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

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

Not easy not to take it to heart, sandy. It was on the Internet- have you not heard of the problem of social media bullying- would your advice be 'don't take it to heart - sticks and stones etc'
Many a child has problems being told -'it is just banter'.
It wasn't the actual service- it is the message that it gives to everyone in the community.

If your prices are high because it is a nice place to live 2atripedsocks just think how much higher they would be if you had a grammar school or a top comprehensive !

Sorry about wrong letters pressed and lack of punctuation- I am never very good on my phone.

I don't know how anyone can say that the 'vast majority' live in areas where the Comp are not outstanding. There are, what, somewhere in the region of 4000 such schools, so very few can possibly know what they are all like?What you could say is that Comps in your area are not good. I can say that in my area most are good, but some are not. And surprise, surprise, the ones that are not are those predominantly serving the poorest areas.

Just because they aren't clever enough to get into the school that they have decided is the be all and end all of schools.

One of the brightest students I have ever taught at university failed the 11+ because of undiagnosed stealth dyslexia. His dyslexia was not picked up until after GCSEs - in which he got Bs in humanities and A stars in maths/sciences. He then got straight A stars, top STEP grades (from a secondary modern, self taught) and went to Cambridge.

Another very bright undergraduate failed the 11+ because he had only moved to the UK a year earlier and his English was not strong enough. Parents luckily had the money to send him to a private school where he got straight A stars at GCSE and A level.

Examples such as these always make me think of the kids who failed at 11+ and assumed for the rest of their life "they weren't clever enough".

I certainly failed and was believed by my secondary school to be unsuitable for 'mainstream' school.

(obviously i would not take the 11+ today , though maybe i would pass today with some specialist help for my Autism ).

The school was actively trying to get rid of me for 4 years.. They wanted me removed to a 'special' school!

My mum pulled me out and i was home educated in the 5th(11) year 'some of her colleagues' from the grammar took it in turns to teach me for 4 or 5 hours a week ! i ended up with 3 D grades at GCSE.

The difference was they told me i had 'ability' and was actually quite bright if i applied myself !.

That though is another issue , how do you enable children with HFA achieve their academic potential

Of course there is something stopping me!! The academic one would be getting the wrong teaching. He would be having to go at the wrong pace. He would have no competition. He would have to change school aged 16yrs .

I do not think that grammar schools are better. I do not think that everyone is suited to a grammar school.
However I don't see how 75% changing from a comp to a sec mod will be any advantage - neither will the parents. It is much better to know that a late developer can progress to top sets, and those who can't keep up with the top sets can move to a lower one.It is much better to have sibling together.

I am irritated to death by the idea that comprehensive parents play the system (yes they do) BUT grammar school parents don't, when they equally as guilty.

If all schools were good we wouldn't need to play the system
My parents played it - thankfully- or I would be working in a shop with 5 CSEs.

Whatever the system the poor and disadvantaged get the worst- that is what needs changing and more grammar schools certainly won't do it!

You were failed by the system sandy -more grammar school (and more sec mods) won't change this.

Home education would of course go up with those who wouldn't take a sec mod and couldn't afford private.

haybott but can you think of several examples of similarly very, very clever students at your university who failed but where there was no obvious reason for under performance, as in the two cases you quote? Because that would be more interesting really.

So basically fresh you are saying a system where your wealth can obtain a good school for both dc is much fairer than a system where my childs ability would get her a good school? If all those negatives of secondary moderns aren't good enough for your dc why the hell should they be good enough for mine or anyone elses just because the school is called a comprehensive?

I don't dispute most of the unfairness and problems usually raised with the 11+. But I don't agree with the idea it's unfair because academic selection would mean dc like mine would get a place over your other son. Nor do I agree one of the issues is that with a level playing field for entrance you'd get mc dc losing out to more able dc from lower income/ deprived homes.

If there isn't enough funding and staff to provide grammars and sm properly, the problem remains when you call them all comprehensives. Which is why some are great, some mediocre, and some are crap. But of course they are only a minor issue, because most mumsnetters don't get the second rate schools in fully comprehensive areas, but in an 11+ system their dc might miss out, ergo comprehensive inequality isn't that important.

So basically fresh you are saying a system where your wealth can obtain a good school for both dc...

Which is the one we have now.

Thank you Fresh .

To be slightly fair to the school it was '1988' the first year of the new GCSEs and i think most of the school took CSEs before 1988 so the school was unaware of what pupils were capable of.

The other point in 'fairness' to them there was a zero understanding of SEN. This meant that if your learning style is /was 'idiosyncratic' and didn't operate within perceived norms you were assumed to be unteachable and better off in a 'special' school.

In an ideal world perhaps i should have been able to drop down two academic years in a 'academic' environment designed especially for those who have potential but are emotionally immature !

Although i only achieved a 'ordinary' 2.2 with the Open University last year at 43 my mother was far more overjoyed than the PHD acquired by my sister from Bath University.

The point being is anyone who harps on about failing the 11+ at 30, 40 or 50 needs to realise it does not define you past 18 !

Grammar school is the correct place for my three DC , why is that deemed to be politically incorrect or a selfish thing to say !

And again there is no discuss re rolling out this nationwide so your hysteria re 75% being in a secondary modern is ill founded

Why would those objections not count for the areas where it will be rolled out?

Also we were told that academisation was only for failing schools. Now look at where we are.

We have absolutely no idea when, how or even if this idea will be implemented. So it is a bit strange to say that consideration of any option, however unlikely is "hysterical".

I actually think it's a sop to the middle classes - and a way in for selective free schools.

GCSE (Govt stats 2014/15)

Comprehensive 501,242 56.7% 5 A*- C Maths/English
Selective 22,493 96.7% 5 A*-C Maths/English
Modern 19,329 49.7% 5 A*-C Maths/ English

State Funded 543,314 58.1% 5 A*-C Maths/English

Independent 46,361 58.1% 5 A*-C Maths/English

The first thing that jumps out at me is that the so called 'modern' schools are not offering an 'inferior' education to the Comprehensives . When you consider they have been 'butchered' according to posters , they are actually achieving more than the so called 'fully' Comprehensive schools.

Link to the source of that table please. It makes no sense without context.

For the 'Comprehensives' to only show a 7% higher attainment than so called 'Modern' schools does not show the comprehensive system in a positive light does it !

Context, please,

House of Commons Briefing Paper

Number 1398 29th June 2016

Grammar School Statistics Page 7.

Oh, well, if you won't provide a link, you'll have to do the digging.

What is the definition of "modern"?

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01398/SN01398.pdf