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

noblegiraffe is offering a level of maths teaching that I (as a STEM academic) can only dream of being offered in thousands of schools around the country.

This was further maths GCSE btw, in case anyone gets the impression that I'm doing degree level stuff with Y7s.

There's a massive problem with maths teaching in this country but to fix that we need to start with the huge shortage of teachers. I've got a maths degree and am a qualified maths teacher. Last year I was teaching further maths GCSE to top set, this year I'm teaching borderline pass kids. Both sets of kids need expert teaching from people who know their stuff. If a grammar school opened near me and became the only opportunity to teach further maths GCSE and A-level, would I go for a job there? Possibly. But what would happen to the borderline kids I would leave behind? And really don't think there's another qualified maths teacher waiting in the wings to take my place and only teach the less high achieving.

Not just further maths GCSE; I'm taking into account comments on many other threads too. I completely agree with:

There's a massive problem with maths teaching in this country but to fix that we need to start with the huge shortage of teachers.

but would add (in agreement with Curl) that as academics we see some very poor attitudes to high achievers from teachers. In many schools maths teachers dismiss the need for UKMT, turn down opportunities for top pupils to go to maths events at universities, reject as unnecessary additional/further maths at GCSE, discourage A star A level students from doing STEP etc etc.

And teaching in a comprehensive school means that a wide range of kids and abilities get the benefit of her expertise. If she went to a grammar school........

Can you define "elite" comprehensive? And tell me how many there are?

When I come across a department or an entire school that I think are doing really good work with their high ability students I get even more frustrated with schools that refuse.

I can understand that in certain circumstances it's not their fault ( lack of teachers locally). But when it's just a refusal to engage with the issue or (worse) an ideological objection, it's so annoying.

Grammar schools make a material difference for DC whose families are engaged but who cannot afford private school. This is where the action is in regards to grammar schools. The benefit is to the children who gain entrance from this group, and the pain is to the DC from this group who don't.

Totally agree.

I do wonder whether those schools which don't push the UK Maths Challenges and similar initiatives are the ones suffering from a lack of well qualified maths teachers? So they are almost afraid of higher ability maths students?

A couple of interesting graphs just posted on Twitter showing the massive problem grammar schools have with taking in poor kids relative to their local population. Outreach programmes aren't going to sort this.

Also interesting to see the breakdown by other types of school. Single sex schools are also very socially selective. I know a lot of grammars are single sex, I don't know how many comps are.

Why don't wholly selective areas have GCSE results that are significantly better than wholly comprehensive areas?

When I come across a department or an entire school that I think are doing really good work with their high ability students I get even more frustrated with schools that refuse.

I don't understand how schools can refuse. Ofsted downgraded my school for that reason. Do these schools not give a crap about Ofsted or have they got so many other issues that the high ability stuff is a drop in an ocean of areas for improvement?

Bertrand . I don't believe there are any 'elite' comprehensives just as i don't believe there are elite grammar schools !.

However, as Bertrand knows there are a number of 'Comprehensives' that achieve over 90% at GCSE but less than (97%) ( don't want to draw attention to themselves. ...

Comprehensives with over 89% at GCSE.

Gordons Surrey 89.4%

Parmiters Herts 89.4% 53.77 % A*A

St John the Baptist Surrey 90.20% 43.50% A* A

King David High Manchester 90.25% 50.30% A* A

Hockerhill Anglo Essex 90.98% 47.30% A* A

Gunnersbury School Brentford 91.43% 44.23% A* A

Hertfordshire and Essex High 91.98% 50.43% A* A

Dame Alice Owens Herts 92.04% 64.64% A% A

Thomas Telford Shropshire 96.00% 39.00% A% A

The 64.64% A* A grades from Dame Alice is higher than than 95% of grammar schools !

There are a number of other 'fake' comprehensives just below these ones.

In some areas they do Trafford achieves 70.70% at GCSE the demographically similar (though fewer areas of deprivation) fully comprehensive Cheshire East achieves 63.60% at GCSE.

I accept there are variances across LA. However you cannot make a ' blank' statement saying 'Why don't wholly selective areas have significantly higher GCSE results than Comprehensive areas.

The other neighbouring area is the fully Comprehensive Warrington which gets 58.8% at GCSE !

Interesting reading Peter Hitchens' column in the Mail on Sunday where he compared May's claim to that of Gove on O-levels, something I had forgotten.

So, I doubt GSs are coming back, in the same way I doubt we'll leave the EU in any meaningful way.

But the most socially selective top 164 comprehensives are MORE selective than the 164 grammar schools...

Do these schools not give a crap about Ofsted or have they got so many other issues that the high ability stuff is a drop in an ocean of areas for improvement?

Other reasons: have not been inspected since criteria became stricter (headline results still look OK); Ofsted inspections don't seem to be consistent.

To what extent do Ofsted highlight relatively subtle underperformance of high achievers? For example, students getting 2 or 3 less A stars at GCSE than they should; students with predicted As and A stars not applying to Oxbridge and other very top courses but applying to good RG universities; high ability pupils doing poor combinations of A level subjects? For the latter, sometimes facilitating subjects but in weird combinations; sometimes subjects which really aren't ideal for top courses (Law, Psychology etc).

noble I think it's quite easy. If the dc have been failed by primary school, then the stats will still show progress. Eg Dd's friend got l5, because her primary didn't offer l6, and in fact didn't cover the l5 stuff properly either. Someone like you, with her in a genuine top set would be able to show a lot of progress, because she is more than able enough to get 2 a*. The crap school will still get away with progress as long as she gets a b in their one maths gcse.

Even when ofsted do actually notice, nobody will downgrade the school to ri because a small minority of dc that still pass don't make sufficient progress, or ofsted observe the lack of challenge. It might lose your outstanding grade, but if slt are happy with satisfactory it won't have any negative affect. Plus there often isn't any reward for doing so. Dd's primary were fab, but they got no recognition for what they provided. Her sats will have raised the avg achievement for pp pupils in her year, but as one lone outlier won't exactly have made the avg results amazing. And her sats don't even begin to show how well they provided. A crap primary could have bored her stupid, capped her achievement at l5 and would be viewed as favourably.

I don't think it is just about final grades and rate of progress either, but no league table tracks the future outcome of someone like you teaching, versus a mediocre or bad teacher.

An anecdote: well, several anecdotes. I know four people with maths degrees from top universities who ever tried to go into maths teaching. (That it's so few is part of the problem right there.)

a) Struggled with his maths degree, but always loved maths. Passed with effort. Went into teaching in a leafy sixth-form college. Probably does an excellent job.

b) Did well in his degree. Loved helping people who were struggling, did well at it. Started a PGCE. Was threatened with failing because he insisted on giving different work to the most able students in his placement class. (I can easily believe he wasn't doing it in the best way, e.g. he might have been giving them the following year's work instead of stretching them sideways - but the instruction was not "here, do it differently" but "stop doing it, give them the standard work, or we'll fail you".) Gave up the PGCE in disgust, went into IT.

c) Did a PhD, spent some years in research, decided teaching was more fun, did a PGCE, did well, started to teach in a state school, found the bureaucracy intolerable, moved to an independent school.

d) Early history I don't know; went into IT; enjoyed the management side more than the technical side; did a PGCE, went into a state school, was quickly promoted to head of department where she still is. Very organised, no obvious enthusiasm for maths. The school does OK but not brilliantly given its intake; I suspect she has the skills to keep the bureaucracy from drowning everyone but not the maths enthusiasm ideally needed.

Stretching - which is to say, teaching - the most able takes resources. You can argue that this comes too far down the priority list to get those resources, in all state schools or in state schools with high FSM percentage, or whatever.

However, if you do that, then you can't legitimately go on to complain about how few people from state schools or from state schools with high FSM percentages get into the best universities, or get the best jobs - because your policy caused that, since the better-taught high ability students from other schools will come out better equipped to win any fair competition.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "fail" as well. I will consider that my ds's school has failed him if he doesn't get mostly As (taking as read that he does his bit). If he wants A*s that's pretty much up to him. His teachers are spread too thin and he has friends who need them more. It shouldn't be like that- but it is.

A Sutton Trust report from 2010 - Worlds Apart social variation among schools:
www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/worlds-apart-social-variation-among-schools/

The report uses IDACI (Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index) based on the numbers of children on income benefits in a particular postcode rather than the more 'basic' measurement of free school meals. IDACI records children who experience deprivation but who are not receiving free school meals since it includes those whose parents are in paid employment and those who do not claim the free school meals for which they are eligible.

The findings may be a surprise for Bertrand:

"Considering all secondary (state) schools in England... 91 of the 100 most socially selective schools were comprehensives, eight were grammars and one secondary modern."

"Both the 164 grammars and the 164 most socially selective comprehensives drew pupils from areas where about a fifth of children were income deprived, but the comprehensives were the more socially selective taking only 9.2% compared with the grammars 13.5%."

There are also a number of elite state faith schools who are socially selective.

Clavinova - are those figures because there are not many grammars though?

Not to mention a number of academies and free schools who have suddenly decided to exclude the nearby council estate from their hastily redrawn catchment area.

Grammars are not the answer for extremely disadvantaged students. They are however the answer for keeping children from middle income families in the social mix at the top of our society. And that is also very much worth doing imho.

I think we'd all agree that in addition to economic elites, and middle income DC we'd like to also see highly disadvantaged DC there too. I think doing that requires more effort than just tackling it at the secondary school level. The effort needs to start much sooner, involve more than just education and be converted and coordinated.

I agree that grammars won't help many (of course they'll be some) DC on FSMs, but they don't need to do do to still be worth while. High ability middle income DC deserve attention too, and this is an efficient way to help them access the best universities and highest paid professions. Just solving this problem which is growing, would be worthwhile.

Converted= concerted