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

The FE and job market is highly competitive

When people write that are they actually saying... "Folk who don't have top qualifications will have shit jobs and shit lives." Because I can see that is not true, among people I know of all ages.

Yes, I think that's exactly what TEF will do, Haybott. And a two tier school system coupled with a two tier HE system (or at least, one that is more obviously stated as such) would, I think, be terrible for WP as an idea. Are people going to go to all schools to encourage application for REF institutions with higher fees, or target their time and resources at the grammars? And surely all the frustrations currently felt about flaws in comprehensives which mean children who potentially might have gone somewhere prestigious at 18 will then be the same, and possibly even more frustrating, when people who perform roles like Carl's visit SMs and see how badly a child who missed out in the 11+ by a few marks might be served by 7 years in an establishment where nobody expects them to consider Oxford or Cambridge (or UCL, or Durham, or wherever).

I do appreciate this is speculative - but I'm just trying to think through how provision for the brightest, and consequent WP might not be so simply achieved.

noble in response to your earlier post about whether the inadequate schools also fail middle/ low achievement, the two local schools are a contrast. One is v good for all dc of average and below, and pastorally it is v good. They do have the staff to provide a lot more for more able dc, and I know several of the teachers are more than willing. I have been told that in the past some teachers have tried to offer more, but the slt are not on board. And those teachers capable of managing a class with a wide range of ability are usually the most experienced, thus unlikely to teach the top sets.

Other school is crap for all but borderline pass dc. A child who could potentially hit grades for the league tables would do ok, but children of easy pass and above, and those who are unlikely to get a pass are just screwed over. Pastorally it's crap. In theory it shouldn't have staffing problems, because recruitment doesn't appear to be a major issue. Keeping the good ones is the problem, as quite understandably decent teachers tend not to stick around.

basically almost everyone goes to university

BTW this shows how skewed we all are on MN to think this. In reality, under 40% of UK 18 year olds go to university. The participation rate is only 46% even in the most advantaged areas. (Of course if you zoom into a very small neighbourhood the rate can be much higher or lower.)

Yeah, I know what you mean and I know 'basically everyone' is an exaggeration - but it's much more the norm now to a) stay on for sixth form and then b) go to university than it was even in 'my day', and certainly than it was in my parents'!

Are people going to go to all schools to encourage application for REF institutions with higher fees, or target their time and resources at the grammars?

Currently RG universities spend most of their outreach time and budgets on lower achieving schools, not high achieving schools. For their marketing budgets this is probably not the case (but I am less familiar with marketing). If there is pressure to admit talented students from less advantaged backgrounds, then I would anticipate that RG universities would continue to target time and resources on high achievers in lower achieving schools, but it very much depends on what rules are set by the government.

BTW TEF itself will almost certainly have components of "value added" meaning that universities have to recruit and focus resources on less advantaged students. On the other hand everybody knows what the TEF results "have to be" in advance; too much emphasis on access would be difficult for Oxbridge to score well on, so this is unlikely to happen. (I'm cynical of TEF and REF.)

MumTryingHerBest I don't know where it's published for general consumption is the answer, sorry.

Thanks for pointing out, Clavinova, that I have clearly outed myself ion here, and therefore need to deregister. Actually, knowing what I do now, I would not have had my children take up their places even in the most selective of the local grammars - but especially for DS I was not, at that time, at the point I am now in terms of 'knowing about schools' and developing my own views about selection.

And as I have already said on this thread, I would now send my DCs to any of the schools in my town.

Bye all!

lurked is that impression borne out in the actual exam pass figures for middle/low achievers?

teacher You have not outed yourself - we have both been on this forum for a few years and you have obviously forgotten all of your previous posts - I cannot link because I am only relying on my memory.

correction You have not outed yourself to me - I have no idea who you are.

Ken Loach puts a persuasive case against grammar schools here. You have to scroll down to the sub-heading "11+ was unfair".

noble that depends on how closely you look. If you look at '5 a-c or equivalent' they are both about the same. However when you start looking at where those grades come from, and more importantly future outcomes/ destinations, there is a marked difference in favour of the better school.

Quite an interesting letter in today's Times. The writer states that he supports further grammar schools to achieve more equality of opportunity, but closes by describing the elephant that has been completely ignored on here.

"It shouldn't surprise us that only 2.7% of grammar school students have free school meals against 16% across all secondary schools. On average, grammar school students are more intelligent than pupils at other state schools because their parents are more intelligent. That's why the parents tend to have better jobs, are ranked in the higher social classes, and their children don't qualify for FSM."

I do realise that this is likely to be controversial, as he states an awkward and unpopular reality. FWIW, my VHO is that there should be some method of distinguishing students who are more likely to prefer an academic environment for study, and those more interested in practical skills but with regular (biannual?) opportunities to switch between the two strands so no student is condemned permanently to an unsuitable fit. If the split were 60:40 in favour of the technical schools, this would make them rather larger schools, which would enable provision of a greater number of subjects and qualifications, including BTECs and GSCEs, as well as a new school leaving certificate recording functional literacy and numeracy at the normal school leaving age. There might also be special dispensation for some students to leave school younger, provided they were going onto an accredited apprenticeship or trade (not a McJob) as long as their results were satisfactory. The smaller schools could then concentrate on the standard range of academic subjects, with the goal of sending most of their leavers to further education, whether nursing degrees or medical school (staying within one trade, but obviously not limited). Both styles of school would cover art, drama and music, and ideally both would be sufficiently blessed with resources to provide strong SEN and good pastoral care. I am wearing rose tinted glasses and living the pipe dream, I know.

I am not in favour of returning to grammars and secondary moderns as I am old enough to remember them; sadly there are too many comprehensives that are not good enough at stretching, or spotting, the really clever ones, and far too many that are simply failing their communities. Possibly of relevance, it voted for Brexit, but of the small businesses close by, almost all the professional jobs are filled by East Europeans as the local school simply doesn't produce or retain the labour pool of science graduates the companies need. This is a rural area of small towns and tiny villages with a large but poor city not far away, and the range of choices is not appetising. The effective catchment includes selective grammars offering some 550 places each year, so the city comps are de facto sec moderns. The rural comprehensives have about 300 per cohort, so are big schools.

Now you can all tell me why it wouldn't work!

"It shouldn't surprise us that only 2.7% of grammar school students have free school meals against 16% across all secondary schools. On average, grammar school students are more intelligent than pupils at other state schools because their parents are more intelligent. That's why the parents tend to have better jobs, are ranked in the higher social classes, and their children don't qualify for FSM."

Might as well determine it by parental occupation, then? Lawyers' kids go to the grammar, midday supervisors' to the Secondary Modern!

It would be a significant failure in our house, Seek. But like it or not, intelligence is one of the most heritable traits.

Nature or nurture, though.....?

Evidence is inheritance is first, around 50%+ so a fair bit left to explain (may be more in adult life but less in childhood so if you are measuring IQ or potential to succeed academically, aged 10, it matters a lot less who your parents are)
Non-shared environment next (everything from being a more talkative toddler that more people talk back to, to clubs and societies at school and what job you choose)
Then shared environment (same family, school and neighbourhood as your siblings).

Wiki article

So maybe he's right if he's looking at "who has high adult IQ" but not if he's looking at "who is academically minded in middle childhood" as that is much less heritable.

Also, if you have much more similar and more favourable environments then the effect of environment evens out and the effect of genetics comes through. So, if you are looking at twin studies (these are mainly twin studies) then families with many social problems tend not to take part or if they do they drop out - so it's hard to tell what the effect of environment versus inheritance would be on children who are struggling right from the start and whose environment could be changed a lot. It's easier to tell, because there are more studies, the differences in better off families who have smaller differences between them in environment.

cressetmama - On average, grammar school students are more intelligent than pupils at other state schools because their parents are more intelligent.

Did they also factor in those comps. that are Grammar schools in all but name.

cressetmama I am not in favour of returning to grammars and secondary moderns as I am old enough to remember them

I'm assuming you don't live in Bucks then as they still exist.

cressetmama On average, grammar school students are more intelligent than pupils at other state schools because their parents are more intelligent.

Am I to assume that the majority of the parents of Grammar school children did not go to comps?

I feel a bit sad and frustrated that we are discussing 70 year old systems and 40 year old systems and given the huge developments in technology and the changing global environment we are not having a discussion about the best way forward to educate the whole population for the 21st Century.

I'm not discussing redundant systems at all Peregrina. My kids attended/ attend a very lively grammar which isn't in any way stuck in the past.

To be honest these high brow blueprints are probably a bit sad and frustrating for those kids who need a decent and appropriate education right now.

Well I didn't Mum. I got a Direct Grant scholarship through the 11+ to a London GDST. Not that I thought much of it at the time, but I can see in retrospect it was quite a good deal.