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

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

My three children are not very 'gifted' just top 20% academically ,though perhaps my youngest might have made Essex's foremost 'Super Selective' if she wanted ! The other two are fine in their 'common as muck grammars'.

Sorry, can't be bothered, sandy. Either have a proper discussion or take the piss. I'm up for the proper discussion. Not the taking the piss.

I'm not arguing strongly for grammars, except super selectives, I'm just of the opinion that they aren't any more unfair than our current comprehensive system, and for the small number of poorer dc who get them are life changing.

Dd has two friends who are particularly screwed over by the local school. Regardless of the fact she is deprived in all ways, friend 1 would get into any state grammar. Instead, it will be a bloody miracle if she makes it to sit gcses without some form of breakdown. If she does, she will get great grades, but is likely to be so put off learning she won't utilise them. She's barely 12 and in a year has gone from delightedly wanting to use Dd's resources to saying 'there is no point'. And I find that incredibly sad.

Friend two is bottom of the ability range with sn. No school will ever get her pass grades in maths or literacy gcses. But a good school would play to her strengths, and let her leave with her dignity and skills. Instead she is just more long term jsa fodder in the making, because she'll leave with sweet fa, except perhaps mh problems. And then the mc can all point and sneer at the scrounger. With any luck next time she is bullied and explodes, she'll get expelled and get a better school. Again, incredibly sad that best case scenario is being chucked out.

I know full well a grammar would do nothing for her, she'd still be at the worst school. Sorting the comprehensive system is the only way to improve her lot.

But nobody is actually doing anything about that, but at least a grammar would save one.

But nevermind, being on the losing end of comprehensive unfairness isn't relevant to the likes of fresh so fuck 'em.

The way i read the statistics from the Government Briefing document is that they include all schools designated as 'Modern' schools. This is not infallible proof on either the pros and cons of grammar nor the effects on other schools in the vicinity.

This is because the locations and 'raison detre' of grammar schools vary from area to area. You cannot for instance claim that grammar schools have not brought difficulty to some schools in Kent .

On the flip side you cannot claim that grammar schools have not been positive for Trafford , Wirral, Lancashire or North Yorkshire . They have in their own little way helped to reduce the 'North South education gap by enabling children to get to the best Universities.

In- conclusion people need to look outside their own specific area or town when condemning or praising a system that has benefited some areas while creating 'bitterness' and a tutoring culture in others.

lurked how can you possibly know that, particularly about friend 2? These children are 12, right? and all the failings you're predicting: they're going to be entirely down to the school? I know you know these children and are concerned, but this is all quite speculative isn't it?

Sandy - those tables; if you look at the %s for 'GCSE only' then the %for comps goes up, and for moderns goes down. The % you quoted does include English and maths, but also Btecs etc.

I think you have to take into account that it is only a minority of students who are removed in a selective system - a comp still only has the 25% top setters who would in a selective LA be in a grammar, and also has the other 75%. So the overall score will reflect the bulk of the students within the school- the 75% who are middle and low attainers.
Therefore I would fully expect a bigger gap between comp and grammar than between comp and modern.

Unfortunately Lurked is correct , the two children's life's are already mapped out (short of their parents winning the lottery) !. In child's one case a very bright child who goes though school and ends up with 5 grade 4s (C-) at 16 and out of full time or academic education.

What a waste it's all to do with the fact you become like the people or places that surround you !

In child's two case a school that could enable her to acquire a skill that ultimately would enable her to earn a reasonable living. This is surely what she needs rather than wasting 5 years trying in vain and 'anguish' to attain an impossible academic goal !

BLU. So without sounding all ' Monty Python' the 25% taken out in selective areas are only likely cause a 7% GCSE percentage drop or a 12% drop if taken as a figure relating to 56.7% down to 49.7%.

Therefore if you take the 25% of the ability range out of the school a 12% reduction in grades will happen !

seek if you mean the grades, I know the kids and parents well. And while I say very deprived, that's not strictly true, neither has neglectful parents, anything but. Just parents who for understandable reasons aren't equipped to support their education/ fight the system in the way they'd like.

I also know the school, and see what kind of futures/ outcomes the kids get from it. And the crap pastoral care, slt etc that doesn't just not tackle bullying, it endorses it. I also see dc with similar, or worse backgrounds or problems who attend good schools, and the results are so different. Not even London top comp 'good', schools like one nearby who have crap able provision, but are good in other ways, and the outcomes there are so different.

I really do hope I'm wrong, but unfortunately the evidence is all around me that I'm probably not

I really can't see how you are saying that about me Lurked when if all comprehensives were improved there would be a place for all children, whatever their ability.
The answer is to improve all comprehensives- not throw up hands in despair and say 'it can't be done- so we must just rescue 20-25% and the rest will just have to cope! I want to rescue 100% and not write anyone off.

I can see that it is a lot cheaper to rescue 25% but every child should have a right to an excellent education.
The child who can't pass the exam has just as much right to a good education at their own level.

Interestingly if we were to have a national 25%-75% grammar/high school education system we would have :
'815' grammar schools with 770,000 pupils average size of 944 pupils

in the high schools there would be about 2,500000 pupils

and in Sixth form (non grammar) about 500,000 pupils

What is quite obvious is that we have an unfair education system.

I think it needs a radical rethink and we need something new and fit for 21st century - not a nostalgic return to a system that didn't work for the majority of children 50 years ago.

If you read about the best education systems in the world, very few have selective systems and none select at 11. The best education systems have invested in teacher training and vocational education and even included the arts etc. as part of it. Several of the high pressure systems are looking at ways to de-stress pupils and are funding more arts/sport. Some have different pathways at 14, or 16, but there are lots of routes into higher education. If we want one of the best education systems in the world where all can achieve, then looking at what actually works. The fact that the vast majority of systems don't select, and some have abandoned early selection should tell us something.
www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/

I agree with lonacat.
I am old enough to have been at school before there were any comprehensive schools and I keep going on about it because I don't want future children going what we went through.
It is much worse now with far too much stress for children- we already have far too many young children with mental health problems. There is also a wider gap between 'haves' and 'have nots'.

I am not against selection- but at a later age and with input from the child as to the path they want to follow.

We should be looking at the systems that work to get the best for all children, not at what works best for a few.

Someone said earlier that we are way down the world rankings. It doesn't matter how well 25% do- we can't rise until the 75% have adequate teaching.

These aren't my views, rather thoughts I dont have answers for!

Schools seem to be getting all the responsibility for children's progress, why dont we blame the parents. It doesn't cost a penny to read your child a story every night.

What if grammars had guaranteed entrance criteria that was variable for areas of deprivation, akin to the university system maybe?

If selection at 11 is to early, what about selection at 14, would that be acceptable?

[controversial I know] If current trends continue we will have more graduates in the country than not. What do we do what they demand graduate pay or cant repay student loans?, won't it bankrupt the country. We are currently importing migrants to do jobs the population won't do. Its already happening that, for example, graduate teachers are quitting in droves because they aren't getting paid as much as other graduates.

Like the Olympics if we targeted more resources on students who were capable of great things our country could achieve more. This would benefit the country more than making sure everyone was of a mediocre standard?

Please dont just post an angry response, am just putting the ideas out for productive discussion or denigration!

50 years ago schools depended on catchment areas.
As a very shy, bookish, non sporty girl I was fine in my sec mod with like minded friends in the A stream, but I dread to think how I would have fared in the worst part if the city- my life would have been made a misery.

That is what needs changing. 50 years on your experience of education shouldn't depend on the neighbourhood you live in and we shouldn't be thinking that the answer is to rescue a few. ( knowing the odds are stacked against them).

It doesn't read very well. I meant that 50 years later school experience shouldn't rely on the neighbourhood of the school- everyone should have the best.

fresh so would you be in favour of lottery allocation, or banding, or redistributing funds in such a way that schools with large numbers of deprived/ lower income pupils have far more than schools full of mc/ affluent dc?

Because I can't see any other realistic solution that doesn't require huge increases to the education budget. And yet none of those will be popular, because all those mc voters would no longer be first in line for the better schools.

It's all very well to agree in theory, but would you have honestly been supportive if during your dc's school years the result was half the school staff heading to crap high, to be replaced by the unqualified/ inexperienced/ bad/ mediocre that crap high had in abundance to equal it out?

I have nothing against your last post mathsmum- it makes a lot of sense.

Catching them young, educating the parents, selecting later all make sense. So does targeting money.
We do need to select, according to strengths and a lot of children have strengths that are not academic and get wasted. We just can't select at such a young age, without the child having any say ( and 10 is too young to have a say)

People will play the system lurked if they feel that they are likely to be deprived of a good school. Some parents can't afford it, they are stuck, some don't realise they need to play it and some just don't care.
A lottery system wouldn't work. People would move to a town like mine where there is only one ( I think it is good but no personal experience ) comprehensive - that way you can't be given one you didn't want.

It would be nice if we could stop arguing and think of alternatives that don't involve sorting children at a young age or relegating children to crap schools my puts because they live in a neighbourhood with large proportion of deprivation.

We could look to other countries. My Dutch friend thinks her system is more of a social mix, but I don't know enough about it.

Sorry - the auto spell drives me mad! I think 'my puts' was merely.

Well guess what some sports are 'moaning' because all the funding went to the 25% of sports that could achieve or win medals sounds familiar !

Why should a prospective Olympic Champion get better coaching than a person who wants to lose some weight !. They are both equally deserving in requiring top quality coaching...

We should have schools that place a importance to training people for specific trades ,for instance we could have schools that build 'circuit boards' or teach people to sew buttons on garments . These schools could be run by private companies .

The mission of these schools would be to provide a job for life for the more vocationally minded . In doing so the training schools could create an efficient work force who would enable Britain to become a manufactoring country again and an ability to compete in the global market.

What would enable Britain to compete in a global mass production / manufacturing market would be very low overheads including wages. Not young people chosen from the age of 10 or 11 to enter the button-sewing educational stream.

Or would they be channelled into this vocational stream even earlier? They would have to start quite young, after all, to compete with some of the cheap labour markets?

fresh I went to a crap comprehensive, and for all the social fun, it killed my desire to learn. I still have friends in the area and I've looked it up several times. The only change is that once vocational stuff came in it dropped as many academic choices as it could. Nothing's changed. Same for our local school, apparently it's been crap for decades. As you say it shouldn't be like that but nothing is being done to improve, if anything it is more like they are attempting to make it worse. (Stupid grading systems, driving away teachers, funding etc)

I don't like lottery either, it doesn't work as well out of well populated areas. Same for banding.

Personally I'd do it by funding. While teaching the actual subject requires the same skill, teaching a class full of well supported advantaged dc's who are mainly above average does not have the same difficulty of teaching a class of mixed ability dc with a range of problems.

Ditto pastoral/ support staff. Sen/eal aside, teaching staff at deprived high need a much greater level of back up than they do at leafy high.

Then use those base levels for league tables, grading etc.

The comparison with the Olympics was to propose that if we targeted resources at those most likely of winning in educational terms, as a country we could be the second most successful country in the world and that will have a positive effect on everyone living in it. Yes, others will 'moan' resources aren't spent on them, but isn't the reality that when you spread resource so thin you encompass everyone, then no one wins and we all lose.

You can't be all things to all people.

Countries like the Netherlands might appear to have a 'better' education system but the country has a much higher taxation level than the UK. I see no appetite here for every one to pay more tax. So not sure how that would work.