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

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

Why does "stretching the most able" have to be a priority?

They are the norm in my personal experience of over 40yrs. Therefore it is possible.

It you have good behaviour it is a nonsense to say that the high flyer maths students can't be stretched in room 26 but they need to be in a building down the road. All our high quality teachers are not in the 163 schools - they live and teach all over the country!

Surely it is important to stretch those with lower ability? Maybe with a bit of 'stretching' they will become the high flyers.

( I always have a mental picture of elastic!)

Why bert? Most parents of able dc would be more than happy for their dc to just be left to it, it's not a case of demanding somebody actively teaches a-level in y7.

You've said your son is effectively an outlier at his school, and therefore you understand why he might need to do the a/a* work himself. However I'm guessing if they said 'actually bert junior, it's not just the case of leaving you to it, we are only allowing you to access the nc up to pass level, and nothing outside the nc, now sit and listen to me explain stuff you could do years ago', day in, day out, you'd think that was somewhat pointless given it has no benefit to anyone.

I am over 60 and the gap in society is the largest it has ever been in my lifetime.
I can't be the only one that thinks a system where the privileged get the best and the deprived get the worst is fair in 21st century- or I hope not!

Good teaching = the top being stretched. If they are set and behaviour is good you do not need a separate building.
My words get very twisted on here.

Those with lesser ability need to be stretched in a way that fills their needs.

We do go around in circles and I can't see the point in me continuing.

My post of 07:26 is my last word.
Other than we need a new system- not a return to one that failed and was unpopular 40/50 yrs ago.

"However I'm guessing if they said 'actually bert junior, it's not just the case of leaving you to it, we are only allowing you to access the nc up to pass level, and nothing outside the nc, now sit and listen to me explain stuff you could do years ago', day in, day out, you'd think that was somewhat pointless given it has no benefit to anyone"

Yes, of course I would. And if that happened in your child's school then that's nothing to do with the type of school it is (it could just as easily happen in a grammar school) but that it wasn't a very good school.

Incidentally, I have been roundly lambasted on here for my attitude to my ds's potential A*s- but I am happy to stand by it. And I think that pragmatically, parents with proper g&t children should take the same approach. In cash limited times, they should not be a school's priority.

I agree it could happen in a grammar, and probably should have said it was about able provision in general, rather than a reason to prove only grammars would do. I think a 'bad' grammar would be just as wrapped up in pushing the normal able group into a* as a bad comp is in pushing just the close to pass group. But, at the same time, it's a lot easier to provide for a smaller ability range. Which is why I think we need super selectives for the most able, preferably by subject rather than separated across the board. And for the rest, a means of ensuring that either you have enough of each ability to have true setting, or the funding to cope with an outlier in that school.

I wouldn't lambast you for your approach either. I know if dd had gone to a selective prep, or if we had superselective state primaries, she'd have been provided for far better than at a state primary with below average achievement. But I'd do the same again, she's able enough that playing catch up in areas like mfl wasn't a problem. But in many cases when parents want better able provision, it's not the case they won't make that compromise, it's more about complate lack of stimulation, which is the big issue, not grades.

I think you do tend to forget though that not everyone is in your position, or even mine. You might be able to prop up a failing education, with both skill, time and money, I have the skill and limited amounts of the others, and I'm sure we both can provide aspiration regardless of what a school does. But some people have none of those, so when you support the idea of your ds, or my dd being second fiddle, you are also taking away what for some dc is the only thing they have.

It could happen in a grammar too, but it's easier to teach a group with a smaller ability range, so it would likely be only the bad grammar. Whereas a good school might still lack sufficient resources to provide a top set teacher with the skill to teach a broader ability group. Which is why we need superselectives, preferably used by subject rather than all dc attending ft. And comprehensives either need to have a genuine ability range to set properly, or at least the funding to cope with a child that is an outlier in that cohort. Which needn't come from anything but reorganisation. Teaching 30 dc who range from 'working hard for an a' up to 'could start a-level on in y7' does not cost 30x more than providing for one dc at a school where they are a lone outlier, whatever their ability.

You also seem to forget that when you support the idea of your ds, or my dd etc taking second place, you aren't just supporting the idea of them coming behind ultimately disadvantaged dc. You're also supporting the idea that kids with nothing but ability should come behind advantaged middle achievers. And you forget that while you might have a lot of resources to overcome educational shortfall, and your ds has many advantages, people like me have far less, so the advantage of ability is far more important, and other people have nothing whatsoever except ability. You might not mean it that way, but it comes across as though you think because it is a minor sacrifice for you, it is the same for everyone when it's not at all.

It you have good behaviour it is a nonsense to say that the high flyer maths students can't be stretched in room 26 but they need to be in a building down the road.

Fresh I've seen people on Mumsnet who seem to think there's a form of osmosis goes on in comprehensive schools, that the high ability child leaks some of their intelligence when they pass by the lower attaining child.

The remaining 60% would be selected to technical or trade schools via their aptitude in understanding electronics , retail, and other vocational skills such as wearing the correct clothes to a job interview.

Really, I wonder why we work so hard to promote the pro-comp argument when our opponents do it for us so much better?

Sandy you are a plant from Comprehensive Future and I claim my $5

When i make my 'half' joking comments it is as much about taking the piss out of myself as it is about pigeon holing children.

Think of it this way 'ME' a child regarded as generally 'Dum' and better off in a 'special school' and according to my 'Dyslexia ' report (aged 37) graphic speed, writing speed and visual awareness in the bottom 1% of the population.

Not only would i not make the grammar stream , i would not have made the 'button' sewing stream.

The other context Bertrand goes on about is the 'bullying' and abuse that goes on to 11+ failures !

I have for most of life suffered bullying, abuse piss taking and people being in general unpleasant to both me and my family.

Think about my 'younger' sister who had the double whammy at school of having a 'strict' English teacher mother and a 'spaz' or 'retard' of a sister. This meant i was seen as a way as getting to my mother and sister.

As pointed out 'Grammar school' girls can be the most horrid ones using sub contexts leaving me open to abuse without knowing it and thus requiring my sister to protect me!

However, i have put these things behind me and prefer to see things in a 'black' comedy type way by using humor to overcome great stress and hurt.

This is why i find it 'amusing' people (with less than 5% of the issues facing me ) cry about how failing the 11+ 30 years on has scared them for life and effectively limited their chances.

Unfortunately i see things in either 'Black' or 'White' way part of developing life skills in order to cope with life.

Lurked

I think you would find this article very interesting:

headguruteacher.com/2016/08/18/more-grammars-bad-idea-but-selection-has-many-guises/

Pretty much seems to agree with your thinking?

Actually, lurked- I rather expect my ds to do it for himself!

To clarify in a more reasonable and sensible way my suggestion of 'trade' or technical skills is to suggest an expansion of type of UTCs .

This could possibly be from the age of 11 and not just from '14' An expansion of such types of schools could help keep children who are 'bored' and not motivated in conventional secondary schools .

Most importantly it would mean no 'child' was deemed a failure because at 14 they were not able to do 'triple' science or higher paper maths.

These children educated in this way could be 'advantaged' from conventional higher achievers and jump straight in to the workforce at 18 with a 'valued' and needed skill .

While the so called 'advantaged' students would end up with a £50k debt and no job at the end of University.

HPFA, That is a fab link that has been able to explain in greater detail what I have being trying to say.

Quite rightly there should be an open debate about opening more grammar schools but I think the debate should be extended further to cover all selective admissions policies operated by state schools and how disruptive behaviour is managed within the same sector of schools.

I can' t believe the comment about being able to dress correctly for job interviews was taken seriously !

I was going to write 'such vocational skills as being able to cross a road'

but 'Bottled out'.

Humor has a place in all serious discussions ..

The trouble is Sandy that very few jobs exist where you don't need to have academic qualifications. If you're a plumber choosing a new apprentice you're going to pick the one with an A in GCSE Maths rather than the one who knows how to change a washer.

So if we do create a whole lot of new grammars the secondary moderns are going to have to teach academic subjects just as the existing SMs do. And unfortunately data suggest they do so less effectively than comprehensives, especially in poorer areas. Whilst I cheer the fact that at Wellington, Holmer Green, Great Marlow etc students can get their A stars despite failing the 11+ we can't use these few secondary moderns in wealthy areas to justify their wholesale return.