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

DoctorDonnaNoble appeals are not won on the basis of what an invigalator wrote down.

In my area very few appeals are won. It is very hard to argue that a DC could have passed the 11 plus with a score that would have got them a place in their preferred comp. when they have been allocated another comp.

The following gives an insight into appeals to Grammar Schools:

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewforum.php?f=35

Salty I'm not really seeing why yours is an argument for having more grammar schools? Of course an SS grammar will have a higher standard of musical and sporting performance than a deprived comp , it will have far more parents who are able to pay for music lessons and sporting clubs.

DD's massive girls comp boasts of its sporting success and its provision is good. But it helps when you're playing girls sports to have a massive pool to draw on - it doesn't really prove that all-girls is "better" for sport than the mixed schools we keep beating!

No, but they can be lost based on what we've written down. Appeals have been made based on the parent saying we didn't offer their child a biscuit in the break time.
Appeals can be won. It is rare because we take such care and attention over what goes on in the invigilation room. Nothing happens without being written down. It takes up a lot of our exam officer's time to attend these appeals, this is the main reason everything is evidenced.

When it comes to many bad, or not good enough comprehensives, the provision of sets doesn't provide much.

If there aren't enough high ability dc, the top set will still cover too large a range. And whilst some teachers might be able to differentiate over it, the chances of a top set of getting that teacher are remote.

At primary dd had a 1-1 for maths in the last few years, and in normal class lessons worked independently, rather than at differentiated class topics. Admittedly her ability is in a narrower range than the general top 10%, it's fair to say any child in that particular cohort capable of a high 5 or 6 would have needed to be taught in a similar individual way. As she was on pp run on at primary, this will have funded it: However plenty of dc at both primary and secondary who aren't part of an economic critical mass would not get this. Especially those in the deprived but just over fsm cut off group. One equally able friend wasn't even taught l5 curriculum, let alone entered for l6. So despite the fact she got a high 5, the parents have no recourse for complaining her very mixed top set is far too slow, and the school don't care.

DoctorDonnaNoble Wed 10-Aug-16 07:52:04 Appeals can be won. It is rare because we take such care and attention over what goes on in the invigilation room.

In my area appeals are rarely won because it is much harder to argue why one comp. is better suited to a DC than another, no matter what prevented them from performing their best in the exam.

2StripedSocks Wed 10-Aug-16 07:58:20 Our selection review...

The appeals process differs from area to area.

When it comes to many bad, or not good enough comprehensives, the provision of sets doesn't provide much....If there aren't enough high ability dc, the top set will still cover too large a range.

This exactly. I was in the top set for Maths at my comp and got a D grade. It wasn't unexpected. I got a D in the end of year tests in year 9 and 10 and in the mock. Only one pupil in my maths "top" set got an A grade - most were Bs and Cs. That's not what I'd call a top set, not only due to the poor results, but also the huge spread between A-D grades.

Few, if any, Grammar Schools have a close relationship with primary schools.

Ours certainly does. It takes a number of primary pupils in year 5 from many participating local primaries, for half day sessions for 6 weeks to introduce them to the grammar and do various activities with them. It has a designated special classroom to do this with a designated teacher and support assistant who also go around those local primaries to meet pupils and give talks, etc. This isn't a one-off as the staff involved went to an award ceremony in London as they were short listed for an award for their work with primaries. All done to encourage primary school pupils to learn about the grammar and encourage them to apply.

Just wanted to dispel another myth that kids with Sen aren't at grammars and can't pass.

This is disingenuous. Grammars have considerably fewer kids with SEN and many children (particularly those with subtle or as yet undiagnosed SEN) don't pass.

Our school def prioritise kids on PP.

But their actual percentages of kids on PP are in no way reflective of the averages for the area, right? And what fraction of high ability kids on PP in primaries actually apply for the grammar? BTW I take issue with suggesting that it is threads like this which put people off applying (people reading a MN education board are much more knowledgable and interested in education than average and already have informed opinions about their local schools).

Mixed ability teaching is a red herring. in know of no comprehensives - and actually no grammars either - where children are not organised into sets according to their ability for some or all subjects.

Well my comp didn't do any setting until year 9, before then everyone was taught in their forms. In year 9 it was just Maths and English. For years 10 onwards, it depending on the choice blocks - some blocks only had one class for a particular subject so there was no setting - it was purely mixed ability, in my case that happened for German and History. For chemistry there were three classes in the block, top, middle and bottom - the top did GCE, bottom did CSE and middle, which I was in, half did GCE and half did CSE - what a mess that was as the teacher was basically telling half the kids to ignore the lesson and complete a worksheet instead!

At my son's grammar, they don't set in anything at all except Maths and English for GCSE. They are taught in their forms for years 7 to 9 and then for years 10 and 11 for Maths and English there is a top set, a bottom set, but the middle sets are all mixed - last year was the first time they did this in English - before then English was fully mixed too. All the sciences, humanities, languages, arts etc are purely mixed ability right through to GCSE.

But how do we encourage people on pp to apply. We already do outreach work. It would be interesting to see if there was a difference in make up before and after the exams being sat in primary school (as I did in 1989/90).
As for undiagnosed SEN, we have students who we spot with SEN their primaries haven't spotted them as they are high achievers. We have many on the autism spectrum, ADHD, dyspraxia, dyslexia and we've had hearing and sight issues in the past as well. Again, we have the issue that people think they can't get in with an SEN and so don't apply. Since I started we've had a change in SENCO. The previous one was an arse who refused to believe we had students who were EAL to the extent they would need support to reach their potential. We do. He's gone and our SEN department is much happier as a result. Although like all SEN departments more time and money would help.

I think on disadvantaged admissions we are maybe confusing two issues? I don't doubt that many grammars are sincerely trying to increase their intake but the numbers are never going to be very high. And when the numbers are higher than average we can see from places like Skegness and Boston they don't get particularly good results, certainly nothing that suggests they are likely to compete for top jobs with the A star graduates from the Altrincham grammars, let alone the graduates of Eton and Winchester.

I don't really understand why the social mobility thing is pushed so hard by those arguing for grammar schools. As an opponent I can tell you there are many arguments for them that I would find it harder to argue against than this one, with my battery of research evidence and statistics showing they don't do this.
Not that I'm going to say what they are obviously!

Speaking to a friend last night who is writing a piece on this , he felt that there was pretty strong support for a lifting of the ban.

But he also noted that the support from parents and young people who had recently left school ( under 25s) came not from ideological belief in selective education, but more a breakdown of trust in state comprehensive education.

That although people acknowledged the theoretical 'rightness' of comprehensive education, the lived experience fell short.

Unsurprisingly the most disenchanted were the parents of DC with SN, second were parents of the most able DC.

Both groups described ongoing battles with schools and teachers to access an appropriate education which often had nothing to do with funding.

All I know is that as a lazy, but competitive young thing, my grammar school was the best place for me to be.
I can also point to many success that I have taught that wouldn't have performed so well elsewhere.
But the plural of anecdote isn't data. For what is worth I went to, and teach in, a super selective (not that I'd heard that term before MN) and it seems the consensus is they have a different effect on the surrounding areas than areas like Kent.

Carl - a sort of protest vote then, like Brexit. Or, something must be done, this is something, this must be done.
I find that completely believable as a reason why younger people would apparently support grammars.

I wish we didn't take kids with messy writing!
Gosh, their handwriting is awful. We're running sessions on it and some have to use computers.
There is a boy going in to sixth form next September with absolutely beautiful handwriting. I always saved his book until last.
But no, awful handwriting seems to be the norm.

Primary heads being up for their children entering the test is a big thing. There are some who put them off.

Donna is your school single sex? If mixed, are the pass rates different for boys and girls and if not, what's the gender split? (Just out of interest, no agenda!)

Yes, makes sense - people can see the problems of the current system, free schools don't seem to be helping, grammars are the only other system with a label.

Bad it's frustrating, but I predict the same people saying on this thread that all comprehensives set lots will still say that on the next thread.

I don't know what the answer is. I expect it involves a lot more money.

Both grammars I've taught in are single sex, the one I'm in currently has girls in the sixth form.
The local girls grammar does better at GCSE, we do better at A Level (and we don't just poach their girls something about how we approach certain subjects, like my own English, seems to result in better A Level than GCSE performance - think B grades getting A*). Bizarrely, when I was at the girls school, we outperformed the boys. It's one of my 'correlation does not equal causation' examples when teaching General Studies.