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

With regards to the top grades, I don't think it's just about what you can or can't access without them, but also about the tone that is set in a school.

If schools are serious about providing an appropriate education for their most able students, they can't take the view that an A is fine (for an A* student). They can't say double science is fine etc.

It seems rather daft to bang on that comprehensive education offers the appropriate education to all, but high ability students can't actually expect that.

It might be fine for bert to suppport her DS in gaining an apporpriate education and ultimate grades. She's wealthy, well educated and doesn't work. But what about high ability children who are not from achingly middle class families?

Carl
We educate our DC to the best of our ability because it's better fur society.

Yes, of course, but what we educate them in is decided politically, and obviously partly motivated by the economic needs of society. More Comp Sci, Mandarin, less ICT, Media studies. Also regarding educating the less able, it goes with raising the school leaving age - partly motivated by a desire to keep them off the streets and out of the unemployment figures.

Or like bert do you not really see the point of A*s unless they lead to something specific?

I'm a maths teacher, more maths, better maths grades always leads to something beneficial.

haybott Those not in favour of grammars do have to address the fact that high ability pupils in some comprehensives under-achieve, and that getting As/Bs rather than top grades does affect their future prospects and the economy as a whole.

What about those suposedly middle ability children who over achieve. A lot of children don't come into their own until a year or so, sometimes later, after joining secondary school. How many of those children are going to be identified in the 11 plus?

How many Grammar schools have 90% - 100% A - B pass rate. The A - C pass rate could include a sizable number of middle achievers and under performing high achievers.

not sure why the IT dep seemed so lacking.

It's because people like your DH (and in the future your DS) aren't becoming comp sci teachers.

Those not in favour of grammars do have to address the fact that high ability pupils in some comprehensives under-achieve, and that getting As/Bs rather than top grades does affect their future prospects and the economy as a whole

That's why I'm asking, if this is the issue we're identifying and seeking to address, why don't we think 'outward' from there, rather than looking to an older system we assume would deal with it? Starting from the basics, what is it that might help a student get an A rather than a B? Is that clearly missing somewhere? What would be the first thing to do, before we leap straight to 'different buildings'?

And yes, I do think an A* is better than an A, and an A better than a B. I've never come across a teacher who thinks differently, either. (am not a teacher).

Mum You are still giving more arguments against grammar schools (arguments that I don't disagree with, I don't think grammars are going to solve many problems). How are you going to make sure that existing comprehensives help children to achieve the most they can?

What about those suposedly middle ability children who over achieve.

Surely we can all agree that there is no such thing as "over-achievement"? If middle ability children get good grades through good teaching and hard work, this is good for them and good for the country.

How many Grammar schools have 90% - 100% Astar - B pass rate.

This depends on how selective the intake was to start with. The Astar/A rates are much higher in grammars in the greater London area than in many other parts of the country (where even open catchment "super-selectives" are easier to get into).

bert it is all very well for you to say that as your ds has every advantage, you don't mind his ability taking a back seat. But why the assumption that every able child will also have all those advantages? And you're also ignoring the fact that in many cases, it isn't the all round advantaged able child playing second fiddle to the all round disadvantaged low ability child.

what is it that might help a student get an A rather than a B?

Better teaching is an obvious first answer!

why don't we think 'outward' from there, rather than looking to an older system we assume would deal with it?

Well, as Carl points out, those of us who work in widening access have for years been trying to deal with the issues, with rather little success. As Carl says, one big issue is the attitudes of SLT, teachers and parents at schools which are under performing. We can see some of these attitudes in this thread: "my DD got mostly As at GCSE in a good comp, what would she have gained from getting a few more A stars in a grammar?" This from a county in which some "middle class" comps do get fewer top grades for their high achievers than they should.

Sorry for disappearing after my long post; reality intervened. When I said that most of the graduate level science jobs in our very small industrial estate are filled by East Europeans, that's true, and there are also quite a few East Europeans (but not a majority) working for our biggest local employer, which is in the food business.

The comprehensive (there's only one) went from Outstanding to Special Measures inside 12 months, and of DS's friends' AS maths class, not one passed in 2015. In the same year, A2 leavers achieving AAB or higher in at least 2 facilitating subjects stood at 11%, against a national average of 14.7%. It's average on the normal measures of deprivation and SEN. After GCSE 95% stayed in education, but 30% went to FE colleges. I think only one went to an independent school (sports scholarship IIRC). Post A level, quite a few went off to newer universities and to art school, but very few to RG universities; none to Oxbridge.

This could be an unrepresentative year but it reflects the local population (and chimes with my knowledge of the demographics). Does it suggest a school that encourages students to aim high? Not really, and this was a factor cited among OFSTED scoring it as a 4. Unless someone, either parent or student, is really driven then the results will remain mediocre. It saddens me, yet no one else seems bothered. I suspect that this pattern is repeated ad infinitum across England, outside the south east.

Mum - Cs are usually in the single figures with us (and usually for a 'reason' of some kind). I have never known a surprise C or lower. I'd expect grammars to be in 90-100% A*-B, unless there's an issue with a particular cohort. It's certainly been my experience in recent years.
As for subject requirements at A Level they vary. We (English) will accept Bs, normally practice is A, because we're aware of historical issues with marking. Maths only accept internal candidates with A as if they haven't managed that with our Maths department they probably can't cope with A Level (note: it's usually only around 10% of students who don't get an A or something ridiculous like that).

GetAHaircutCarl But what about high ability children who are not from achingly middle class families?

How many of these children are currently in Grammar schools?

GetAHaircutCarl They can't say double science is fine etc.

Like this schools has just done:

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=47474

My point is that there are huge practical implications for a child who could get Cs but doesn't.

As there are for ambitious kids who could get A and A* grades but don't because they're stuck in a failing school surrounded by low ability kids sucking the teachers time and disruptive pupils preventing the others from learning!

But it still comes through to competition eventually, which is why the grade inflation of the last couple of decades was very damaging and needs to be corrected, hence the new 1-9 grades.

The exam system works in such a way that the numbers/percentages of exam entrants in each grade are virtually guaranteed in advance and they "normalise" (or fiddle) the grade boundaries to make that happen. So if you are going to improve schools, teachers, or whatever to get more under-achieving kids up to and above the C level, then the grade boundary will move up and they'll still risk not meeting the level, simply because otherwise there'd be too many pupils getting the C grade - it's just re-arranging the desk chairs on the titanic!

The whole point of exams should be to differentiate between different ability levels. Is it really fair to pour time, effort and resources in to kids who can't be bothered to the detriment of those who are potentially high achievers but being ignored because they'll get a C anyway?

DoctorDonnaNoble Fri 12-Aug-16 09:54:11 I'd expect grammars to be in 90-100% A-B, unless there's an issue with a particular cohort.*

So would the vast majority of people I think. However, is there any evidence (other than your one school) that this is in fact the case?

I believe it's true of the local girls' grammar and our nearest rivals as well. Obviously all bets are off this year, who knows what might happen!

However, is there any evidence (other than your one school) that this is in fact the case?

Look up some grammar schools at random and look at their results. It is normal that most grades are A/Astar with a few Bs and rarely Cs. (Not sure if you are taking into account grade inflation, BTW: most kids who make it to RG universities will have mostly As and A stars at GCSE regardless of which school they come from. Getting more than a few Bs and Cs at GCSEs nowadays indicates that you probably won't do well at A level.)

"The whole point of exams should be to differentiate between different ability levels. Is it really fair to pour time, effort and resources in to kids who can't be bothered to the detriment of those who are potentially high achievers but being ignored because they'll get a C anyway?"

Did anyone actually say that this is what they want to happen?

This whole 'not bothering with high achievers because they'll get a C anyway' thing annoys me. It won't affect the headline figure, but it will be perfectly obvious to parents who look at the value added figures and average grades for high achievers. Ofsted will also be aware and have slammed schools into special measures for this sort of thing (see the grammar school mentioned upthread - the accusation was they were put in special measures for 'political' reasons, but reading the Ofsted report it was clear that they were coasting along with a bunch of high achievers and not getting the grades out of them that they were capable of.)
Schools really can't afford to get high achievers C grades.

Cs are pretty much unheard of in grammar schools.

"As there are for ambitious kids who could get A and A* grades but don't because they're stuck in a failing school surrounded by low ability kids sucking the teachers time and disruptive pupils preventing the others from learning!"

I think one of the problems here is that "failing school" and "comprehensive" are being used practically interchangablly. No child ought to be going to a "failing school".

MumTryingHerBest Fri 12-Aug-16 09:56:45 unless there's an issue with a particular cohort.

or an issues with particular teachers, the funding etc.

The local grammar school (one of three) achieved 59% AAB at A level, and 92% GCSE pass rate; 98% of 176 students had 8 or more GCSEs at A*-C (most take 11 subjects).