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

noble I'm not sure sorry. Our current exam is done via a Consortium of schools. Due to parental requests to know scores before the selection forms go in, the exam is done in September (makes sense to not 'waste' an option I suppose). There are several single sex (and one mixed I think) in the consortium (I've had a year off - hope this isn't too identifying btw). In terms of scores most of the talk seems to be on the difference of score required between areas rather than genders. But that is anecdotal. However, it is true that one side of the county requires higher scores than the other, as for the why I think that's a mix of reputations leading to more applicants and taking applicants from a wider area - hard to explain without completely outing my school!

It's up to your school to think of strategies to counter gender issues, if they matter.

Of course gender issues matter! My point is that schools with a specific intake, even if they are miles away do distort the intake of the other schools, and even if the impact seems small, it can have knock-on effects.

Maybe opening a grammar school in a neighbouring town will mean that a school X miles away has to stop offering Further Maths A-level, for example.

improvement of provision for high ability children within comprehensive settings

This is Ofsted's job to police, and they do police it. Why that (apparently) isn't having an effect, I don't know.

Thanks Donna. Do the schools with the higher pass marks do better at GCSE then?

Yup agree with you noble gender issues do indeed matter.
Our sixth form doesn't really affect any other schools. We don't take a significant number from the girls' grammar (and they get new entrants too). The thing that killed off sixth forms in schools round this way was the creation of a Sixth Form College (a long time ago). None of their subjects is at risk from what we offer.

think I mentioned my MIL earlier who "just failed" - and discovered quite recently that the pass mark was higher for girls-

And this just shows what a nonsense the 'you haven't failed, you have been selected for the appropriate school' guff was, if two children with exactly the same mark could be sent to a different school. Bollocks!

Noble that seems to vary year on year actually. Probably due to using different exam boards for the GCSEs. In general, our governors have been more focused on A Level results, this seems to be changing. Partly due to changes to government funding rules (mid process as always) the students going into year 11 are going to have to change from IGCSE to GCSE English Language. We switched in the first place due to marking consistency.
Anyway, back to the point. There seems to be, for some reason, more variety in league table positions over time at GCSE level than at A level. Not sure why.

Of course I recognize that gender issues matter! I meant if there was a specific problem, then you'd need to try to develop a strategy to counter it.

noble my DC are at a co-ed school where the gender split is 50/50.

goodbye sometimes problems can't easily be overcome by strategies, though. It would be better to avoid those problems in the first place by, for example, not opening new grammar schools.

People would argue 'oh look, it hasn't affected the local comps at all, to have a handful of the brightest students sent elsewhere' and then, like I mentioned, wonder why the sixth form doesn't offer further maths any more.

There are solutions for most things noble.

goodbye ok, then what's the solution to getting more poor kids into grammar schools?! I think quite a few people would like to know!

I just saw a zombie thread in Secondary Education about London grammar schools so I had a nosy (not living in a grammar system, I have no real idea how it works) and read this:

Basically you would either employ a tutor or buy literally dozens of papers and go through these with your child until they get close to 100%.

Be under no illusions about the amount of work involved - you are looking at hours of prep over years or at least months.

This was advice to a parent who wanted to get their kid into a London grammar school. Is this really a good thing that we want more of?

As someone whose children would probably be deemed 'high ability' and did/do go to a comprehensive, the absolute last thing I'd like to see is a local grammar ... I don't get the sense from other parents of bright children I know who actually go to comprehensives that there's a massive frustration at how they're dealt with either, actually. Perhaps we are all too unambitious and dim.

" 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."

Sorry to bang on. But it is customary for the person making the unsubstantiated statement to provide the evidence! The evidence must be at your fingertips. It seems very strange indeed that you are not prepared to share it, when it is so pertinent to the debate. Incidentally, the grammar schools I am most closely associated with are actually taking fewer PP children. But the numbers are so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Noble - that was one person's view that you have to spend hundreds of hours. It's definitely not desirable no.

Back to the earlier discussion about young people wanting grammar schools because they think their comp was crap - the school I teach at is non-selective, non-faith and gets excellent exam results (low FSM, low SEN, natch). We offer tonnes of trips, clubs, competitions, sports. Teachers bust a gut for the kids, intervention, revision, catch-up and so on. And yet the kids are often moaning about how crap the school is. I really don't know what they are expecting, or where these expectations come from.

Herds

the big increase in grammars prioritising disadvantaged students in their admissions criteria.

SOME are prioritising. Not many. As per that exact article, some LEAs almost all prioritise, some none. In our LEA there is just one with some priority process - yet we have two grammar schools in our immediate area and more in the LEA. Some LEAs have done nothing or next to nothing.

And prioritising does NOT mean actually admitting any.

Likewise encouraging primary HTs to encourage pupils to enter does not mean a) they have the informal home background to have baseline knowledge b) they have any preparation in any way comparable to better off parents or c) they reach a mark that would be adjustable to an entry mark if they are on PP.

This was advice to a parent who wanted to get their kid into a London grammar school. Is this really a good thing that we want more of?

Superselectives AREN'T the norm - they're the exception. There are plenty of selective grammars outside the London/SE area that aren't superselectives where it is indeed possible/likely for a high performing pupil (SAT 5 or 6) to attain a place without intensive/professional tutoring

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/grammar-schools-set-lower-pass-mark-for-poorer-kids-10131366.html

Maybe opening a grammar school in a neighbouring town will mean that a school X miles away has to stop offering Further Maths A-level, for example.

Or maybe it will mean that the able kids in that town will now be able to access a school offering Further Maths for the first time if none of the comps in that town currently offer FM and their only choice would be to travel miles away to a different town to find a comp that did offer FM! As I said earlier, NONE of the comps in my area offer FM - the two huge selective Faith schools do (good for those willing to lie and cheat to secure a place) and the relatively small grammar school does.

Bertrand sorry to be stubborn but it is not customary to name a school or group of schools which would identify a poster. Not my problem.

Quite sandy. This isn't window dressing or a single pronged attack, despite the assertion made by teacher earlier on. The numbers won't miraculously change in a year and some schools will take longer than others to adjust their practice, but as I've already said, the direction of travel is absolutely clear, and already making a difference.

dr spouse apart from prioritising admissions and encouraging primary heads then, do you have any thoughts or ideas about how grammar schools could increase pp student numbers?

Superselectives AREN'T the norm - they're the exception.

But having a look on the thread, there is discussion about bright students who get into highly selective private schools who don't get into these London grammars, kids who go to posh prep schools who don't get into these schools. Insane levels of preparation.

It all sounds a bit different to Donna's superselective. Why the bloody hell do these London ones exist in the state system?

Bad your problem there is faith schools!