely they wont get roughly the same gcses at the grammar or the comp."

Why wouldn't they? The actual figures show that high ability kids actually do roughly the same at grammars and comprehensives.

This is beyond words:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/help-for-deprived-pupils-delayed-by-11-plus-proposals-865xcprz6?shareToken=c660b23c726378796ccc049fbfe09ce3

The debacle with the UTC just shows what a complete mess the present education system has been allowed to get into, being driven by political dogma. The need, IMO, is for a properly informed debate as to what sort of education the country as a whole requires for the 21st Century, not just how we can better serve a relative handful of academic children. It also needs vision, which is sorely lacking.

It's just an aside but I can't help wondering if the move towards Comprehensives in the sixties and early seventies was driven by expediency. Namely, school rolls were falling once the baby boom (or bulge, as my parents called it) had passed through, and it was no longer economic to keep schools built for larger numbers open.

Why won't they - attitudes to learning, teaching, lack of like ability peers to challenge them, ofsted inadequate/ri v outstanding, disruption/police attendance at schools, schools not offering the same subjects eg combined v 3 sciences.

A comprehensive school which is getting a 37% pass rate in a non selective area isn't an attractive proposition to most supportive parents who value education. Most mumsnetters would not choose it for their child.

At the root of it all is poor behaviour (I don't mean chair throwing and swearing I mean constant little niggly bad behaviour). If this could be removed then the attitudes would improve etc. But there is no fail safe recipe which minimises poor behaviour. The endless struggle in many schools must cut in half (at least) the effective teaching.

It's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

When you get a school that eliminates niggly poor behaviour detrimental to learning, that's criticised too! (Michaela, the school behind the row about lunch isolation for non-payment of dinner money)

Carl I realise the conversation has moved on but I too am sorry your children have had difficult or sad things to deal with. To be clear, I understood the point to be just about trying at and failing in something one wanted to do and which seemed important to them and their parents- not the bad stuff that happens which does, of course, put the 11+ in the shade.

However I do very much agree with HPFA that the pro-selection lobby need to square their conviction that a bright child in a comprehensive is being failed and must be pititied, with the idea that there is nothing wrong with a child learning to fail and being placed in a secondary modern despite only missing a grammar place by a few points! Makes no sense to me.

Instead of sorting on presumed potential (current objective of 11+), what if kids were sorted on basis of demonstrated attitude? So what school they went to from age 11+ was determined by their "attitude to learning" scores over last 3 yrs of primary. This makes as much sense to me as the current 11+ idea.

There has been a huge amount of money spent on super schools in Burnley. They built several new big shiny schools to replace the old ones a few years down the line they are at risk of closing, inadequate/ri with poor results. Only one, the Rc one has bucked the trend. Parents preferred traditional, smaller, religious schools with vastly better results. So we have a situation of kids being bussed out past state of the art buildings.

If the selective system is so much better, why aren't wholly selective areas showing significantly better results than wholly comprehensive areas?

lljkk how do you measure attitude to learning? Subjective nonsense that will see kids of soft-hearted teachers praised, where stricter ones fail. Girls would also do better than boys as they tend to be more likely to be people-pleasers.

It's like effort grades on reports. I hate writing them. How do I really know how much effort little Johnny is making? And what if I give them a good for effort because they do all their homework but teacher next door reserves good for kids who always have their hands up?

Where we live if they don't go to grammar school there are a number of popular and well-rated comprehensives with fantastic facilities. Kids and parents choose to go there when they could have gone to one of the grammars. We (and DD1) thought that a single sex super-selective grammar suits DD1 better. Building a new grammar school in the area would mean less travelling for some kids who want to attend a grammar school locally. Personally we'd still send DD1 to the same school on the bus. I think it increases parental choice- in so much there is choice in any school system which is a bit of an illusion anyway with the way that house prices spike around good state schools and the high fees associated with the top independent schools.

Ideally I'd like all schools to be very good schools, have small class sizes, great facilities and teaching. If it were up to me I'd certainly phase out faith schools and private schools and bring all schools under local education authority control, and make it illegal to select job applicants on the basis of educational institutions attended. However DD1 is going to a grammar school. How can I rightly oppose them, therefore, or prevent other parents from wanting the same opportunity? I'm afraid doing the best for my kids comes above personal political views.

Oh selection based on attitude to learning would be entertaining. Imagine all the mumsnet parents with their "she was so bored in Reception" children. How would they tutor them to show enthusiasm?