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

Of course they do.
If you have the funding- and you can provide Latin without having to limit something else........

Maths is the most popular A level in our sixth form.
Medicine is the most popular degree destination. Followed by Law I believe at the moment.
One year medicine was the second most popular destination for English Literature students (we were a popular '4th' for the science set that year).

Having Latin on the curriculum does not preclude STEM. The two work perfectly well together.

More than that, Latin helps develop STEM skills and is very good preparation for higher level mathematics/physics.

In many European countries, it is normal for the grammar school stream to be taught Latin/Ancient Greek along with a wide range of sciences, MFL, humanities. If we are not funding our own pupils to do the same (be this in grammars or in comps), then we are making them inherently disadvantaged compared to their foreign competitors for top jobs.

How many "pure" scientists, noble?

I expected you to say exactly that about the reformed exams Bertrand. But at the same time you seem to advocate a one size fits all in order to be 'fair' to less academically able students whereas it seems to be that these reforms are so ill-suited to the academically less able that they should prompt a really radical rethink of exactly how we differentiate between different ability groups. Rather than merely carrying on on the same road not providing adequately for the more able and actually, at the end of the day, not really being fair at all the the less able. And that's before one even gets on to the larger societal issues.

Medicine is the most popular degree destination.

Likewise our grammar - when you look at sixth form leaver destinations, it's blatantly obvious that medicine is the most popular. Only 2 or 3 per year go to Oxbridge to study classics.

Same here bunny. Well, the medicine bit anyhow.

I think we are seeing a shift in preferences in favour of STEM subjects for A level. Of the schools, I've looked at closely, the very academic independent's biggest entries are in physics and maths, as were the UTC (to be expected, given that humanities and languages are only just on the curriculum) and at the grammar. The comprehensive: disproportionate numbers of drama, dance, art and photography, leavened with media studies with a handful of STEM subjects. What irks me is the assumption among students that English Lang and media studies A levels are better preparation for journalism than English Lit! I know 16 yr olds don't always make considered choices, but wonder how much advice the teachers there were giving. One does assume that they are familiar with the idea of facilitating subjects, but I wasn't convinced they agreed with the notion when I broached the subject. That, IMVHO, imposes an implicit ceiling on aspiration which may not matter to the DC of sharp-elbowed MC professionals, but does when we are talking about able DC who come from less educated backgrounds.

goodbye but the academically less able who are not well-served by the GCSE reforms are not the same group of children who are the 'academically less able' who wouldn't get into a grammar school.

it's blatantly obvious that medicine is the most popular.

Yes, at selective schools (state and private) medicine is very popular. A significant fraction of those studying sciences at A level will go into medicine. Many of the other scientists at top schools head into economics and related subjects. Far fewer go into maths, physics, computer science, engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, ocean and earth sciences, materials science.... so it's hardly surprising that we have shortages in many of these areas, particularly when many graduates from these subjects get lured into highly paid financial jobs.

There is an issue with balance if many or most pupils studying science see medicine and economics as their goals. I chose not to send my DC to one school (consistently top ten in league tables) because it seemed so focussed towards a relatively small number of university subjects; other subjects seemed implicitly to be considered less valuable.

And I think the press is doing it's part in pointing out the high lifetime earnings achieved by STEM-oriented people.

...its part...

Bert: There are lots of courses and jobs that require Cs- a B will not give you a better chance

There may be "lots of courses" you can do with Cs, but you will limit your options and choices. My niece was persuaded by her comp to take her Maths GCSE a year early because they knew she'd get a C, so box ticked for the comp.

A year later when she was looking at sixth form colleges, she was dismayed to find that she wasn't eligible for the one she really wanted to go to (options offered suited what she wanted to do and none of the others close by offered the same A level options). That sixth form college insisted on B grades for English and maths as minimum entry requirements. So, despite the comp ticking their boxes, her A level and future career choices WERE limited. Had she waited and taken the Maths at the right time, she'd have probably got a B or above due to a further year of teaching.

But hey-ho, the school ticked their boxes and met their targets!!!

"But at the same time you seem to advocate a one size fits all "

I have never advocated a "one size fits all" system.

"But hey-ho, the school ticked their boxes and met their targets!!!"

Well, it probably didn't meet its targets if this was recent and your niece was capable of more.

But what relevance does a crap piece of advice given by a school have to the debate about selective education?

But what relevance does a crap piece of advice given by a school have to the debate about selective education?

You keep saying that a B is no better and that a C is good enough - I'm just replying to your comments!

My niece was persuaded by her comp to take her Maths GCSE a year early

First entry rules for the league tables were introduced a few years back to stop schools doing this.

Haybott - our focus comes from the students and their parents. Not us. I was discussing this with a long-standing member of staff a while back. He's noticed that in 'boom' times there was more focus on academic interest, in recession or austerity people look more for a 'job-focused' course, hence medicine and law. However, since the introduction of top-up fees, there's been a much greater focus on medicine and law.
Interestingly, PPE hasn't been that big a draw. Our Economists tend to prefer LSE and Cambridge for 'straight' Economics.

First entry rules for the league tables were introduced a few years back to stop schools doing this.

My understanding was that it didn't stop them doing it, but it just meant that the first entry was the one that mattered for league tables, i.e. if she did it again and got a B then the B wouldn't count for league tables. Am I understanding that correctly?

In my niece's case, there was no second entry - the school was happy with the C and my niece was conned by the school into thinking it was fine and wouldn't jeopardise her future!

I think part of the stem problem is interest, rather than gcse grades. If you're able in physics, maths etc, then up to gcse there isn't much challenge in the curriculum itself. It doesn't need maturity, or greater depth to understand if you are that way inclined. So if a child doesn't have a school/ teacher or parents who allow them to see it is so much more than that, they could have well decided against it already due to lack of interest. And again at a-level, even if they pursue those options, unless there is someone to support and advise them on the many further options and areas, then there is no reason they'd pursue it.

Everyone is aware of a range of outcomes for studying medicine, but if you start asking about other stem subjects many people struggle to think of more than a handful of ways that qualification/ knowledge would be of use. Or think they are limited in who will 'make it', as though a stem career is only viable for those who will make huge discoveries or ground breaking inventions.

"You keep saying that a B is no better and that a C is good enough - I'm just replying to your comments!"

I'm not saying that at all- I must not be making myself clear.

What I am saying is that for many kids to progress to the next stage in their lives, particularly many low and some middle ability kids, they need Cs. For them, a B is not in practical terms any better- it's the magic C they need. And for many of them that jump from D to C is huge. Obviously it was important for your niece- and she was given crap advice. But she's not the sort of person I am talking about here.

There are kids for whom any grade on a certificate, even an F, is useful, because it shows that they turned up and did the exam.

This is uncharted territory for many people, but it is very real.

I live on the Wirral in Merseyside. We have six single sex grammar schools and a number of excellent single sex and mixed comprehensives. Anyone can try for the grammar schools, but if they choose not to, or don't pass, there are options. Also, grammar schools are not for every child. My two oldest thrived at grammar school, but my third was very unhappy, so we moved her to a local comprehensive where she is much happier. I think there should be as much choice in an area as is possible. I don't think anyone, including the government, would favour a return to the old unfair system of labelling children as academic, or not at 11. What we have on the Wirral seems to work and I am grateful for the opportunities both systems have given my children.

Our focus comes from the students and their parents.

Exactly: pupils and parents strongly correlate well paid scientific careers with medicine. (Not entirely correctly: medicine is well paid but not in the early career stages while many of my ex-students earn considerably more than consultants in STEM careers in their early thirties.)

if you start asking about other stem subjects many people struggle to think of more than a handful of ways that qualification/ knowledge would be of use.

Yes, people do not know how science degrees correlate with careers. In nearby countries STEM degrees have a completely different status within society - and correspondingly a much larger uptake.

I think part of the stem problem is interest

I agree. But some schools don't appear to inspire any interest, particularly in tech subjects. A few of the school open days we visited were very poor with their "tech" displays, whereas a couple were really good with robotics etc. There's so much more than can be done to inspire kids to want to go down a science/tech route yet the schools themselves often don't do anything to inspire and encourage it.

UCLAN for example have an annual science festival weekend aimed at primary school kids. The place is really buzzing with all kinds of displays, presentations, lectures, hands-on interactive activities etc and it has an amazing level of support and popularity, attendances increasing yearly. It really does inspire the kids with subjects like forensics, medical science, robotics, and has displays from employers such as aerospace, nuclear fuels, etc. The common theme is the desperate shortage of people wanting to work in such industries and, hence UCLAN putting on the annual festival, the shortage of applicants for the courses in those subjects provided by UCLAN. Obviously a long term strategy in the hope of getting the next generation of secondary school pupils to aim for a science/tech career by getting today's primary school kids interested.

On the other hand, festivals like UCLAN can give the impression that science = technology, as do tech displays.

Many scientists spend their days working at desks, solving problems using logic, using computers and pen and paper. Somebody who likes chess or sudoku may love this kind of scientific work, even if they utterly loathe "hands on" interactive tech-based activities.

Outreach work based on a "skills based" approach, i.e. if you enjoy this, then this is the kind of STEM work you might like, is actually far more successful at encouraging those who wouldn't have considered STEM to do it. Festivals at universities tend to preach mostly to the converted i.e. many of the kids attending are already open to doing STEM and those who aren't interested in robotics, tech displays assume that no STEM is for them.