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

Peregrina: How do you know that they won't just become failing grammar schools

Indeed. If you have three non-selective schools in a deprived area and you turn one into a grammar school (while insisting that only children from within the area can apply), why would the new selective school automatically become high performing and outstanding, just because it's selective?

"Interesting, what did you base your predictions on?"

Do you want the acceptable, or the unacceptable answer?

Herds
a lot has to come from parents
When you say "we already do a lot of those things" what you are missing is that "these things need to be done by society to level the playing field.

These things alone without grammar schools would level the playing field. But they are difficult and complicated and don't make for as great sound bites. These things should NOT be done "to get bright children from poor families into grammar schools". They should be done in order to improve the overall life chances of ALL children from poor families.

They are NOT the job of primary school teachers alone (when you say "we" I assume this is your job, sorry if not). They are the job of the whole of society.

But what this means is children from less academic or stretched families cannot get into a grammar school unless they are extraordinary geniuses whose talent will shine through even if their parents don't provide them with the right support.

As those individuals are a teeny tiny minority of potentially bright children, then there is basically no hope of the other potentially bright children getting into grammar school so grammar schools can NEVER be a big social leveller.

There is nothing primary schools can do to stop some parents doing more.

And when you, and most of the people on this thread, say "doing more" you are meaning tutoring towards the end of primary school. But they already - and will do more of once they work out it's necessary - will be bolstering their chances before school and once they start primary school. Think about how parents on MN talk about pushing their children for a 4+ test.

Drsprouse I think I was saying the same as you in the whole post, wasn't I?

OdinsLoveChild Wed 10-Aug-16 13:26:19 A grammar school would give my G&T DD a chance at improving her future educational outcome that she currently would never have. Why is that a bad thing?

You'd have to try to get her in the school first for her to benefit from it. Whilst she may be considered G&T amongst her tiny co-hort at primary school, would she still be considered G&T amongst a co-hort of 2,000 - 3,000 other bright children (3,800 sat the 11 plus exam in my area last year)?

To get an academic place at the top ranked school in my area a DC would have needed a score that would place them in the top 5% of the examined co-hort.

dr spouse thank you for that opinion.

No playing field will ever be level. Ever. No matter what is done. It's not hopeless but it's not far off.

Whilst she may be considered G&T amongst her tiny co-hort at primary school, would she still be considered G&T amongst a co-hort of 2,000 - 3,000 other bright children (3,800 sat the 11 plus exam in my area last year)?

This again shows the difference between areas and I suspect yours is a super-selective area of unusually high demand for places. In my area, typically just 400-500 pupils take the 11+ for 150 places, with "entry" marks being in the 60%-80% range, which is perfectly achievable for bright kids with minimal preparation.

But if the playing field in general were more level then it would improve social mobility for all children from less well off families - including those who would be bright enough to go to grammar school, but also including all the others.

HPFA sorry, not paying attention, was the post you mean on the other thread? It got long and I got distracted so I didn't read it all.

Odins but your middle-achieving children will do worse under your proposed system (or, as others have said, the grammar will be a failing grammar). Your town doesn't support two schools, and if there are two schools, one of them will be too small to be effective or will attract children from elsewhere - schools get closed all the time because they are too small full stop, and smaller schools find it hard to offer a range of subjects and to give their students a quality education so also get closed on the grounds of not being particularly good (has happened to a school near me).

It would be better to improve the early education and home stimulation of all the children in your town so that some of the ones with potential match your DC1's ability - meaning there's genunine competition at the comprehensive. Lots of comprehensives do good things with high ability DCs.

drspouse My town merged 2 high schools to make 1 big super school to try and fix the gross underachievement in the 2 schools. It has over 2,400 pupils (across years 7-13) and my DD is consistently in the top 10 students across the board for her year (300 in her year). She would have a bloody good chance at getting into a grammar school if there was one locally.

I don't see why it would fail. Surely the top few % even in the comprehensive school will usually gain those C grades anyway so grammar school students of similar ability who would probably actually want to get those grades will achieve above that level.

My mid achievement DC would still be offered GCSE at school but I think the biggest issue would be funding and not achievement levels for them.

If the school could maintain the number of staff they have currently then it could improve. Unfortunately if 10/20% of pupils headed over to a grammar school then their budget would be cut by that amount too. That inevitably would lead to staff cuts so we are back where we were before, large class sizes with uninterested pupils with little on offer to help them do better. Our school needs vocational subjects to be taught as well as academic subjects. As it is there are only academic subjects offered and they fail spectacularly.

I'd rather there be some opportunity made available to a minority of students than no opportunity to anyone at all.

Could I ask a heretical question? Why is Social Mobility such a "good thing", that some of you want children with academic ability to be able to access it? The whole argument for providing grammars for working class children seems to be so that they can cease to be working class.

Don't most people actually want or need economic prosperity? Decent secure work and housing, for starters and then satisfying leisure time?

I don't think I am getting the numbers in OdinsLoveChild's case.

The school has 2400 pupils and you would expect to lose 10 or 20% of them to a grammar school, i.e. 240-480 pupils. Where would the other pupils come from? Another town? And if the other town is so much more affluent would you still be confident your DC would get in? (I.e. the test would be tutor proof?)

Surely the top few % even in the comprehensive school will usually gain those C grades anyway so grammar school students of similar ability who would probably actually want to get those grades will achieve above that level.

In the (superselective) grammar school near us close to 90% of GCSE grades are A and A star. There are virtually no C grades. It's not obvious to me that those getting Cs in the current comprehensive would actually be at the right ability and achievement level to get into a grammar.

odins "no opportunity for anyone at all"

Except all the children at independent schools? Double the number than at grammars.

Why is Social Mobility such a "good thing", that some of you want children with academic ability to be able to access it?

Because economic capital is strongly correlated with educational attainment and cultural capital. You are much less likely to achieve economic prosperity without higher educational attainment. This is still true is countries which have a smaller wealth gap than in the UK and where the standard of living is better for everyone.

hay I'm not sure you can say that some of those C grade students weren't GS material. Certainly not the B grades.

I've seen DC with good baseline intelligence get very average grades indeed due to early sitting of GCSEs, disruption of teaching, mistakes ( by the school ) with course work etc.

The school has 2400 pupils and you would expect to lose 10 or 20% of them to a grammar school, i.e. 240-480 pupils. Where would the other pupils come from? Another town?

Population growth is the answer. On current projections the country needs a lot more school places which means existing schools having to grow and some new schools being built. Currently primary schools are over-flowing and in a few years' time that problem will move into the secondaries. If a town/city needs a few hundred more school places, then surely at least the option of a new build school being a grammar should be on the table for consideration?

It's not obvious to me that those getting Cs in the current comprehensive would actually be at the right ability and achievement level to get into a grammar.

But perhaps they only got C grades at comp because they weren't stretched and just coasted along, or maybe they were bullied or put off by classroom disruption? With the right environment, they could well have achieved A or A* - who knows what would have happened?

I'm not sure you can say that some of those C grade students weren't GS material. Certainly not the B grades.

I think you just flipped my comment the other way round: without knowing more one cannot tell whether these students would be grammar school material or not.

I think we would both agree that it would be incorrect for people to assume that the top 20% of their own school would get into a grammar with a large, socially diverse catchment. In my area, the top 20% of the comprehensive in a deprived area would lie mostly within the bottom half of my (very high performing) catchment comprehensive, according to their KS2 results. Far less than 20% of the kids from the deprived area would be likely to get into a new grammar, whatever kinds of tests it adopted.

haybott I think we are largely in agreement, but why not try to provide economic prosperity for all children? Those people who say that the Grammar school enabled a better future for their parents/grandparents, are undoubtedly telling the truth, but are failing to say what happened to the rest of their parents' contemporaries.

We got away with it when there was plenty of manual and semi-skilled work available; that is no longer an option.

why not try to provide economic prosperity for all children?

Do you have a recipe for this?!

Yes, I would like better education (and better funding for education) for everybody. I would also like more value to be placed on education by everybody in society, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I have no idea how to achieve the latter - the UK is in stark contrast to some other countries where parents will do much more and make sacrifices to help their children get the best education they can, but I don't know how to import different attitudes towards education.

Do you have a recipe for this?!
I wish.

Badbadbunny Wed 10-Aug-16 15:23:53 But perhaps they only got C grades at comp because they weren't stretched and just coasted along, or maybe they were bullied or put off by classroom disruption?

That argument would only stand if those same children were the strongest academic performers at primary school. After all they would have to pass an exam to get into the Grammar in the first instance.

OdinsLoveChild Wed 10-Aug-16 15:05:13 my DD is consistently in the top 10 students across the board for her year (300 in her year). She would have a bloody good chance at getting into a grammar school if there was one locally.

How many of those 300 DCs are high ability?

MumTryingHerBest
How many of those 300 DCs are high ability?

I believe that around 50 achieved SATs level 5 and another 14 achieved SATs level 6 (including my DD).

I don't know whether the school class them all as high ability or just the 14 who gained level 6 SATs.

Do you have a recipe for this?!

No but there's a good deal of research showing what does, and doesn't, work. People like the Rowntree Foundation are particularly good at this. Evidence-based social policy.

Unfortunately like saying "you will be economically worse off and no immigrants will leave anyway if you vote for Brexit" people don't pay attention to evidence.

Voters pay attention to sound bites and to wishful thinking and to their own prejudices ("I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, they are all just feckless").

Politicians pay attention to their own self-serving ends (ooh look someone who has given the party a lot of money will start a profit-making school, let's give them a chance) and to their own prejudices ("our party believes that everyone should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps")

OdinsLoveChild well 64 is a decent number to start off with. where are the other 100 or so children going to come from to make the Grammar school viable?