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/

I think people should consider the following when claiming that a Grammar will enable local bright children to access a better standard of education:

You would think that if a Grammar School was set up in an area with crap comps. that local bright kids will benefit, yes?

Actually, what will likely happen is that they may do for a year, perhaps 2 if they are lucky. Then the clued up parents who think it is fine for their DC to do a journey an hour each way to school if it means they can go to a selective school (which gets 2% better GCSE results than their local comp.).

Then there are the parents who think it is OK for their DC to travel 2-3 hours each way to school if it means they can go to a selective school (which gets 2% better GCSE results than their local comp.).

Then there are the parents who know it is fine to rent near the school for a couple of months get their kids into the school and then move back out of the area. As the admissions criteria state that “they may be investigated” if they have a rental agreement for less than 12 months.

Then there are the parents who want to hedge their bets. They get the kids to sit the 11 plus in 2,3,4 or more areas. Which ever school they qualify for, that will do fine. Oh, hold on, how will their kids get to school. Who cares, they got a place didn't they. Oh the joys of hanging on the wait lists for those parents to realise that there is no way their kids can get to the school in less than 3 hours.

Then there are the parents who want to hedge their bets. Yes private is nice, bit expensive though. I know, why not send your DCs to a prep school. They can be taught to the test and have a private tutor or two (will work out cheaper than x number of years in private secondary). If they don't get into the selective state school they can stay on at the prep. and try for private secondary as a fall back.

Then there are the parents who don't believe in academic ability, it is all about hard work. Let them do 2,3,4 or more hours of tutoring each week, on top of their school day and throughout their weekend. Ability has nothing to do with it, just getting them into the school is all that matters.

Seek. I have been told that having Autism means you tend to see things in either black or white . That is perhaps why i view things in a fatalistic or empathy free way.

Could be, Sandy.

socks I do think they matter. But I think all children matter.

sandyholme Tue 09-Aug-16 18:12:22 All along this posting it has been argued that the most able should not be prioritised over the least able !

OK there are 164 Grammar schools catering for high ability children.

How many specialist schools are there for medium ability children?

How many specialst schools are there for low ability children?

2StripedSocks Tue 09-Aug-16 18:29:56 A poor child in China will do better academically than an able child in the UK.

Does China have a Grammar Schools system?

The numbers of disadvantaged but able children are increasing and certain to increase even more, but none of this work ever suits your diatribe Bertrand, so you ignore it. I don't believe you know very much about what's going on with access work for able but disadvantaged children at all. You prefer to extrapolate from the Kent model and make sweeping generalizations about emotional damage which are probably hard to sustain, in reasonably grounded families. Certainly, albeit anecdotally, my own DC would have achieved nothing like their results or outcomes had they gone to either of the nearest non selective schools, and I've seen cohort after cohort achieving exceptionally well in a way which simply doesn't happen at the other two schools. Some children who are equally bright (I'm thinking of one current Y12 in particular, whose father refused to let him try for the grammar because he hadn't attended himself) achieve vastly less than than my DC despite being every bit as bright, or more so. That's a tragedy, and determines their path for the rest of their life.

"The numbers of disadvantaged but able children are increasing and certain to increase even more, but none of this work ever suits your diatribe Bertrand, so you ignore it."

Do you mean disadvantaged and able children getting into grammar schools? I'd love to think that 's true- have you got figures?

China has a scam system... you have to have permits to get your children into the schools. A lot of people are living somewhere illegally so their older child falls out of the system, doesn't get an education & goes out to work instead; they don't officially exist so they aren't part of the performance statistics.

We all rely on bin men, carers, childminders, agricultural workers, cleaners & dinner ladies. There are excellent reasons for all of these people to have an excellent education, too.

Because in the two grammars I know most about, the number of pp children is steadily decreasing- to 0 in one case............

Bertrand call me thick, but I can't see the moral imperative for less able children to be prioritized over more able children in a world of limited resources although I can see a strong case for putting resources and effort into helping the disadvantaged able achieve their potential academically, given that they seem to be poorly served now.

Bertrand you could make a request for the newest figures from any school you chose to target.

goodbyestranger - The numbers of disadvantaged but able children are increasing and certain to increase even more

Is there an actual source for this fact?

I find these threads odd. I'm not that old (29) and most of my mates went grammars, I went to school in London so didn't have a grammar school. None of them had this tutoring (and I won't tutor my kids either now I'm in a grammar area) also none of them are high fliers, only one went to university who now works in retail. I went to a standard Catholic in London but went on to do the "best" so to speak. Mosthe of them say they werents overly fussed of getting into a grammar but felt more pressure than their primary friends who chose to go onto local state moderns. Grammar schools just need to go tbh. Majority of the country has the right idea. Seems to be mainly Kent and sussex hanging on to them.

I see we've come back to the same old hypocritical shite that always comes up in these threads. Where being able is the only form of priviledge, and therefore should be sacrificed to the disadvantaged. Except in practice that isn't what happens at all. The kids with other advantages, which may or may not include ability too, get the good comprehensives and sacrifice very little. What people actually mean is they think the able dc from deprived areas should give up their one privilege, so their own mc dc can be guaranteed a good school by virtue of social selection, and they can pretend they are acting in the interests of the disadvantaged kids.

bert I have no doubts that was upsetting for your son. But if the conversation had been 'sorry son, you didn't get x school because we can't afford to live in catchment, and because I work Sunday's you didn't get y either, therefore you get z' then the disappointment would have been exactly the same.

Goodbye,

I think that is exactly the point.

What will help the disadvantaged able more, without disadvantaging the disadvantaged not so able even more (I presume that you can see the moral imperative not to disadvantage the disadvantaged not able any further that they are already)

• Creating grammar schools where there currently are none, which statistically on current data will tend to advantage those who are already advantaged, at the expense primarily of the less able and the least advantaged OR

• Improving the schools that currently serve the most disadvantaged areas (which many here would see as 'poor' schools, because their poor raw results reflect their intake and the educational and employment aspirations of the communities they serve) in order to improve the provision for both more able and less able disadvantaged?

MTHB the direction of travel is absolutely clear and has been for some while. The figures will bear that out in due course, they can't fail to. Not that much more doesn't need to be done, but it's fair to say that more schools are needed for there to be a significant impact, if only because of geographical spread.

goodbyestranger Tue 09-Aug-16 18:46:11 Bertrand call me thick, but I can't see the moral imperative for less able children to be prioritized

How about a finacial imperative?

How many low ability children go on to become adults who have to survive on benefits?

How many high ability children go on to become adults who have to survive on benfits?

(mental disorders / SEN aside of course).

Mum, prison population also possibly a source of interesting data ... expensive place to keep people, prison. Also perhaps adults whose children are in care.

teacher I completely see that moral imperative, I think we simply differ on how best to achieve it. I'm sure both of us would defer to the other if the other proved right! Same goal in any event.

As a teacher in a comp that does very well by its most able students I am a bit baffled by the description of the most able who need grammar schools as some sort of special breed who simply can't be catered for in a comp. Top 25% would include some very bright kids, but most of them would be fairly unremarkable and certainly not needing any special treatment.

MTHB I don't know the figures but I would say the financial argument re. taxation and national insurance might trump the financial argument re. benefits, in the current climate at least. I also have very real doubts about the current situation with the reformed exams being in the interests of the least able, and helping them on the ladder to a decent and rewarding life/job.

Noble, I too am baffled, tbh (DD and DS's top maths sets contain almost entirely children who got Level 6s, or a few very high Level 5s, at the end of Y6. They are predicted 9s, with a few 8s, in the new Maths GCSE. Children 'of the top 25%' are probably in the school down to second sets of below, all doing very well indeed - value add score for the school is extremely high, higher for more able children than others io fact) I suspect, though, that the comps we know are dismissed as 'good comps that are inaccessible to everyone and therefore not worth mentioning because they are not typical'. Or something.

*Creating grammar schools where there currently are none, which statistically on current data will tend to advantage those who are already advantaged, at the expense primarily of the less able and the least advantaged OR

• Improving the schools that currently serve the most disadvantaged areas (which many here would see as 'poor' schools, because their poor raw results reflect their intake and the educational and employment aspirations of the communities they serve) in order to improve the provision for both more able and less able disadvantaged?*

As I've said several times upthread, I'm convinced that grammars are going to improve the current situation much.

However, the problem with the second option highlighted above is that nobody really knows how to realise it. During the Labour years, there was more funding for disadvantaged schools, but funding alone does not suffice: one has to change attitudes, and increase educational aspirations.