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

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

People actively avoid schools for all sorts of reasons- only one of them being that it's crap.

I would actively avoid any faith school. Given the choice I would probably actively avoid the school my ds is at because it has no tradition of music. I would actively avoid one of the local grammar schools because it has a decades old bullying culture (yep- it's a grammar school). A lot of people actively avoid my son's school because it's a secondary modern- even though it has excellent results-for a secondary modern. The reasons go on..................

I notice that even the two worst performing schools in Oldham have better results than the six worst performing schools in Lincolnshire........

The lists I saw which featured the Isle of wight, Oldham, Blackpool, Derbyshire etc in the top 10 for crap comprehensives used ofsted ratings for comparison. I'd be the first to agree ofsted ratings aren't the full picture, but even so I think it's safe to say that areas with less than 20%, or 30-40% rated either good or outstanding are going to contain a fair few crap schools. Does anyone really believe the deprived/ less affluent dc in those areas are getting a better education than they would in eg Kent? If you put in a grammar at least some of them would stand a chance of a decent education.

I don't for a second believe every child in eg Oldham has a 30 odd % chance of a good school, rather some will have a 100% chance from religion or catchment, others will have 0%. It's also reasonable to assume that within areas that are seemingly doing ok, there will be pockets who aren't.

fresh you seem to be missing the point that the result of your dc's good comp is that other dc's get a mediocre or crap one. They go together in the same way grammars and sm's do. It doesn't need to be that way but right now it is. Possibly because people like you with the finances to choose, don't want lottery allocation or any other system where their dc are no longer guaranteed the better schools.

You chose a good comp over a crap comp, which is entirely logical and understandable. However you don't seem to understand that other people, with just the crap comp are going to want that choice of grammar if it's the only one on the table.

If you wouldn't send your dc to a crap comp, with no real improvement in sight, other than some vague murmuring that it needs to change, then you aren't exactly in a position to tell other people they should send their children to one.

Every child should be able to access a grammar school.

Am I the only person thinking that supporting grammar schools (excluding those who want a few superselectives) deprives you of the abiltity to exercise basic logic?

I have to say I have often wondered why Mumsnetters seem to live in little huddles around failing schools. It's particularly odd as failing schools tend to be in areas of significant social deprivation and Mumsnetters, in general, are not...

It's too glib to say that Oxfordshire is wealthy; it's also an area with hidden poverty, and away from the towns, poor public transport.

But taking Wallingford school again - yes, it's a good comprehensive, but it will lose some of its more academic children to Independent schools and a few to the Reading Grammars. But let's assume that the effect of this is minimal. So, take a school like that and ask what is it doing to get the results? We could also ask, what is the spread of the results? Is it just the nice middle class getting the good results? What about the non-academic children? When we start acknowledging that there are good comprehensives then we can begin to see how to emulate their results elsewhere.

Oxfordshire actually has 19% of its pupils classed as being disadvantaged. That doesn't make it comparable to the inner city but perhaps is more than people might expect. I suspect the large numbers of students in private schools has probably influenced this proportion.

bert that probably explains why so many think comprehensives are great, because the average mumsnetter tends to live in catchment for the good ones, and can therefore close their eyes to the fact not everyone has that choice.

Or cheerfully pretend it's ok for wc/ deprived areas to have crap schools cos those dc can't possibly be able or academic. There is no way I am buying that my child is the only one of over a thousand local dc capable of separate science, 2 mfl, further maths etc, yet she's the only one who'll be offered it.

But nobody does think all comprehensives are great.

Matthew Arnold in Oxfordshire seems well fitted to be a beacon school. Achievement profile is 31% high attainers and 20% low which doesn't suggest its intake is especially privileged. Yet achieves a very impressive 416 GCSE average for High Achieving students (compared to 418, in Bucks grammars and 400 in Kent GS). Middle Attainers score a very impressive 325 as well.
Bizaarely, Ofsted thinks this school is no more than Good.

HPFA
I notice that even the worst two performing schools in Oldham have even better results than the six worst performing schools in Lincolnshire

Oldham is a large town and Lincolnshire is a whole county - two of the worst performing schools in Lincolnshire are 50 miles apart!

Lincolnshire obviously has problems - some of its KS2 results are dire - in Boston (which has several of the worst performing secondary schools) nearly 50% of the primary schools have KS2 results below the national average. At several primary schools in Boston 0% of pupils achieved Level 5 and less than 30% achieved Level 4. SEN rates are also higher compared to Oldham.

I would reduce the number of grammar schools in Lincolnshire but not remove all of them.

I agree that Lincolnshire obviously has other problems besides its selective system. But isn't there at least a possibility that because the majority of middle class people are presumably able to avoid these very low performing schools there is less political will to solve their problems than might be the case if they were comps?

Sandy, why do you seem to have such low expectations of Angela Raynor's ability to write a speech? Is there anything in her background to suggest an inability to do this other than a lack of exam success at age 16?

Clearly some do bert, or at the least don't care provided it's somebody else's child. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many declaring the current comprehensive system is so much fairer, when it's actually not.

If I said the grammar system was fair, because my dd scored highly with no more than the cost of some practice papers, a few hours familiarising herself with the content and me timing a practice paper, and therefore got a school that suits her needs, you and a dozen other posters would all (quite rightly) point out that doesn't make the system fair, or better for everyone. fresh doing exactly the same thing, but using affluence instead of ability, has had only a small number of people point out that her situation doesn't make the comprehensive system fair for everyone.

If you did a poll of mumsnet, asking who wants to abolish grammars, I bet you'd get far more support than you would for lottery admissions.

The latter won't ever win votes because the mc stand to lose, and therefore won't ever happen. Ditto for reallocating funding so schools full of easy mc dc get less than schools with more difficult cohorts. Whereas introducing fair criteria for grammar entrance could be done without outrage, because the same mc person can't object unless they are willing to say 'my dc isn't able enough to compete on a level playing field'. Which won't happen.

The only 'easy' step to reducing some unfairness in comprehensives Is banning religious criteria, but that won't be enough in itself.

Allowing a few more grammars, and opening up the access isn't the ideal solution, nor what I'd actually do if I was in charge. But until the comprehensive system is actually fair, the odd grammar won't make it any worse for those at the losing end of either system, and at least offers a lifeline to some who have no chance of a suitable education otherwise.

Whether I am unable to use basic logic or not, the truth is if Theresa May has the 'bottle' to go with a policy of opening new grammar schools (or at t least abolition of the ban preventing expansion of existing grammar schools).

This will be a very popular policy with many 'aspirational' working class abandoned by the Labour Party.

A large no of these so called 'thick' or misguided people , who according to posters on here ( have been lied to by the 'Tory' Hegemoney and its influence ,sound familiar anyone ?) are prepared to accept their child gave it their best shot, but didn't make it !

She will also guarantee herself at least a 42-43% share of the vote at the next General Election and 120 seat majority.

The very fact that she has few or limited academic qualifications disqualifies her from being 'education' secretary, this is regardless of what party she stands for or her policies.

It makes a mockery of academic achievement !

She is also a 'Bully' using the fact she is an MP to complain to a 'poor' sales member of staff at a shoe shop.

Quite something coming from someone who has 'prided' herself looking after the downtrodden .
ww.express.co.uk/news/politics/618206/Labour-MP-moaned-House-of-Commons-paper-Star-Wars-shoes-forced-Twitter

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/618206/Labour-MP-moaned-House-of-Commons-paper-Star-Wars-shoes-forced-Twitter

So, regardless of her achievements since then, you are dismissing her opinion based on her exam record (or otherwise) at aged 16.

Angela Rayner:

"My mum couldn’t read or write – still can’t – and also has bipolar disorder, so it was very challenging for us,” she says. “I come from a council house and we were on benefits when we were kids, so we didn’t have much money.

“But I didn’t deserve not to have the same chances because I was born into the area that I was born into. It wasn’t my fault that I never saw a book until I went to primary school. I didn’t know that I was a disadvantaged child. I didn’t know that I was a poor child, and the interventions that were in my life at the time, I just saw that as the norm.”

"The very fact that she has few or limited academic qualifications disqualifies her from being 'education' secretary, this is regardless of what party she stands for or her policies."
Why?

Firstly l m only using a phone also English isn’t my 1st language so please excuse me for my spelling and grammatical errors. Just want tell my experience from a perspective of an average parent with two good average dcs went to an ordinary state primary school. In terms of the UK Ed system/history/geography I know the least in MN.
I wonder how many of those who are pro grammar schools/11+ have lived in any real grammar school town in recent years? I mean an area that has more than one selective school.
Do people believe that if a child has always been placed in the top set top table throughout his primary school years then he shall be guaranteed to pass the 11+?
Every year we heard very bright kids hadn't managed to pass the test. This could happen to any bright kids even those were well prepared regardless mc or wc or native or immigrant. So then the parents would have to accept a comp place, or register their dc on a waiting list in the nearest good comp, or appeal to try to get their dc into the closest faith school. The lucky ones would go to a nearby private school or/and apply for scholarship / bursary. Many parents wish that their 1st dc would get a place in a good comp whether it s a faith school or a respectable comp that may require £800 journeys @ yr. Because then his sibling/s will stand a good chance to go to a good school too so they no longer need to take 11+ so seriously the next time. Some parents are relieved that their dcs have sen meaning extended school choices.
We lived in a grammar schools area till my dc1 was in yr6. These were the most stressful years of my life. My kids were summer babies and they were decent average kids at school. Since I became aware of the 11+ system I had to make my dc1 to practise the 11+ papers and books as often as possible. Nearly every day I nagged, I shouted, I lost my tempers at my dc. At night I sometimes took sleeping pills at bed time. It sounds foolish to those who are outside grammar towns. But if you got stuck in this system then you’d know how stressful and desperate you can become. I was so worried that my dcs’ education would be taken away and be classified as failures for life. 11+ really took over our live. Many ordinary parents in the area just sooo wish for a good alternative school.
After we moved out of the system area my family are so much happier. In the last school meeting the science teacher said my dc should be capable to take triple science for GCSEs. I’m so relieved that my dc1 hadn’t been written off at the age of 10.
Ime grammar school system only works for those who got in (e.g. my dh) or those are able to have a back up plan. I really do not wish my children and grandchildren have to go through the 11+ system again.

Very true littlelate and it is why I was lucky to move away and keep in about the subject because I would hate any future grandchildren to be back to such an unfair system.
A grammar school does put up house prices- it was the chief marketing point when I sold my house!
It was bought by a family whose son then failed. They employed a solicitor for the appeal and he still didn't get a place. He did A levels and went to university. There are many very bright , high achieving, children who fail.

I can't think why you make the comment that one comprehensive couldn't cope with both my sons 2stripedsocks THEY DID COPE. Is there anything that my son could have had a better than a very academic subject, that he was passionate about, at the first university of his choice?! How could my none academic son have done better than to get a highly technical apprenticeship and now be in charge of large projects and 20 skilled workers? In what way didn't the school cope?
No one is saying that all comprehensives are good- they are not- but I do get fed up with this idea that they are no good for the academic child. My friends children who are doctors, dentists, vets, civil engineers, an aeronautical engineer, a corporate lawyer etc would wonder how you could possibly say that- and be a bit askance at
the idea that they were oddities in their school, rather than the norm.

We are the 21st century and a civilised country.
We should be giving all our children an excellent education and not saying that the system can't cope so we must rescue 20% and give them the best while the rest carry on with the present system.
I can't see any reason why my child going to a good comprehensive means another child gets a crap one- we should be ensuring they are all good. I can't rember who asked why a school needs the top end but I am perfectly sure that she expects her child to be in the creamed off top and other people's children are the ones to manage without. I most definitely want the top end so that all schools have the highly aspirational children as great examples.
New grammar schools are a vote loser - 75% lose! Why would middle class parents vote for a system that will lock their child out of the best education unless they happen to be the top 20/25%? The middle class will be the losers in this- there simply isn't room for all their children in grammar schools, and opting out for private is unaffordable for many.
Strange that no one ever puts the school for the majority first, and calls for a return of the secondary modern- tells us how many more secondary moderns we need or has a poll 'who supports the return of the secondary modern?' Some people even say that secondary moderns don't or won't exist - as if people are stupid enough to think that a school with 25% missing can be comprehensive or that a term like High School fools anyone!

I really can't see why you assume because you have a comprehensive that can't cope for all abilities 2stripedsocks that you think they all can't.
DS got his A at A level, as did many others in his class. DS 2 got the grade that he needed for his apprenticeship.
They both got the best they could.

I will amend my question - my 2 sons were in the same school and both did excellently for them- they did not have to compromise in any way - so why did it need to be different?

I can't see why 2stripedsocks comprehensive is relevant or why she has such faith in Ofsted - you need to visit the school for yourself. A good Ofsted doesn't automatically mean it is good.

Hang on, we just had posts from someone who used financial privilege to move to an area where they would get an education they wanted because their DC wasn't able to pass a test.

And another from someone who did the same even though they had experience of an acquaintance who failed to game the system but found out it worked out fine anyway.

Both deride the grammar system and are now against it despite using financial privilege to circumvent it and evidencing it worked for others NOT passing the test.

WTF?