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

But this survey of Lib Dem members says that 21% want more grammar schools, 22% want to retain existing grammars and 47% want to stop all selection (i.e. close grammars). So only 1 in 5 are actually in favour of more grammars while almost half want to close existing selective schools!

Sorry, the 22% want to retain existing grammars but not allow any more to open.

I think Sandyholme hits on a useful benchmark when mentioning that in Trafford 40% are grammar school educated. The 11+ pass needs to be low enough to embrace a wide cut. Across Devon, the grammar schools' cut off is the top 25% of those entered; the super-selective takes the top 15%. Anecdata suggests that quite a few of the successes attended private primary/prep schools and are the DC of professionals who view paying fees from 7-11 as the route to the best education at the cheapest price. They save a fortune on secondary fees.

Most families I know who are paying school fees (including some with scholarships and bursaries) will experience a bounce in living standards when the DC leave home. In the meantime, they rent out their houses in summer, do B&B, camping out with friends and relatives in holiday periods from Easter to October, forgo new clothes and luxuries, and drive old bangers to make ends meet. It's often about priorities.

BTW if asked the same question I would say that existing selective schools should be left alone (the 22%) yet I would not call myself ambivalent about opening new grammars.

21% – The government should encourage more schools to select by academic ability and build more grammar schools
22% – The government should retain the existing grammar schools, but should not allow more selective schools or new grammar schools to be built

47% – The government should stop schools selecting by academic ability and the existing grammar schools should be opened to children of all abilities

9% – Don’t know

This doesn't exactly look like a ringing endorsement of grammar schools to me.

Bertrand

You said up thread that you could (mostly) tell which children would pass the 11+ from Reception but having just scrolled through I couldn't find your answer.

Would you tell me please the acceptable and non-acceptable reasons why you thought this?

I'm interested because I live in a selective county (we have "spoken" before on other 11+ threads) and I can usually tell which DC will pass the 11+ from Reception also. I think I have been wrong 3 times in @130 DC.

However I'm not going by the DC but by their parents

Sorry everyone for going off piste but I'm sure some of you will find the answer interesting too whichever side of the fence you sit on.

'Ambivalent' Sorry ....Dyslexia....

Cresset. Another very interesting thing about Trafford is that they are no Private Secondary schools (the last one is becoming a free school).

The important fact because Trafford allocates 40% of its pupils a grammar school place, it means children from the state primaries are not as exposed to the 11+ 'Crammar' or Prep schools.

Another tangential remark.... Don't know if anyone else has read the Sunday Times today? If so, did you read the article on Hillbilly Elegy? It's only a full page precis of a book, but if you've ever wondered where the support for Trump/Brexit begins, he nails it! He also makes another point, in a short line, about the reluctance of young blue-collar Americans to hold down steady dull jobs and do them reliably.

If a reasonable % of Liberal Democractic members/voters are either in favor or ambivalent towards grammar schools , what percentage of Conservative/ Ukip are in favor.

I also expect their are a small no of (conservative) Labour voters who might vote for Theresa May based on having a Grammar School available.

Remember if Theresa May gets '40%' at the (2020) or 'sooner' general election with the proposed redrawn electoral boundaries a 90-100 seat majority will come !.

"Would you tell me please the acceptable and non-acceptable reasons why you thought this?"
Acceptable- vocabulary, knowledge of and familiarity with books and stories, awareness of the world around them, articulacy, ability to concentrate and to join in. And parents' engagement with the school.
Unacceptable- first name, content of lunch box, brand of winter coat and design of pants. And mother's clothes

Thank you Bertrand for your super speedy response

The unacceptable list is depressing though-for what it's worth I agree with you though must admit to being confused what you mean about the design of pants?

Bertrand has made me laugh........ so true though!

How are schools supposed to compensate for children who arrive at school with all those handicaps? Seriously.

Spend the money making all schools better, not setting them against each other
I did not invent the name yob central
it predates the birth of my children.
YC1 started to fail in the 1970s
BUT
its failure was not inevitable (looking back)
There are schools whose cohort will never in a million years fit the MC academic aspiration
good oh
then they should have targeted apprenticeships starting in year 10 and bollocks to the Ebacc
the whole Grammar thing ignores 90 % of kids
and for that matter, around 80% of EU migrants.

Slamming me for calling it Yob Central does not deal with the 4th generation white British unemployment that earned it that name.
Deal with the problem, not the label

Agree with Talkin. I haven't heard anyone calling for a return of grammars locally. I have heard people questioning the policy of 50% of school leavers going to University, and a call for good apprenticeships instead.

If I was asked in a poll if we should retain existing grammars I'd probably say yes because I think abolishing them would be too problematic and there are probably better things to do, such as raising the school starting age. This was pretty much Tony Blair's position. Taking it as support for grammars is a bit much, I think.

I think I said before that 67% of people are apparently in favour of new housebuilding yet its very hard to build new houses because of local opposition. Until there's an actual proposal to build a grammar in a comprehensive area we just don't know how far theoretical support translates into reality when it's specifically YOUR school which will be affected.

I wish apprenticeships didn't have to be 12 months... DS is a in a position to get an apprenticeship but he can't commit to 12 months. Could do 6 months. Argh.

The anti grammar school debaters need to learn from Brexit, it will be emotions not data that win the argument: www.tes.com/news/tes-magazine/tes-magazine/anti-grammar-camp-must-heed-brexits-lessons

A dreadful article from the Daily Mail illustrates this nicely: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3739538/PETER-HITCHENS-Grammar-wreckers-KNEW-make-schools-worse.html

Christopher Hitchens conveniently doesn't say how many Grammar Schools Mrs Thatcher closed, but I believe it was more than Labour. Why not, because it doesn't fit his narrative. Why did she close them? Because Secondary Moderns were a vote loser.

It might help in dealing with the problem to stop using the degrading label TalkinPeace. Ever heard the phrase put your money where your mouth is?

More or Less has just covered Grammar school claims about social mobility on Radio 4. Find listen again... They also addressed the emotional attachment that people have to the idea of Grammar Schools: a source of pride for those who did get in.

MorL also said that the high ability kids do better at Grammar Schools. Given those (high achieving) kids already have a lot of advantages in life, I don't agree that their benefits should come at expense of kids who have the least.

Peregrina Peter Hitchens, Christopher is no longer with us.

My mistake. I should have known, the Guardian had page after page on him when he died. Other more worthy contendors get a half page.

MorL also said that the high ability kids do better at Grammar Schools. Given those (high achieving) kids already have a lot of advantages in life, I don't agree that their benefits should come at expense of kids who have the least.

Did it say anything about those from working class backgrounds who made it to the Grammar School? I know that in the past, those who made it from disadvantaged backgrounds tended to end up in the lower sets and were less likely to stay on post 16. Has that changed?

This is a tweet from Robert Coe:

"However, I think it is now fairly clear that selection increases segregation and decreases social mobility"

He is director of CEM.org, who conduct research into social mobility for the Sutton Trust. He is as expert and impartial as you can get.

Is no-one worried that the government is pursuing a policy in direct contravention of overwhelming evidence? It used to be that politicians at least pretended they were acting according to reason and evidence, whatever the reality might have been. To abandon even that pretence and act as if evidence doesn't matter is quite a dangerous step, I think.

Another aspect in one of this week's papers was that the proportion of ethnic children at grammar schools was generally higher than the proportion of ethnic children in the catchment area. Assuming ethnic children aren't inherently brighter than the indigenous population, that suggests higher education aspirations, parental engagement etc is higher in ethnic households.