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

"I wonder if dire handwriting can occur more with brighter students due to some thinking faster than they can write"

whereas if it was a lower ability child it would be not trying and carelessness?

HPFA I suppose it depends how ambitious we're being in our definition of social mobility?

I agree that a lifting of the ban won't help many if the most disadvantaged DC on the UK. The problems they face are far too complex to be fixed by education of any sort ( and I'm sorry to say that actually. I was very committed to the Blair Education X 3 campaign).

But a selective school might make a hell of a difference to a kid coming from a solidly working class family.

Sure they might not be able to compete with kids leaving Winchester ( but most MC kids can't compete here either) but if they're educated in an environment where everything is geared to support their ability group they are far less likely to fall down through lack of parental knowledge/assistance.

Noble - that's an interesting point about the marks for girls and boys at entrance. I wouldn't think any schools would be able to do that.

2striped - I'm not sure if there's any correlation, I have taught lots of very able children whose handwriting has been immaculate and lots of others who have had messy writing. And conversely lots of very weak kids who have had messy writing and neat writing. My friend's son is dyspraxic and has messy writing. He complains his hand aches a lot when he writes.

I agree completely with GetaHairCurl.

Selectives might help some from working class (and middle class) families (at the expense of making things slightly worse perhaps for a few others). They probably won't make a difference for the most disadvantaged DC.

I would rather concentrate resources on improving things for all children, without using precious resources on yet another reorganisation of schools, but I also accept that there are no obvious educational solutions for the most disadvantaged groups in society. We've tried many things with very little success.

For the avoidance of doubt, by the way, asking people to provide evidence for categorical statements is not bullying.

As you were.

Going to fast is definitely the issue for some children. But not for all. Some need to use a different pen, apparently some students are told by their primary they'll have to use a fountain pen at our school. Nope, they will write in blue or black in whatever pen is best for their writing

Terrible handwriting seems to be more prevalent in boys than girls - there's definitely something about girls in general taking more pride in their presentation, however I wonder if there's also something about boys' worse fine motor skills at the time where they learn how to write. I've noticed that I know which girls have really messy handwriting and which boys have really nice handwriting, because they're the unusual ones.

I'm sorry, 2stripedsocks, that was uncalled for, even with the

But I do get so frustrated with the "high ability kids must take priority and devil take the hindmost" attitude............

I live in an area with no grammars. The neighbouring district has a single superselective which all the Bangladeshi children attend (96%). There are 2 CofE comps that siphon off the white MC as you need 7 Years church or synagogue attendance to qualify. There are excellent selective independents that take the non religious MC of all ethnicities. There are 2 other comps that take everyone else and FSM children are 30%+ in those compared with 2-6% in the other state schools. The 2 totally non selectives don't add enough value to the high attainers and there are issues with overcrowding, behaviour and retaining good teaching staff. The facilities and standard of education between them all is incomparable. So in an area without grammars there is already a clear divide in what type of education children can access. I think religious selection in the state sector is as equal an issue as selection by ability is in the grammar areas.

Donna do you know if the pass mark for the boys school is different to the girls? Would be interesting to know if that historical thing about boys and girls pass marks is still true.

Surely it would be illegal - sexist?

Anyone heard any rumours about ex-grammars converting back to selective status?

A personal friend of mine is in a senior position at a well known RC girls' school on Croydon/Bromley border and she says this is being discussed.

I thought that the pass mark historically was higher for girls and that the Equalities legislation of the mid seventies thankfully killed that particular injustice off.

I was also led to believe that some places, like Birmingham had twice as many boys grammar school places as girls places. I don't know how true that was.

This comes back to a girls education not being seen as important. How many women in the old days were denied a grammar school education, even if they passed the 'scholarship' because there was only money to send one child to the grammar, so the boy would be prioritised? Let's hope that wouldn't happen now.

I think I mentioned my MIL earlier who "just failed" - and discovered quite recently that the pass mark was higher for girls- because boys matured later . She was, in her own words "spitting tacks".

MumTryinHerBest I'm just dipping in and out of this thread but to answer a couple of the points you addressed to me: Bertrand spends a vast amount of time arguing her point, she's well able to spare a couple of minutes looking at a list of super selectives on a league table list and picking some at random, if she's minded to follow anything up. It's elementary.

Second, HTs of grammars will obviously have relationships with most or all of the primary heads in their area, or extended area, I've no idea why you'd think any different. That seems to be to be yet another opinion plucked from the sky, but not based on how things actually work.

Peregrina - that's interesting about Birmingham. I wonder if that's still the case. Quite hard to work out unless you have all the figures I suppose.

Peregrina That's what I'd heard too, that the pass mark was higher for the girls, but I'd heard it was because if they were equal then the (mixed) grammar would have been dominated by girls because they did better on the test. That would mean that either girls are more intelligent than boys, or that the test was testing for things other than intelligence (like nice handwriting).

If what you say about the number of grammar places is the reason, because boys education was valued over that of girls then that's

But noble in Birmingham there are boys' grammars which pinch able girls from the girls' grammars in the sixth form for obvious reasons. It's up to your school to think of strategies to counter gender issues, if they matter.

hay my main concern about generalised calls for improvement of provision for high ability children within comprehensive settings is that it has been going on for years. And years.

And yet there prevails ( as we see on this thread) a resistance to accept it is an issue and a resistance to do much about it anyway.

This is what will fuel this move forward as much as any ideological adherence to selective education I think.

The tests even these days have to be very carefully constructed for co-ed grammars precisely so that there is no advantage to either gender. Boys are known to do better in some tests and girls in others so it's extremely important to get the balance right.