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

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

Yes westholme takes boys now (fees are £10,000 a year). Qegs is a free academy - test is after the grammar results (ex grammar ex private) both involve bussing out so not popular choices when local choices are so good.

Yes ribble valley same outperforming bordering non selective Blackburn, burnley and Pendle. Much less depravation though. In my experience the grammar acts as a lure for parents. Even if the children don't go to the grammar the surrounding schools are full of children with educationally minded supportive parents.

We did actually think seriously about one private school (though in principal I don't agree with them!) - even with the 50% scholarship which might have been possible, the fees would still have been ten grand a year. Then you've got school trips and all manner of extras on top of that. We both work, but what if, in the next seven or so years, one of us couldn't? I had a health scare last year and the condition is chronic and ok now but could flare up or become worse at any time. DH is overweight and smoked for many years, he is stupidly healthy at the moment but you never know. Our parents aren't getting any younger and may need residential care or for us to look after them. What if DD1 couldn't perform consistently and couldn't keep up with the standards required and lost the scholarship? It's just too much pressure and risk. You not only have to be able to afford it, but it certainly helps to be able to do so comfortably too!

Top 5 'Modern' Schools defined by DFE

1. Waddesdon Aylesbury 77%

1. Wellington Altrincham 76%

1. Bowland Clitheroe 73%

1. Holyfield Kingston 73%

1. Coombe Girls Kingston 73%

The DFE stats obviously can't cope with a partial grammar area which I understand the majority of still with a grammar school areas are other than Kent. One grammar school for miles around does not make the many other schools sec moderns. The intake at the grammar near Bowlsnd has just gone up to 150 from 120. But only take 2/3 from quite a big catchment area - so traditionally about 80 kids from catchment going to grammar. If the grammar didn't exist a decent chunk - half? would go private (£10,000 a year fees we are not in south there are a few private schools locally only stoneyhurst is £14,000-£17,000) some would go to selective state academy qegs in nearby Blackburn. So at best grammar is probably 'creaming off' maybe 30 children spread across 3 nearby comps. So having virtually no impact on the nearby comps hence their results.

Dixie you suggest that because Lancashire has only 4 grammar schools has allowed for the other secondary schools are able to function successfully.

However, if you look at Trafford and Wirral both fully selective areas, with 40 and 25% respectively educated in grammar schools the other secondary schools have also been able to operate successfully.

This therefore means you cannot base evidence on the positive/negative aspects of grammar schools on one LA area such as Kent.

Yes percentage in Lancashire educated in grammar will be a lot lower - do you know the stat out of interest.
On the first thread on here there was a lot of posts to the effect that if you have grammars you condemn the rest to poor performing secondary moderns but that isn't my experience in the area I now live and isn't the case in trafford/wirral.

I don't think anyone has said that all secondary moderns are poorly performing, have they? Not like the selective supporters who appear to regard "comprehensive" and "failing school" as synonyms.........

A quick flick through The Sutton Trust's website seems to show that top comprehensives are as socially selective ie have as few FSM pupils as grammars.

Interesting programme on grammar schools on R4 yesterday here www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07cblx9/episodes/downloads

All the stats and arguments for and against.

nostaples is that part of the More or Less programme on R4? More or Less was excellent - proper analysis of stats, which do show that arguments for increase social mobility with grammar schools is a lie and overall their existence has a negative affect on overall exam results.

I approve of the recommendations of the Sutton Trust for grammar schools.
here

1. Have outreach programmes
2. Give the disadvantaged extra time for preparation to be able to compete with the heavily tutored.
3. Try to make the tests tutor proof.
4. Give priority to children on pupil premium.

I think that number supporting them may go down if it was possible to have a tutor proof exam! It would also test those who maintain that it is a wonderful system for the disadvantaged if the disadvantaged were on a level playing field with their own child!

I would still love to have a simple list of reasons why my two, very different ability sons shouldn't be in the same school.
I was told that I was given reasons, but didn't like them and so ignored them.
I didn't see any. One response was to ask what they did after school and the other was to say 'why couldn't they be in different schools'. They could of course have managed, but I gave the reasons why it was so much better for them to be in the same school.

Well you could just send them to the same school ,if that if your wish !

Nobody has said it would be 'compulsory' for a child who passed their 11+ to go to grammar school.

The parents who have problems with the 'human' rights of the failures or the conscientious objectors can opt out if they so wish...

"I would still love to have a simple list of reasons why my two, very different ability sons shouldn't be in the same school."
Because your higher ability child would be "brought down" by proximity to lower ability children. I thought everyone knew that. Cleverness is an incredibly fragile thing-it needs to be nurtured in isolation. Even standing next to a less clever person in the lunch queue can lose you IQ points. And if you do sport or art or citizenship with a less clever person, the results can be catastrophic.

Of course I wouldn't get them in the same school by sending the high ability one to a school not suited to him! Why on earth would I do that to a child?
My question is why can't they be in the same school that suits them both and teaches to their abilities?

I think that is the answer BR - and why no one will list it!

Bertrand- pot on!

err spot on I mean!!

totheside, it's a different programme though I think it includes the same speaker and stats from More or Less.

What annoys me about this debate is the way it's based on self interest and personal experience rather than evidence or consideration of what is best for all, right up to government level (Michael Portillo very revealing because his support for grammar schools is based on his own experience of his own exclusive grammar school education being 'spoiled' (my word, not his, but it's clear this is how he felt) by becoming comprehensive while he was there - i.e. letting in ordinary people.

This programme is very good for focusing on the evidence.

There are few that would argue that grammar schools are usually great and were great for those who get to go for them. No advantage whatsoever for those who don't, social mobility or society as a whole.

The fact that you or your own child has benefited is not an argument in favour of grammar schools any more than the fact that you have benefited from eating peanut butter means peanut butter should be made compulsory for 25% of the population.

Just listening to some privileged 'public' school educated people pontificating on the ills of the grammar system !.

I chose schools to suit my children- there is absolutely no way that I would send my child who needed separate sciences, top maths teaching and a 6form to a school that didn't give this, to sacrifice him to ideological view points. Neither would I drill the other one to get him into a school where he wouldn't cope.

Again, the reason why the evidence is ignored or glossed over is because people cannot admit to others and often to themselves that their support for grammar schools is about self interest so they argue wrongly it is in the public interest. It isn't.

Spot on nostaples