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/

Thanks bertrand it turns out I meant setting not streaming 

Me too - thank you!

I doubt very much that this will be a country wide roll out. So all LEAs look like Kent.

Those who are suggesting that children attending sec mods will have better opportunities and achieve more as its tailored to them, research has shown that they do worse than those in comps. They absolutely do not achieve greater success - please do not suggest they do based on anecdotal evidence when the statistical evidence has shown that they don't.

Yes stats have shown that children in grammars do slightly better, but this is absolutely at the expense of those in the sec mods.

We needs better secondary education for ALL - a system that only works for the minority is no good I'm afraid.

At last a return to some standards and real opportunity for poorer children

Ha, no not under the current system.

There would need to be an over haul of how children are selected, at the moment sitting one test. Is stupid and only tutored or heavily home tudored children stand a chance. There are many many dc working in high level fives and level sixes which don't pass because they haven't been trained to pass an 11 plus exam which has verbal and non verbal reasoning also.

A childs ability needs looking at within school, also the school its self. A bit like how some universities look at what a child has achieved in a struggling school.

There would need to be re assessments later in secoundary schools also.

In Margaret Thatcher's first cabinet 92% of members were privately educated,(six from Eton) in 1992 in John Major's cabinet it was 72%. Given the average age of cabinet ministers (50) this means that the vast majority were educated at the time of secondary modern/grammars.

Today only 30% of the cabinet went to private schools and 43 % went to comprehensives. And yet this is taken as proof that comps have failed. You couldn't make it up.

between that is the case in wholly selective LEAs.

In areas with a super selective GS ( usually without catchment) the nearby comps are unaffected in teens of cohort and results.

Those who are suggesting that children attending sec mods will have better opportunities and achieve more as its tailored to them, research has shown that they do worse than those in comps. They absolutely do not achieve greater success - please do not suggest they do based on anecdotal evidence when the statistical evidence has shown that they don't.

Between thanks for expressing that so beautifully.

GetAHairCut but even in that case, the outcomes for those who don't go to the grammar aren't improved - they stay the same as the normal comp. So the best those that don't get into the grammar can hope for is that their outcomes are not worsened. They won't improve, but hey, they might not get worse.

I understand that there is an argument for superselectives. I don't personally agree with it, but I know why others do. And I agree that they have very little impact on neighboring schools or communities.

But that is not what people mean when they say "bring back grammar schools". They mean a return of the "traditional" 25:75 ish split.

OTheHugeManatee Sun 07-Aug-16 07:13:13

Totally agree and remember much of the skewing at the moment comes from primary schools not giving any support at all - to their pupils who may be able to pass the test so of course, its going to be skewed towards the parents who are going to help their dc.

anyway its utterly wonderful news, at long last!

Thanks betweentwolungs

Even if primary schools were allowed to provide 11+ coaching (where, and with what funding, by the way?) it would make little difference. It would just give children with parental support even more help!

A very interesting article about stats on grammar and secondary moderns - schoolsweek.co.uk/fact-check-do-the-arguments-for-new-grammar-schools-stack-up/

"anyway its utterly wonderful news, at long last!"

Can you explain why?

What a lovely experience of year 6 that will be: coaching for a test to determine your whole future! At least with SATS the actual results aren't going to determine anything more for the child than the set they're initially placed in in year 7, and people get angsty enough about the stress of those tests!

This is a system that has been proven to benefit the top 20% at the expense of the others. The stats show this.

Absolutely secondary provision needs to improve, but it needs to improve FOR ALL. Farming kids off at 11 is not the way to do this.

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 equally angry that many comps are not up to the job of helping such dc achieve their best. Yes some are good but too many are dire.

Surely comparing children at Sec modern with children at comps is not going to be statistically credible? Because by defintion, the comp will have the DC that would have got in to a grammar and the Sec modern won't?

I went to the only (I think) true comprehensive in Kent which is Mascalls, if you pass the 11 plus in that area you can't go to the grammar school unless it's a superselective.

I can't get the logic of this separate education thing at all. In Skegness Grammar and Boston Grammar , which take a higher percentage of FSM children than most grammars, high achieving children achieve an average B and B- grade at GCSE respectively. In a few of the secondary moderns e'g Wellington in Trafford and Waddesdon in Bucks that figure is a B+. Yet people on this thread are saying that people in secondary moderns should only have a "vocational" education.

These schools are not typical of either grammars or secondary moderns. I just feel that they illustrate the poor logic of a particular argument.

between the most able children are currently being badly served by the state system.

If we can improve provision for that ability group without harming other ability groups then why wouldn't you?

It's from this ability group that we will find our future medics, scientists, economists, law makers etc. Let's nurture that.

Actually 11+ prep would take place in y5 generally as the exam is fairly early in the year. So they will finish up their 11+ prep just in time to get started on the SATs prep (a completely different type of test so the revision wouldn't really overlap). Lovely.

Interesting from that article

In 2014, research by the University of Bristol Centre for Market and Public Organisation, the University of Cambridge and the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that basing admissions on how close a pupil lives to a school was a big driver of inequality between rich and poor

This is a system that has been proven to benefit the top 20% at the expense of the others. The stats show this

You cant take any stats from this point in time as its not a level playing field, primary schools do not help their pupils, so of course those from families who are not interested or cant afford to help fall through.

As from the olden days - what happens in the future doesn't need to be a replica of those day. We are a different society now.

Do we even have local education authorities now then? Barely anything left due to academies. How convenient to need them now.