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

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

Or even last year. I gave the link to this year.

They wrote that before the suggestion of more grammar schools and now they are not advocating more- they are very clear that they do nothing for social mobility.

They are giving very sensible suggestions to level the playing field for existing grammar schools- I gave the list this morning.

They also have suggestions for improving the comprehensive schools that need it.

I must go- can't believe the time that I am wasting! I resolved to keep off thread 3 and have failed miserably!
I will look back tonight to see if anyone has managed to give me an answer in simple points.

Some people will not be happy unless state schools offer every single high ability child a completely custome made curriculum with individual teaching for all subjects. However, the moon on a stick is not available.

If a year 9 child is working at year 12 level for Maths, what's wrong with him working with the year 12s? He will still be with his peer group for other subjects.

Why is it the studies don't show that social mobility was the product of grammar schools - they show it was due to an expansion in white colour jobs in the 50s and 60s.

I didn't go to a grammar school and I just don't understand the demonisation of the comprehensive system. I was in all the top sets, that was fine, we got harder work - is there a suggestion that to get on, some kids need to be completely removed from mixing with all the other children? That suggests a very fragile intelligence.

My friend is excellent at arts/social sciences (top of her year at RG uni) but terrible at maths and mathematical sciences - would she have even got into a grammar?

To me it makes no sense to remove what seems to be a sensible level of flexibility from the system.

Am sure this has been discussed to death but whether kids can easily access exam support or not isn't relevant if the least advantaged aren't getting the same help to do so as the other children. Grammar school pupils are far more likely to have previously attended private primary school (my friend's neighbour in Kent is just doing this) and the number of kids on free school meals is far lower than the overall average for the area. Wage inequality is greater in grammar school areas.

If you want to enhance social inequality and reduce still further social mobility then bring back grammar schools. Just don't pretend you are doing bright poor kids a favour.

"Socially a bright kid working with teenagers several years older is no better than a kid working with teenagers several years younger."

That is patently untrue. There is no stigma or sense of failure in working with older people- rather the opposite.

Why have you gone back 6 years WellyWife. Umm. March 2015 was just over a year ago. Things haven't changed that much in a year. Plus with house prices rising as fast as they have I suspect that those top London comprehensives are as socially exclusive as they were 6 years ago.

There is no stigma or sense of failure in working with older people- rather the opposite.

While a Y9 might be able to keep up with Y11s in a school environment they will probably fall between two stools socially. Too young to go to 16 year old parties, not included with DC of own age.

Thanks stripedsocks. That's my interpretation too

"While a Y9 might be able to keep up with Y11s in a school environment they will probably fall between two stools socially. Too young to go to 16 year old parties, not included with DC of own age."

We were talking about one subject. I agree that accelerating for all subjects is damaging.

On Monday, as the world of education absorbed the news that May’s new Tory government is about to open the way for greater selection, Sir Peter Lampl, the founder and chair of the Sutton Trust, called for a wholesale rethink. “The government is right to recognise that there is a serious issue about the education of highly able young people from low and middle-income backgrounds.

“Given that there have been 35,000 extra grammar school places since 1997 – and our evidence suggests the existing 163 grammars are largely very socially selective – we need a proper strategy rather than a piecemeal approach.

“That means a national drive to improve education for the highly able in comprehensives, backed by fairer admissions policies in urban schools. It means boosting access to the existing grammars for less advantaged young people. And it means opening up the 100 leading independent day schools on the basis of ability rather than ability to pay.”

That is from August 2016. So it includes boosting access to existing grammars not getting rid of them and I mproving comprehensives because they aren't getting it right for the highly able.

They're not suggesting a 100% comprehensive system.

Damn. Forgot the quotes again!

The massive report from 2008 "Social Selectivity of State Schools and the Impact of Grammars".

"This study shows that the vast majority of England's most socially selective state secondary schools are non-grammar schools. However, England's remaining grammar schools are enrolling half as many academically able children from disadvantaged backgrounds as they could do.
The research also concludes that the impact on the academic results of non-grammar state schools due to the ‘creaming off’ of pupils to grammar schools is negligible. Grammars have a widespread, low-level, impact on pupil enrolments across the sector. A relatively small number of non-selective schools do see a significant proportion of pupils ‘lost’ to nearby grammars, but this does not lead to lower academic achievement."

Yes, that was 8 years ago, but we have a similar number of Grammar schools now as we did then. And it seems to debunk the myth that Grammars have a negative impact on other schools nearby.

Wellywife the Sutton Trust has always been supportive of grammar schools as I've said repeatedly and been ignored repeatedly, so the quote is useful! Their focus has always been on the issues surrounding access and obviously the work of all those heading up grammars is done collaboratively with bodies such as the Sutton Trust. For some reason the anti grammar posters on these threads cherry pick out of Sutton Trust reports but the support for grammars - with the caveat about access - has always been there.

The research that no one disagrees with is that the biggest influence on a student's success are parents. That is clearly evidenced on here. Parents who do everything to get the best education possible. It is why that even in schools in special measures, there are often a few pupils getting strings of A*s. To get into a grammar school now is rarely a case of sitting an exam, most have to do some preparation, and parents have to negoiate the system e.g. early registrations etc.

However the success/lack of success for our most able is in part down to Ofsted itself and our exam system and also how Ofsted measures success. Ofsted up until recently have really focussed on data and there has been a big focus on the C boundary, and as potentially one set of poor results can end a head/SLT career, it is no surprise they have focussed on the middle/low achievers.

But the one big flaw in the plan is that we measure progress from KS2 SATS, these are criterion marked e.g. get the question right for that and you get the level. Results (up until this year) have risen and no one seems to go on about grade inflation. However move to GCSEs and the picture changes, if every child who achieved a level 5 made expected progress then 48% (2015 statistics) would be expected to get A/A, (in 2015 16.5% achieved A/A.) The media/government would never allow this to happen, calls of grade inflation etc.

So, we need an exam system/way of measuring progress that doesn't put a ceiling on achievement and allows only a certain percentage to gain the top grades which our current one does. Grammar schools aren't the answer here. A better way of identifying our top pupils, I would argue that success in two subjects that are closely coached at KS2 isn't the best measure. More training for teachers in order to help identify their top pupils and how to challenge them and an inspection regime that looks closely how pupils are challenged (in all subjects as well as the academically able) and encouraging more schools to work together to provide stretch and challenge and opportunities. The training is particularly important, and also then time to implement it. This would benefit all schools and pupils rather than just spending money on opening more grammars for a select few pupils.

How does getting a level 5 (I didn't think that existed any more) equate to A* at GCSE? Surely there will be subjects they have never encountered before at primary school which they may not enjoy so not perform well in and kids develop strengths and weaknesses with age.

I was always affected by whether I liked the teacher of the particular subject as much as the subject itself.

Another '50000 to 60000' more grammar school places or the equivalent of
creating 60 to 70 new grammar schools would 'dilute' the tutoring industry.

This could address the belief that the only way in to grammar schools is through tutoring.

The 163 grammar schools in the England make up approximately 5% of the '3000' plus state secondary schools and educate about 4% of all secondary school pupils!

Clearly at present there are not enough grammar school places, available hence the desperate scramble for the very limited no of places via tutoring.

The argument that selecting a high no roughly a (20-25%) percentage destroys schools around them can be contested by the successes of both Trafford and Wirral LA !

Just because a system has 'social' problems in a couple of the ten areas where grammar schools are available, does not mean every selective area is effected similarly.