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

Sendsummer - the Outreach system in Birmingham is great as now loll 7 grammar schools will allow 20 percent of places to go to Pupil Premium students, who need to get much lower scores. The schools spend a great times with students in poor catchment primaries. Not sure if they try to engage parents of children of those primaries, but Outreach is laudable.

Apologies for typos, will in future proof-read before posting.

bert you really can't point to one success and use it as proof of anything.

Some people do well in extra ordinary circumstances. But that's no justification for those circumstances.

It isn't bilge here either. Even ex social housing, buy or let is more expensive near the better schools. Despite the fact there is no social difference, as the private is a minority, and if anything the estate I am on the edge of has nicer houses with larger gardens, open spaces etc.

We don't have the same tiny catchments/ place problems as London, but as a result neither do we have the density to get mixed cohorts.

I think the pp priority is a drop in the ocean. Apart from the fact it isn't remotely enough, it also ignores that group who are disadvantaged but over fsm cut off.

"bert you really can't point to one success and use it as proof of anything.

Some people do well in extra ordinary circumstances. But that's no justification for those circumstances."

No, I agree. Which is why I try never to use anecdata. Although it seems to be absolutely fine for people to have one bad experience 20 years ago at a comprehensive and condemn the entire sector for ever more!

But it didn't stop you saying it bert.

It's a bit rich to dismiss anecdotes except when you or people you agree with use them .

TBH the 'well you did just fine' is usually levelled at DH and I by right wing types. Essentially saying that our successes prove that other people from our background are just not trying hard enough.

We don't collude with such nonsense.

As for anecdotes, well I don't think they should be dismissed out of hand. They're someone's lived experience after all.

They're just not proof of much on a macro level.

So I don't doubt for one second that talkin is correct about house pricing and choice of schools for her. But that doesn't mean it bilge for other posters as any fule no

Yes, you're right.

But I do keep coming back to my core point- that clever, well supported children will do well, and building an entire education system round them is just wrong and unfair.

I just clicked on that poll in the Telegraph and it says that 83% of respondents are in favour of grammars as they're good for social mobility.

yeah but that's the Torygraph, 90% Tory or UKIP voters & 70% age 55+.

I know. But it shows that people believe the lie.

I answered a similar poll on Twitter and the results were the other way around, but I mainly follow teachers. I can't think of any teachers I follow in favour of this, even the ones that voted for Brexit so are politically different to me.

just talking about opening a few more in some areas

Yeah and the academies programme was just intended to turn around some failing schools.

What to look out for will be whether they restrict it to new free schools, or whether they allow existing schools to start selecting.

"But they're not basing a whole system around them, just talking about opening a few more in some areas. There are hardly any already,opening a few more means the whole system is still comprehensive and based round Joe average which although it doesn't suit many kids is ok.hmm"

There you go again. Joe Average. How dismissive is that?

Every time you open a new grammar school, provision for the vast majority who won't get in will deteriorate. And the government will be able to say "well, we are doing something- we're bringing back grammar schools......"

Would some of the pro grammar people be prepared to answer some questions?
Would more grammar schools make things better or worse for a) disadvantaged children of high ability? b) other disadvantaged children? c) middle ability children generally? d) low ability children generally?
If you think "better" to any or all, could you say why?

You see, I actually think that the comprehensive model does work well for the majority of children. The bell curve of ability means an education can be pitched to that very large number efficiently.

It's the outliers who are problematic ( which I assume is why the most unhappy group is parents of DC with SN, followed by high ability children).

Of course there's an argument for superselectives.

But when people say "grammar school" that's not what they mean.

There is huge support for grammar schools in the country !

This thing that really riles me about this site ( which is so out of touch of for how the wind blows for the majority of people) is the constant demeaning of the general public if their views don't tally with the 'oracle's' on here.

The proposals to allow 20 or free schools that are already built to use selection is perhaps the easiest and most simple way of creating grammar schools without huge expenditure. The other way and of course the most simple and logical way would be to reintroduce the assisted places scheme but on a larger scale.

Than in its previous format.

bert how on earth do you know that?

constant demeaning of the general public if their views don't tally with the 'oracle's' on here

It's nothing to do with oracles, it's to do with evidence. If people support grammar schools because they believe that they improve social mobility, then they either haven't done the slightest bit of looking at the statistical evidence (as opposed to looking at anecdote) or they're ignoring the statistical evidence which, IMO is just weird.

I told my DH about the grammar school plans, he said 'oh that's good' then I showed him the evidence and he changed his mind and is now against the proposal.

MN used to be rabidly pro grammar schools, too (Old Gimmer Emoticon).

Segregation increases inequalities. Kids with social advantages will be over-represented in the more academic schools. Nice but dim kids of affluent people will got private schools instead. When affluent people are less invested in the quality of their local school, then the local school suffers.

bert I'll answer, but theoretically I'm not pro grammar except for super selectives. My stance with the alternative of the current comprehensive system is 'they aren't any more unfair'. And my answers apply to my local fully comprehensive area, where there are marked differences between schools. I accept that in other areas the answers may not be applicable.

Anyway
a) better for those well above cut off, however those closer to cut off would miss out to advantaged peers of equal or slightly less ability. So would see no change, they'd still get the worse school.

b) no different, they'd still get the worse school

c) no different, the less advantaged would still get the worse schools, except for the more advantaged who would be worse off as they would no longer be priority for the desireable school because of their postcode.

d) Same as c.

Basically you'd be swopping the advantaged middle and low achievers for the higher ability disadvantaged. So no overall difference statistically, but for the individuals who are better off possibly life changing.

I don't think it would be fair, as the all round advantaged able child would still get the best, and I don't think it's ok to offer a lesser education to anyone. But if it comes to a trade off between otherwise advantaged low and middle achievers, and disadvantaged able dc, the latter need the good education more.