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/

That means that non-selective schools will only contain those who didn't pass or didn't take the exam because they wouldn't have passed

And the dc who are excellent in one subject needed but crap at anther? and dc who dont want to go to grammar, and dc who dp dont want them to try? and dc who were crap on the day of the test....and all the other variables...not just the narrow list you present

"If we get a proper grammar system back of course primaries will have to help students apply!"

Why? I live in an exclusivly selective LEA. Primary schools are expressly forbidden to offer 11+ preparation beyond 2 practice papers.

Pondering

Don't despair, there will be a lot of opposition to this and we can all do our part in helping that along. Write to your nearest Tory MP for a start, and look out for online campaigns.

Excellent August so we'll be failing a whole list of children instead of just a few. Oh and the children with Sen, and the ones who struggle in primary or are in less than good primaries, and the ones in primaries with teachers less experienced in preparing for the test, and children who have only recently learnt English. Why are you so j happy that secondaries let down high ability but happy to let down all those children?

or didn't take the exam because they wouldn't have passed.

There are quite a significant number of pupils who don't take the 11+ for other reasons.

• parents don't want their child to take a test
• parents' lives are too chaotic to organise them getting their child to take the test
• parents feel the grammar school is snobby or their child won't fit in
• parents feel the grammar school will be too hard and put their children under pressure
• comprehensives are seen to have more "fun" lessons
• the facilities at comps outshine the grammars' at open events
• parents are worried that they might not be able to afford trips
• children (and parents) want to go to

the nearest local school with their friends

• parents' fear of the unknown
• a good number see school as an irritant, getting in the way of their child getting out and earning money. They want their kids to be literate and numerate and have a secure trade

And the dc who are excellent in one subject needed but crap at anther? and dc who dont want to go to grammar, and dc who dp dont want them to try? and dc who were crap on the day of the test....and all the other variables...not just the narrow list you present confused

Umm -I've been making those points ad infinitum in this thread!! That post was in response to the usual nonsense about "grammars don't mean the return of secondary moderns"

Actually there are relatively few children who are fabulous at just one subject.

The most selective universities are packed with polymaths.

In any event why should we fail to offer the most able students what they need because there are a small number of mathmos (mostly boys) who have poor skills in English?

Thanks HFPA.
I could cry at this and how it would impact on our area and 2 particular schools.
I know a lot of parents who will be very happy though.
I made a choice for my child to attend the school in area that aims to be inclusive and aspirational for all, not just a top stream...
My child actually academically able and we still made that choice.
This type of news depresses me.
My child's school has tried so hard to be the choice of the local community it is in. If this goes ahead, or even the sniff of it going ahead, is a huge setback. The middleclasses will continue their exodus to the other grammar type school.
I am not a campaigner on the whole but will campaign against this...

Because we shouldn't be happy with a system that benefits the minority.

Why shouldn't the high ability outliers have the benefit of an appropriate education?

Imagine saying that about the minority of low ability children.

If also like to see a change in education.

Nothing wrong with academic children being pushed - it's good for the country to have bright kids aiming high

But I would like to see sports - drama - engineering etc also seen as valuable.

Not all children are academic - they just aren't! So why push a square peg in a round hole?

Further, I have sat in a year 9 English class and the different work given to top and bottom sets is huge! All because of a tick box system call the curriculum- that is you have to pass X to move on to Y - you may be able to do Y and Z but we can't teach you until you get X - it's a joke and holds kids back - that's what needs looking at

Terrible news for anyone who reads the evidence and cares about fairness. No matter how much people wish the opposite to be true, the evidence is overwhelming: grammars entrench inequality. If you keep insisting they are a good thing, at least be honest about why you think this is so.

The existing grammar system doesn't benefit the most naturally able.
It most benefits kids from affluent backgrounds who know how to game the system.

Besides, why should the most able benefit at expense of at least able. That makes the least sense of all.

Living in an area that has good comps and no grammar schools, I would hate this. DD1 would probably have failed 11+ as her maths wasn't brilliant at that age but she has now got an A at A level in maths. DD2 would probably have passed with flying colours but would have lost the massive benefit that her comp has given her socially - I think she would have been a 'geek' for life. Her social skills at 11 were terrible but a large comp has helped immensely - she still has the same best friend that she met on her high school induction day and that friend would not have passed the 11+.
What is needed is making sure all schools are a good standard and that all schools use setting so all levels benefit

Because we need a system that works for all! Or at least MOST children. I wouldn't agree with a system that just benefited lower attaining children either - we've done grammars before, they didn't work then and didn't work then, the ones we have left don't work, why are we flogging this dead horse? Let's try something else.

I think what we need is more vocational options for children to choose, (key word choice, not forced upon them if they fail a test at 11), vocational things that can be done alongside a smaller number of GCSEs, much greater involvement between universities and secondaries. I agree we need to continue to boost those working at a higher level, but feel this does not need to be done by sending them to a seperate school. What exactly is it about the grammars that you feel benefits highly attaining children? Let's implement those things into a comp and make it accessible for all.

But these options should be available to all, and not limited based on the results of a test at 11.

Do you agree with sixth forms that select on the basis of GCSE results?

Do you agree with universities that select on the basis of A level results?

to all those people wanting a return to the tiered education system represented by grammar schools, are you also saying you'd be happy for your children to be educated in a secondary modern, or are you assuming your kids would pass a 11+?

Yes because those those people are not 11. We shouldn't limit choices at 11.

I'm honestly interested to know which aspect of grammar schools people feel benefits highly attaining children. What makes them better?

"
Do you agree with sixth forms that select on the basis of GCSE results?

Do you agree with universities that select on the basis of A level results?"

Yep. I also believe in PhD courses that select on the basis of first degree results, driving licences based on driving test results and medical qualifications based on performance on performance at medical school. And?

You need to stop thinking of it as a tired system for the able and non able

Look at the work place - you have academic jobs and non academic jobs we need bin men as much a brain surgeons

So we need academic and non academic schools so all children can achieve

They only 'fail' because that's the test we set - what if we tested on how well they ride a bike or sew?

Sixth forms generally don't let students take a levels if they got lower than a certain grade in the subject in question at GCSE. A state comprehensive sixth form doesn't usually, or not in any case I'm aware of, just close its doors to students full stop.

From age 11 CodyKing?!!
Nah....

CodyKing but it's absolutely not as simplistic as that. What about the academic children who miss out due to their background, poor primary, having a SEN not recognised until secondary?

What about the children who don't WANT to do vocational causes but won't get As? I totally agree we need different routes, but it's about choice and telling children they can't take an academic route at 11 is wrong.

seek oh yes they do! If there is no course available for them then they don't accept them.