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 don't actually think grammar schools are the best option in an ideal world, BTW. And they would have to be very different from how they are now to be worth doing (fairer entrance, routes into them later than just at 11, transport paid for even if it's not your closest school). But it's wrong to pretend they don't have any advantages.

Apple schools are allowed to select up to 10% of their intake based on academic/musical/sport proficiency.

Even the language used shows the mindset "creaming off"-so the one who pass are the "cream"- everyone else is the skimmed milk........

i don't think GS are that bad, as long as they are backed up with the middle part of the tripartite system which was the technical college. There wasn't enough money post war to finance them, but are a fantastic idea focusing on practical vocational subjects, and were meant to be the training ground for our engineers, creatives and crafts people. I suspect there is no money for a new range of schools, but investment into the secondary modern (as was) could make them very aspirational too. Not everyone needs or wants to spend their lives in academic study...

apple they can't change their admissions criteria to include a selective test. Although some schools are setting "banding" tests, in order to try and ensure an even number of students of all abilities. However, the success of this is a bit limited: they need to fill their spaces and so can end up with a tiny band 1 (or whatever the highest one is called) and end up having to fill it with band 2 children etc. But it's an effort at least to ensure reasonably broad ability range.

Someone at some point will admiring mention the German system, so can I get in early and point out that the German school system has been condemned by the United Nations for perpetuating social inequity.

I don't think it makes much difference either way tbh. Just because an area like mine doesn't have a grammar school in sight, it doesn't mean we don't have secondary moderns. Except they are called comprehensives, and it is decided based on postcode whether you need an academic education or a vocational one. Do it by means of an exam instead, and their will be little overall difference. The mc higher achievers will still get good schools, the deprived lower achievers will still get the less good, or even bad schools. The only group that would actually change would be the high achieving wc kids would get the good school over the mc average kids.

Mumsnet is not socially representative, so when dozens of posters state how great their comprehensive is, it doesn't reflect reality. It's all very well to say selecting by one exam is unfair, but selecting by postcode or religion is worse imo. But many mumsnetters either don't realise, or don't care that this happens. Its v easy to say the current comprehensive system is fairer, when for your child it just means you don't need to worry about an exam for a good school. It doesn't work that way if your child's only way of accessing a good school is by having the opportunity of an exam they would pass. Or indeed if your dc won't get into a good school whichever way you select.

Personally I'd have super selectives for the top %, and more none mainstream available for sn/Sen.

For everyone else, I've changed my mind about lottery allocation. I'd allocate funding per head based on parental wealth/ income. So the school with a large number of children from low income homes would have a much larger budget than one with dc from average mc homes, which in turn would have a larger budget than a school where many parents are relatively wealthy.

Pp funding would remain for the individuals benefit, however I'd also raise the cut off point, and offer it on a sliding scale above that. With greater transparency and areas in which it can be spent. So eg the 14yr old average achieving carer who doesn't need in school support or uniform funding could have their pp used for respite care to give them a break.

I'd also of course scrap religious criteria.

HallaWalla
Can someone explain how this would work in practice? Would current high achieving comps become grammar schools, or would new schools be created??

I would assume that if new schools could be created with the ability to select, then current ones could as well. Not sure why it would have to be high achieving comps. Presumably any could take this route, it would be up to the governing body to decide whether or not it would be right for them.

Well, regardless of the general information given, both grammar schools I have worked in have had students from a range of backgrounds and also have excellent value added statistics.
The problem with this debate is that it's never actually a debate. The vast majority have already decided what they think and want change their minds from that.
Many of you probably think I'm a dreadful person for working in one. I work in a super selective. I love it.

Oh right, that's interesting about academies, I had heard something different.

I think this is good news as a parent of a child about to go to grammar school and as someone who went to grammar school.
I was from a very working class background where only 2 of us from my school went to grammar school. My children have had a different route, in a private school which prepared them for the exams, but in either case I agree with grammar schools and my experience is that there are children from a variety of backgrounds, although admittedly some of the 'better' grammar schools are skewed towards those with good primary school and parental preparation and support.

"Many of you probably think I'm a dreadful person for working in one. I work in a super selective. I love it."

I don't. I can see why a teacher would want to work in a super selective.

...but the grammar schools are 'creaming off' the most academic DC - it's exactly what they are doing.

There are several reasons. One is the change to teach 11-18.

" my experience is that there are children from a variety of background"
Interesting. I wonder why your experience differs from all the research?

*chance

People's experience of individual grammar schools is irrelevant in the face of overwhelming data about selective education systems, both from our country, and internationally. They actively harm social mobility.

"Well, regardless of the general information given, both grammar schools I have worked in have had students from a range of backgrounds" What % of PP kids?

I'd also of course scrap religious criteria

Absolutely! The fewer restrictions the better. Kids should be able to attend their local school and be to be excluded for any reason especislly the faith of their parents.

, so it's off to sewing school for you!'

I wasn't suggesting a sewing school - more a contrast in what we value in society -if we valued cooking over maths then the academics schools would be 'bad' schools

By the same token aren't we suggesting that the grammar school kids are destined for a life in banking? I'm sure there are plenty of grammar school girls caught pregnant as there are comp schools - maybe they want an early family and value that over a career? Maybe they would rather be nurses or own a sandwich shop?

A large number of their peers are from farming backgrounds and the expectation is that they will go into the family farm when they leave school.
How very patronising you are. There is little expectation nowadays that people will 'go into the family farm' nowadays. I could say a lot more but you probably wouldn't like it.

This line about "primary schools should prepare better for the test" is nonsense. Let's say all primary schools really crammed for the test. The pass mark is still going to be set at 20% of those taking. So if loads more kids have been crammed the pass mark is just going to be set higher. This is what happened at Tiffin( I believe it might have changed the system now) where kids were doing years of practice tests and tutoring so they could answer the NVR questions in 2 seconds instead of 3. And as the pass mark goes higher and more and more kids who would once have been deemed "academic" will be labelled "vocational" Where the hell's the sense in that?

I would like to know what "vocational" means nowadays.

One point that I don't think has been made yet:

The main push for this seems to be from people like David Davis who himself went to a grammar school. So the lesson he's drawn from his fabulous education is that policy should be made on the basis of nostalgia, wishful thinking and closing your eyes to overwhelming evidence. Is this what these amazing schools teach their kids?

Selection by academic ability is fine as long as it's alongside other choices, such as faith schools, arts/sports/language schools, etc.

The problem with the old system was poor sec-mods - if the kids who didn't get into a grammar school had a decent alternative, the system would have been fine.

No one is suggesting going back to the old grammar / sec mod system where you basically had a choice of two schools. These days, we have a lot more choice in most places, so adding a selective academic into a choice of several schools shouldn't be a problem.

If, however, you do live in a town where you really have few choices, i.e. just a couple of comps, no faith schools, too far to travel to any others etc., then I'd agree an academic selective school as one of those two wouldn't be a good idea.

But, with new grammars, the primaries in the catchment area must be allowed/encouraged to prepare the pupils for the entrance tests, so as to make them properly accessible, not just for the kids whose parents can tutor/pay themselves. Any new regime has to be integrated between primary and secondary to give all pupils are fair chance - and that can only be achieved by the primary schools upping their game!