Theresa May to end ban on grammar schools part 2

[noblegiraffe]

Continuation of the first thread from here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/2702565-Theresa-May-to-end-ban-on-grammar-schools

Badbadbunny Thu 11-Aug-16 10:18:00 The FE and job market is highly competitive. Someone with As may be further up the list when it comes to being chosen than someone with A's*

Unless the job requires professional qualifications or the employer preferres them e.g. 10 A will not trump ACCA accreditations. You do not need A to get ACCA accreditations. I’m sure there are many more professions where this would also be the case.

Some BTEC courses offer the same and in some cases more exemptions from professional exams than some Degree courses.

But, we're in the real world, whilst we allow and encourage selection by faith, sports, arts, languages, then it's a travesty that for some unfathomable reason, selection by academic ability is frowned on. It's just completely illogical

I do agree that this is silly. And really, has only happened because faith, sports, art etc have been allowed to be used as sneaky proxies for middle-classness and/or ability.

But the thing is, I really don't think May is discussing this in order to help poor bright kids - or that it would do so. It is, as someone said on the radio on Sunday, 'an ideological itch to be scratched' for the Tories at the moment - UKIP might well be on their way out, and it's a spare policy lying around ... lots of Tories still think it was a great system, and May knows this.... it might get a lot of support from people who'd like to save school fees and are optimistic about their children's chances in an 11+ scenario.

I think we can and should talk about what pedagogical/curricular strategies and approaches might work well for the most academically able in state schools - all for that! Of course we should challenge and stretch the brightest as well as supporting those who struggle.

I have a problem though with the idea that not supporting selection, or not thinking bright children should be kept together only with other bright children, is the same as not caring about academic acheivement, or about bright kids generally!

goodbyestranger Thu 11-Aug-16 10:22:59 And Badbadbunny given the brutality of the graduate job market, I'd also add that an Oxbridge degree is not to be sniffed at.

Doesn't that depend on the subject the degree is in?. Genuine question as my DCs are not at this stage yet.

HidingPlace if you read the earlier thread you'll find more than one!

Yes, I would say that as my exposure to education has increased (I entered teaching after my own children started school) and so my understanding of how schools really operate today - and also my exposure to very disadvantaged communities and families - has improved, I have become more opposed to selective education in the way that it currently operates.

I have many times, though, said that I would be less opposed to a 'special school' model for very highly selective schools - in the same way as existing special schools for SEN related to cognitive impairment exist for those whose ability is such that they cannot efficiently be educated in a comprehensive setting, i believe that there are a small number of children whose 'SEN level of intelligence' is such that they cannot be educated effectively at a comprehensive. (Another similar model might be the specialised music schools like Chetham's / Yehudi Menuhin or the Royal Ballet School - there are a whole range of 'in the community' schools and provision around the country that exist for 'normally gifted musicians/ normally gifted dancers', but there are a few rare children for whom that provision is not appropriate)

I should point out that such children are rare - we're not talking about 10A* GCSE at a normal range, because comprehensives can and do efficiently educate such children effectively, but those children who need university level Maths at age 11.

Entrance should be on exactly the same bass as for current SEN special schools - full Ed Psych assessment, in collaboration with current school and parents. In my ideal word, they would - like some of the best SEN provision - be co-located with comprehensives so that e.g. he gifted mathematician can join their peers for lessons in which they are not so exceptionally gifted.

All of this should be in conjunction with improving all comprehensives - through partnerships, through the equal distribution of the most disadvantaged children, through funding the schools according to their intake so it is no longer 'better for the school' to take in the 'cheaper, easier' MC children, because such children would attract very little funding, and through recognising the true impact of the community on children's attainment and thus working with communities as well.

MumTryingHerBest yes of course, to an extent. But for many of the competitive graduate schemes and professions you'll find Oxbridge recruits outnumber others by a massive margin. Not everyone's cup of tea of course, but for those who fancy that sort of thing it's a factor.

(I should also add, in reference to other posts that I also believe that the use of religion in admissions criteria should be abolished)

teacher so I'm interested in whether you can, hand on heart, say that you would have opted for the nearest school if it was the same sort of school that TalkinPeace described so delightfully as 'Yob Central'?

Badbadbunny or selection by all criteria should be available.

I live in that area.

Academic
Music
Sports
Technology
Sibling
Cross sibling
Faith
Wealth (Catchment)

I think the only selection critera that doesn't seem to exist is low ability without SEN. They get given the school with places left, where ever that maybe.

teacher I would also say that while your blueprint is laudable, some of us mere mortals see it as being more immediate and more productive to get stuck in with attempting to improve the chances of the very able but disadvantaged by implementing practical solutions right now.

goodbyestranger Thu 11-Aug-16 11:34:43 MumTryingHerBest yes of course, to an extent. But for many of the competitive graduate schemes and professions you'll find Oxbridge recruits outnumber others by a massive margin.

No company recruits only graduates.

seek whilst I agree that the current reappearance of this policy is timed to appease the Brexit contingent ( when we end up accepting free movement in any event ), I think it's broader support with the public comes very much from lived experience rather than ideology.

It's interesting how popular the policy is across all age groups, including the older generation who mostly attended secondary modern .

For me ( and a lot if colleagues involved in widening access for tertiary education) it's not about a deeply held belief in the grammar system ( although I can see it is a highly efficient way of educating high ability pupils, and I am keen on a like ability peer group for DC).

Rather it is looking for a solution to the current issue of provision for high ability students.

It's quite obvious that the comprehensive system is not providing properly and consistently for that group.

A heck of a lot of work is done trying to widen access but we can only go so far. Outreach is a tough gig if secondary schools are not educating potential applicants appropriately.

MumTryingHerBest that's completely besides the point, for the most able people who want to get on to a competitive scheme in a competitive field.

And equally Carl, primaries need to do their bit too.

Goodbye, again that is an interesting one, and I shall try to answer it as honestly as possible.

When DS was small, I did exactly that - I sent him to the local much-derided primary, because it was the closest school.

18 months later, he was a school-induced selective mute, under the care of an Ed Psych for anxiety, with sufficiently pronounced ASD traits that his then head / SENCo suggested that he would never attend mainstream school again if I took him out.

I HEd him for a few months, we moved town, I again sent him to the closest school (rather than the much-lauded and much more popular school a little further away where he could have had a place) and he thrived.

So would I have willingly sent him to a very threatening school for secondary, knowing that he could have become ill again?

I suppose what I can say in completely practical terms (rather than 'would you theoretically send your child to the worst school that you can imagine?') is that I would absolutely send either or both of my children to any of the schools in my town, from their current 'leafy' comp to the 50%FSM one or the one in Special Measures.

Goodbye, honestly, why are "the very able but disadvantaged" the only ones who get to have their chances improved? (Especially because the method you are advocating actively decreases the chances of the disadvantaged who are not very able)

Should we not be looking to improve the chances of ALL disadvantaged children??

It's quite obvious that the comprehensive system is not providing properly and consistently for that group.

I think it's fair to say that there are poor comprehensives where able children are not offered options that are available in other schools that should be, such as triple science or two mfls, but are those schools which are not providing properly for able children actually providing a good education for middle/low ability children? You might say 'well they are offering maths, English, science, so yes' but are the middle/low ability kids actually passing the maths, English, science? Are the able kids missing out on triple science GCSEs that they would have got at another school while at the same time the middle ability kids are missing out on maths and English that they would have got at another school? Is the problem a poor school all-round rather than a school that doesn't cater for the most able?

"Is the problem a poor school all-round rather than a school that doesn't cater for the most able?"

Exactly. rather than trying to select out a very few 'deserving disadvantaged' to be 'saved', why are we not looking to improve the school for all?

teacher of course all those kids should have their chances improved, but that's not my area - so while I can see things which it would be good to see done, it simply isn't my patch.

The triple science thing another debate really.
I understand triple vs double is controversial and triple not always seen as best for very able children.
Nor, double a barrier for able children.
Perhaps for another tread!!!

There is no need to be so dismissive. My mentioning of the Apprenticeship was not trying to achieve what you stated more to state that we're not living in some rarified world with hot house flowers of academia. One of my best grammar school friends doesn't have a degree (he went to drama school).
How dare you imply it was some sort of Pulp's Common People attempt to be down with the working classes. It was not. It was merely to counter the attitude that we're all about Latin and Greek.
However, I don't think anything I say will change your attitude to me, which is that I must be wrong because I teach at a grammar school.

So goodbye, you see it as better to 'tweak at the edges' of a status quo (in your area) that obviously disadvantages many of the disadvantaged, rather than to even consider changing the system?

6 ways to improve failing schools: schoolsweek.co.uk/the-6-secrets-of-school-turnarounds-as-revealed-by-study-of-160-academies/

Is there anyone who is anti grammar schools who would keep faith schools?

Noble - I think you have a good point there. The problem is likely to be inadequate schools of a variety of types. To change this situation would involve root and branch education form with no selection whatsoever. And it would take a very brave politician to get rid of the private/independent sector and religious schools.
In some ways, I suppose you could see grammar schools as being a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I play to my strengths though and teach at a grammar school. I struggle with bottom set classes if I'm honest (my PGCE experience taught me that). However, with middle sets upwards my results are 'Outstanding' (whatever that actually means) and sometimes the students even enjoy my lessons.