Grammar Schools (given green light by Theresa May part 3)

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

Bloody hell, clavinova- I really, really didn't think you could possibly mean what I thought you meant! But you did.

I bet I'm thinking what the government has already thought of.

fresh I'll answer.

The acceptable/ in an ideal world answer is that if the comprehensive system was equally good, for all abilities and the entire population, they wouldn't need to be.

The less pc answer/ in the current inequality of comprehensive provision, is that if I have to choose which dc should have a good state school between your two and mine, I think mine should at least get the chance of an exam, rather than automatically getting the less academic school.

But we can't possibly have a lottery system or any other means of sorting the unfairness of comps can we, because the average achieving mc dc might not automatically get the best.

So grammar school kids need qualified teachers because they are going to be doctors and secondary modern kids don't because they can only aspire to be "insurance clerks".
If that doesn't sum up the sheer awfulness of some pro selective attitudes I don't know what does.

Very entitled view and sod everyone else.
As someone who struggled with maths though pretty damn good at other stuff, I could have done with a 'good' maths teacher! Actually, probably needed excellent teacher more in that subject than ones I excelled in cos naturally interested and able in them.

All children deserve the best teachers but there aren't enough specialist teachers to go around - how do we allocate limited resources then?

A qualified teacher with an A level in Maths is more than able to teach a high quality GCSE to some students. For a real top set in Maths it probably needs a degree level Maths teacher. That does not mean some pupils are getting a substandard education, it means they are getting the best education a pupil can reach.

Its a bit useless simplistic to just use the phrase of 'specialist' maths teachers without qualification as to what level they are teaching.

You are ridiculously simplistic in your assertions Bertrand.

The brightest, most academic children need to be taught by teachers who can stretch them to their limits. This is unlikely to happen if they're taught maths/physics by a non subject specialist teacher who maybe only got a C A Level Maths.

I couldn't care less whether the child will go on to be a doctor, or not. But they deserve to be taught by someone who can competently meet their academic needs. As do ALL children.

But, hundreds of thousands of children have neither the ability, or inclination to ever achieve more than a rudimentary understanding of maths...even if they were taught by an Oxbridge graduate with a double first in maths.

Teachers should have the appropriate qualifications to cover the rigours of the course but the best need to be reserved for those with more limited ability as they need the help more. We had two separate maths sets at school, I was in the top one and usually came top of my year. I didn't really need much of the teacher's time because I could get a high mark from the information she provided to the class. Those who found it harder needed the attention more than I did. I'm not sure what a teacher running around after me what have done in terms of greater "stretch".

Depends what you quantify as 'best'? A teacher with the best subject knowledge? A teacher with the best rapport with pupils? A teacher with the best amount of patience?

A pupil who really struggles with maths doesn't need a teacher with very impressive subject knowledge, who can answer any, and every, question and handle university level maths with elan...they need someone with patience and rapport, and who can competently teach them as much as they are capable if understanding.

So - let me get this right- the reason that my 2 sons shouldn't be in the same school is that we have a shortage of teachers and one of my sons must have the best teachers but the other son can make do with teachers who can't cope with top sets and 6th maths?

Sorry- but that makes me even more certain that I want them both in the same school with the best teachers.

I agree that all comprehensives are not good- it would seem from here that there are ones where they don't move up and down sets or differentiate.

I can see that the cheap option is to start new schools, cream off 20% for the best teachers and give the rest the mediocre ones.
It isn't my option. Mine is to improve ALL schools and recruit more teachers.

Just as an aside- an Oxbridge graduate with a double first may be hopeless as a teacher , even for the very clever. Any teacher should be able to explain their subject to children who find it more difficult to grasp - in fact many find it more satisfying. All highly qualified teachers are not flocking to a mere 164 schools- they are thriving in comprehensives all over the country.

Apart from the fact that we have a lack of specialist teachers and they need to be rationed out for the top 20% of ability, and the rest have to accept they can make do with less than the best, is there any other reason that they can't be in the same school?

A first class with honors graduate of Maths or Science teaching bottom set pupils or even mediocre students is a totally waste of both students and the teachers time.

However, despite the stated aim of certain posters that bottom set pupils deserve the best teachers as much as the brightest students . The reality of using the best teachers for the purpose of 'crowd' control is maladministration of precious resources.

I cannot understand why that is a controversial statement !

But, hundreds of thousands of children have neither the ability, or inclination to ever achieve more than a rudimentary understanding of maths...even if they were taught by an Oxbridge graduate with a double first in maths.

^ if teaching like this really is an issue, this is a problem to me. My friend with the class medal in her subject from an RG university in a highly competitive course couldn't pass an O level in maths to save her life. So if the weakness in maths prevented her from getting into the grammar (this is extreme disparity being argued as unlikely upthread) then she would also have to go without the highly qualified teachers in the areas she excels at which is also being argued is an essential.

Is anyone arguing that secondary moderns would be good for their child? I've tried to read as much as I can but may have missed this section.

Is a total waste of time !

Of course, teachers should be able to competently impart their knowledge (and not all can).

I have worked in secondary schools, and have a lot of friends who are teachers. Granted, there are a handful with a real vocation who prefer the hurly burly of a challenging school. But the majority are so relieved to have ended up teaching in grammars, where they feel they can fully focus on finally teaching and not just providing criwd control and constantly dealing with behavioural issues and discipline problems.

'A pupil who really struggles with maths doesn't need a teacher with very impressive subject knowledge, who can answer any, and every, question and handle university level maths with ease...they need someone with patience and rapport, and who can competently teach them as much as they are capable if understanding.'

You are wrong.
A pupil who struggles with maths needs a teacher who has impressive subject knowledge of SEN and maths, who has studied in depth and at a professional level the underlying reasons why pupils may struggle. That would be the ideal.

Is anyone arguing that secondary moderns would be good for their child?

I did. On this or an earlier thread. Friends have older DSs in Grammar and younger DDs in Secondary Modern. In the Secondary Mod they are top of the school and very confident.

A first class with honors graduate of Maths or Science teaching bottom set pupils or even mediocre students is a totally waste of both students and the teachers time.

The teachers I know got in to the profession because they wanted to teach - they get satisfaction from getting the basics across to the kid who struggles just as much as explaining advanced concepts to those at the top. It's the overall teaching part that matters, not the level of what is taught - even if the teacher is my DH's friend with his first and PhD.

Just because a kid isn't going to be running the research institute at CERN doesn't mean the level of attention to be applied to them amounts to "crowd control".

If love this assumption that comprehensives are about crowd control and full of behavioural issues and discipline problems!
Why on earth would I choose to send my sons to one?
Why should the academic one expect to escape them but the less academic have to put up with them?

Why this assumption that comprehensives are 'challenging'?

I went to a secondary modern and never had a single lesson disrupted.

'
'crowd control' is a skill. A good teacher can work in any school and be effective.

Are they very confident because they are at the top of the school? Is there a link? How would your friend feel if the teachers available to her DDs were of a lesser standard to those available to her DSs due to rationing of talent?

My friend's son did get a first from Cambridge in maths (from his comprehensive where it wasn't abnormal) He worked as an actuary for a while but got bored. He now teaches in a large comprehensive and loves it. He teaches the range and he does not have to do 'crowd control' .

I think that it all comes from the same mindset that thinks teaching year 6 needs the best teachers and anyone can teach reception!

FreshHorizons, some schools do have challenging cohorts. Some pupils have to be removed hence the growth of alternative provision schools.

In the ideal world ALL schools would have the resources to fully support all pupils within the school. At present time that is not the reality and the arguments on this thread show that there is not one answer to the problem of how to provide a suitable education for all.