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

As a policy it really isn't just a crowd pleaser.

Well I mean obviously, it will please the crowds at conference, but this is about deep seated disenchantment with state education particularly in working class communities.

3am a friend of mine looked at a school for DC at that group (this was in the US) and decided against it.

I don't think there's any suggestion that this is a move anyone is interested in (in government).

I was only talking about the Tory party conference - it will get the blue rinsed brigade cheering.

And it will get Labour conference frothing.

But back in the Labour heartlands, there is growing support for it. Because what's the alternative?

More endless talk of making all schools 'better'? More talk of 'privilege'?

Because what's the alternative?

Corbyn's National Education Service. I'm sure the Labour conference will be very enthusiastic about this, whatever it means and regardless of the vagueness about how it would be funded.

Totally agree with Curl that grammars will have wide support around the country amongst voters from all parties, even amongst those whose children won't get in. I'm curious to see if this support persists after it becomes clear that most children won't get in - most parents of primary school children didn't attend grammars (and didn't have the opportunity to attend grammars) so don't know much about the downsides of being rejected aged 10.

More endless talk of making all schools 'better'?

This makes it sound like everyone is just sitting around saying how awful it is that some schools are a bit shit but doing nothing about it. There have been huge efforts to turn around failing schools, from Ofsted, from academisation, from super heads, from Teach First, extra funding, PP, new league table measures...
Researchers are writing papers looking at what has been tried and establishing what actually works. But hey, let's chuck the evidence away in favour of a failed system that was rightly abandoned.

FreshHorizons not the MN 2% lemon again! This is purely a construct of these threads; no-one in the real world is talking 2%. 2% would be ridiculous.

I'm not sure that even Oxford and Cambridge take only the top 2% so even if your DS went to either of those they might fall outside the top 2%. Beyond that at other RGs the intake is vastly more than the top 2%.

10% to 15% makes much more sense, 25% less so. IMV.

Fresh is being disingenuous with the swapped at birth scenario, even if she would like to think that it's all about environment and nurture. A family with whom I am acquainted have two children, one of them adopted at eight days old. The two were reared in the same house with the same books, speech, attention, play, food and education (private schools from the start). Their outcomes are diametrically different. The child born to the parents inherited intelligence; the other didn't. Now all in middle age, the adopted person has a life very similar to the messy chaotic world of her natural parents.

It's statistically unusual for clever people to produce stupid children, and vice versa. See the exchange up thread where drspouse posted that while intelligence is not immutable, nature/genes govern better than 50%.

Ofsted reports - The most able - examining failure to achieve.
Teaching to the middle, mediocre provision for able pupils, not using pp funding for able disadvantaged etc.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/are-the-most-able-students-doing-as-well-as-they-should-in-our-secondary-schools

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-most-able-students-an-update-on-progress-since-june-2013

Please can someone explain to me why the most able should come first? Why are they more important than anyone else?

The most able in the disadvantaged group can become more prosperous socially and the able group as a whole are essential to the general prosperity and continued development of society, which should help everyone in it.

Receiving an appropriate education in line with abilities is not coming 'first'.

We seem to accept this as a proposition for all other ability groups.

Bertrand insists that other children are disadvantaged by any form of selection Carl, so to that extent she'll always insist selection means putting those selected 'first'.

The most able children in non selective schools (being largely failed according to the government reports linked to above) are likely to be children from poorer socio economic backgrounds. As the more privileged able are siphoned off into selective independents, better postcode comps, church, grammar areas.

Surely we want these children helped as much as possible, so that they are represented in our most senior and influential positions?

Two different groups of children, who need different forms of attention. The anti-grammar brigade keep getting them mixed up.

First group, the kids from poor backgrounds, but who actually want to do well and achieve a good education and have parental/family support.

Second group, the kids from poor backgrounds who don't have any aspirations and are held back by poor attitude from themselves and their parents/families.

Two different problems needing different solutions. More grammars would help the first group as long as there is also some encouragement from primary school (not the all too prevalent current issue of teachers themselves being anti-grammar on ideological/political grounds). More grammars wouldn't help the second group because however much "help" is given by the schools etc., if the parents don't give a toss about education, the kids don't stand a chance however much external help they are given.

It reminds me of a classic comment in the "Kes" book (ironically an anti-grammar book written by a former grammar pupil - typical pulling up the drawbridge behind you!), where Billy wants to borrow a book from the library but he needs a form signed by his mother, and he knows his mother will never sign it! Just the same as the current "problem" families who don't care about education - even if the schools managed to motivate a bright kid from a feckless family background to apply to the grammar, would the parents even fill in and sign the application form if they were against the perceived "posh" education.

As I say, two different groups which need different attention.

Indeed 3am. The representation of high ability working class children as privileged because they're clever is a bit galling.

The question is how do we best help this group.

"The representation of high ability working class children as privileged because they're clever is a bit galling."
It would be- if that was what people were saying. Bright working class children do not get into grammar schools. Privileged children do.

It reminds me of a classic comment in the "Kes" book (ironically an anti-grammar book written by a former grammar pupil - typical pulling up the drawbridge behind you!),

Well, was it Barry Hines' grammar which set him on the path to success? I can just imagine the neighbour in the colliery saying 'Eh lad, tha's bin t' Grammar school. What's tha doing working down pit?'

He sounds like another John Major, who left school his grammar school with 3 O levels and creditted his later success to a member of his local Conservative party taking him under her wing.

There's an op-ed article in the Times by a barrister who suggests that it's not just schools that enable the bright but underprivileged to progress. He credits getting his pupillage to a couple of introductions to people who mentored him, from immigrant backgrounds similar to his own, through the social and professional minefield that few schools can teach students to navigate, and who helped him make contacts. Much like John Major, and Alan Johnston who also went to grammar school but left at 15 and evolved through union work into politics.

So, as well as sorting out education policy to deliver an education that enables all students to fulfil their potential to the best of their ambitions and aspirations, we also need the next set of scaffolding erected...

Saying bright working class kids don't get into grammar schools is wrong and off putting for those who might feel like trying.

Exactly. Lots of working class/poor people do have aspirations and we need an improved system to nurture/encourage them to meet their full potential. (Better than a handful of C grades at GCSE which seems to be the target of too many schools!).

Our local grammar take in small groups of local primary school year 5 pupils for introductory half day sessions to introduce them to the school and show that the other kids in the classes are just like them, all in the hope of encouraging and inspiring them to learn about the school and apply to get there. Unfortunately, a few local primaries (mostly in the worst and most deprived areas) decided not to join the initiative so their pupils didn't even get a chance!

"saying poor working class kids don't get into grammar schools is wrong and off putting for those who might feel like trying"

Well, obviously I woildn't say that to one who was thinking of trying!

But pretending that they do is just another one of the tactics the pro selection people use to bolster their argument.
There is no way in which grammar schools benefit anyone except a varying (according to area) sized group of already children(and privileged is not a synonym for rich)
That's fine if you like that sort of thing. The recieved wisdom seems to be "we all want, primarily, what's best for our own children" Just don't dress it up as anything else.

"Better than a handful of C grades at GCSE which seems to be the target of too many schools!)"

Can I ask what evidence you have to support this statement?

Certainly there are schools which don't encourage pupils. Sadly I know primary teachers teaching in poor areas who are on record as saying 'what do you expect with children like these?' Thankfully, they are not all like that.

However, how would such a child even aspire to grammar school? It would be made plain to them that they were getting ideas above their station.

bert give me one good reason why my child should sacrifice her potential, purely so some all round advantaged people can pretend they are socially minded? Reducing my childs opportunity won't make anything better for those at the bottom of the heap, nor are all those more advantaged children expected to be lowered alongside mine. No, you just seem to think the group of dc that have the advantage of ability alongside other disadvantages should be kept down for absolutely no benefit.

Although really we aren't talking about dc like mine, we're talking about the vast majority who fit into the able group.

Sacrifice whichever of your own children's numerous advantages you like, but you don't have any right to suggest kids like mine should sacrifice one of their few advantages and pretend you are being socially minded.