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

are those figures because there are not many grammars though

Partly of course but these reports by the Sutton Trust using free school meals as the indicator show how socially exclusive many of the top achieving 200 and 500 comprehensive schools were in 2006 and 2013:

www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/social-composition-top-comprehensive-schools-rates-eligibility-free-school-meals-200-highest-performing-comprehensive-schools/

www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/selective-comprehensives/

The reports are critical of independent schools and grammar schools as well.

It's the gap between the super rich and the traditional middle that has grown enormously. The gap between the middle and the poor is but a small fraction in comparison. It's very important, but the gap between economic elites and everyone else is extremely alarming and also worth attention.

Why is the gap between the super rich and the 'traditional middle' such a worry Elly?

Clavinova those opposing grammars on this thread are on a stuck record and dismiss absolutely everything including:
a) the possibility that the issues of social mix have been and are being addressed by the pressure groups that represent and lead grammars, in concert with politicians
b) that historic figures change over time with the impact of measures and are not immutable
c) the newer figures eg from Birmingham and the success of the outreach there
d) the fact that no-one is suggesting implementing a return to a full grammar system despite many of their criticisms only being relevant to that full system
d) that the Sutton Trust has also long since identified that high ability children from disadvantaged backgrounds do disproportionately well in grammar schools
e) the much larger inequity of selection by postcode.
That said, your links make interesting reading.

Another medal for the 'independent' sector Amy Tinkler !

This is another example of why or how a Comprehensive state school system can not cater for anything other than ordinary or bog standard students !

Elly you are so right , whats wrong with the 'affluent' middle class not having schools they want and will benefit from. The greatest difference today is those who can afford £35 K a year schools and those that can't i.e the haves with yachts and the have not's who drive 3 year old Ford's.

The 'affluent' ford drivers who live in suburbia who aspire for their children to at least have half a chance to compete against the public school kids.

Why should they also have to compete for 'funding ' and access to a decent education against families who over 'generations ' have contributed sod all to the country !

Despite

goodbye I realise this is pointless but given the pro-grammars are ignoring this sort of evidence from Robert Coe:

However, I think it is now fairly clear (eg from @profsimonb @sgorard) that selection increases segregation and decreases social mobility

it is fairly clear that accusing the opposite side of ignoring evidence is ridiculous! Robert Coe's company conducts research into social mobility for the Sutton Trust, he is as expert as it gets. When people like this say "fairly clear" they mean pretty damn certain. However much grammars tinker with their entry systems it isn't going to make much difference if the process itself is inherently flawed.
As for your two point ds) actually we haven't had a concrete plan yet but I've seen quite a few prominent supporters on social media referring to the "first wave" of new grammars being in disadvantaged areas. Doesn't sound like it will stop there does it? It is quite true that disadvantaged children do very well when they do get in but as we all admit that it's harder for them to get in in the first place this is not really surprising, I'm sure the excellent Sutton Trust will have made this point.

It's odd that you seem happy to accept the Sutton Trust's conclusions when they support your argument but not, of course, when they don't.

Grammars aren't there to save school fees sandy also the super rich (or what I'd term the super rich) don't run the country.

I really don't give a flying one about closing the economic gap between the middle and the top. Nor am I remotely sympathetic to them 'only' getting the best of state education in the majority of cases instead of private. I do think the state should offer an equally good education to all dc, regardless of where they lie on either the ability spectrum or the social one. But your reasoning appears to be more about entitled middleclasses and entrenching inequality.

sandy when you come out with judgemental and snobby posts like that, you really don't do the pro grammar side any favours.

elly you clearly don't know much about the difference between middle and poor.

sandy you really don't do the pro grammar argument any favours. I think the state should offer an equally good education to all children, regardless of where they are on the ability or social spectrum. But I really don't give a flying one about closing the economic gap between middle and top, nor is there any remote argument for providing education on a level with top privates for affluent high achievers only.

Sorry for double post the first disappeared so I retyped!

"Grammars aren't there to save school fees"

I am sorry but that is why I and many other parents have done.

Seems this thread is mainly about old style grammars. What if we had a small number of new free school grammars. Not enough to stop most schools being comprehensive. But allowing, say 50% selection by ability, so that there could be a concentration of enough very gifted children to enable a school to provide for them, in a way other schools cant. Include a measure for disadvantaged pupils so there is social mobility and... Success.

Why is this country so against providing for gifted children. Don't we want to create our own silicon valley?

In my experience provision is very good for high achievers in comprehensives- all my friends children have done very well in them- I don't know many in grammar school areas. My friend's DD has just graduated from Cambridge which isn't uncommon from her comprehensive. The list is far too long to give a list of high achievers and what they are doing now.
I can't recall anyone telling me why my sons couldn't be in the same school GetAHairCut. I was asked what they did and then asked why they couldn't be in different schools. They were very successfully in the same school, able to progress at their own rate rather than selected at a ridiculously young age. (10yrs- for my summer born DS). I am still waiting for someone to tell me why this shouldn't have happened and why they would have been better in a different school. Iam at a loss to know how anyone can do better than their first choice of subject at their first choice if university.

Why do we need a separate school for gifted children? It can be done under the same roof. Anyone would think that comprehensive meant mixed ability teaching!
I fail to see how a class of the top ability can't cope with being in the same building and need to have their class somewhere else!

Why do we need a separate school for gifted children?
Because 'normal' schools in the real world cant afford to provide for the small number of gifted children. Why do you think we have selection for sport, music, arts and a dozen other reasons if a comprehensive can be all things for all children?

also, define "gifted"

Should those who are brilliant at art go to a different school at 11 ?

What about those who are incredible at sport?

And those who are astounding at music?

And those who can write code?

And those who can repair car electronics ?

Who chose what categories the selection is on?
Why are they automatically the right ones?

Mathsmum
Why do you think we have selection for sport, music, arts and a dozen other reasons if a comprehensive can be all things for all children?
Please name the state school that selects ENTIRELY for sport, music or Art ?

as there are schools that select entirely on non verbal reasoning
but the other groups you mention have to fit in to units with comprehensives as far as I can see from the data

You can't choose all these things at 10 or 11 yrs old. Far too young.
We need an excellent education for all. The disadvantaged and the ones doing badly are the ones who really need small classes and specialist teaching.
Socially it is good to have a mix. I can't see why my son in lower sets has to lose his friends in the highest sets as if somehow he will taint them or not a work ethic! Since many families have children on either side of the divide it would make sense for grammar schools and sec mods to do things together socially.

Or tell me which 11+ exam is purely about sport, music, etc.

Grammars won't solve every problem. But the problem of inequality not seen since the gilded age which is being consolidated at present can be addressed through offering a more stretching, academic education to kids who are capable and reasonably supported. Why is this important? For me, I think it is important to have politicians, judges, lawyers, bankers and corporate executives who grew up with parents who had a mortgage to pay, perhaps had to save to buy a new car, postpone a holiday some years etc. That's what life looks like for most middle income families and people with power in our society should have a deep understanding of how regular people live. After WWII there were plenty of opportunities, supported by appropriate education for DC from "average" families to join these ranks. Less now. I feel this is a problem.

The deeply disadvantage are another issue. No less important. But a much more complicated and much more persistent challenge.

I don't think bringing back grammars will help many in this group. But that's no reason not to fight against growing inequality in our society from the other end.

Grammars solve one problem, but not every problem.

TaIkinPeace

I am not suggesting we make new schools that select 100% for 'verbal reasoning'. I am suggesting we allow some schools select a percentage of pupils for ability so that there is enough of a concentration to provide for gifted pupils. In the same way as we provide for gifted musicians, or the other areas mentioned.

If you believe it is impossible to determine that a child has an exceptional ability in one area then I disagree because I think that is pretty easy to do.

It would be madness to have state schools selecting for sport etc aged only 10 or 11yrs. As silly as selecting such young children on ability- where you get ones like my brother who failed 11+, passed at 12+ and at 13 was put into the express stream in the grammar school. He was the same boy!

Elly what on earth planet are you on? Those occupations you mention are peopled with folk who are perfectly grounded in the real world with mortgages to pay. I know plenty of them. Why this debate about grammars has to get hysterically hyperbolic God alone knows but it doesn't help social mobility that's for sure.

sports select for ability a lot younger than 10 year old.

If you had more lawyers, politicians, judges etc who had mixed with all sorts and all abilities as children they would probably do their jobs better!