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

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

Could I be given the other questions that at have apparently ignored and could someone then tell me why my children of different ability needed different schools -in a simple format of 1,2 &3.

I am at a loss to know why parents with high aspirations would choose a school for their child, who showed exceptional ability in maths, that was merely going to let him take exams early and then kick his heels getting bored! Especially since they knew of that ability early in primary and had plenty of school choice.

The Sutton Trust retweeted this Only something that you do if you want your followers to read it.

They are saying that grammar schools do nothing for social mobility and the answer is to improve comprehensives for the most able- something that gets worse if you cream off.

Of course they retweet when someone picks up their findings.

Why is it that when the subject of grammar entrance being unfair is raised, any efforts to change that are derided as 'not enough' 'yes but it hasn't worked' 'it's still hugely unfair' etc etc?

But when it comes to the unfairness in the comprehensive system, those same drop in the ocean minor efforts and a theoretical 'yes it should be improved' is deemed to be acceptable?

Why is it ok to tell say 'yes the comprehensive system should be improved but hey ho, my own dc profits from that inequality so just suck it up till then'. But say the same about the grammar system and it's viewed as a selfish opinion?

Don't we all!! You show me one place where it wants grammar schools all over the country.

Anyway- I give up for the evening. Perhaps by tomorrow someone will have answered my question.

There are a huge number of comprehensives- many of which are doing an excellent job for the very academic.
There are admittedly failing comprehensives, but then not all grammar schools are good!

FreshHorizons
Could someone then tell me why my children of different ability needed different schools.
Lack of resources is one reason - we currently have a severe shortage of qualified teachers especially in subjects such as maths and physics.
Less than a fifth of physics teachers have a specialist background in physics:
www.iop.org/education/ltp/student-teachers/careers/nonphysicists/who/page_50234.html
One in five secondary school maths lessons taught by teachers without a degree in maths:
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/over-one-in-five-secondary-school-maths-lessons-taught-by-teacher-without-degree-in-the-subject-10362300.html

By opening more grammar schools then around 1000 very bright pupils are gathered in one location - you only need 8 or 9 specialist maths teachers and 4 specialist physics teachers to teach them. If the grammar school's catchment area is quite large then these pupils might otherwise be spread across 50 or more secondary schools. As someone has already posted - we need to produce the next generation of doctors, engineers, physicists etc. for the future of our planet.

Also, you do realise that lottery allocation for secondary school places has been suggested (by politicians and on this thread) to try to stop selection by postcode - lottery allocations for school places would mean no sibling priority as per the allocations in Brighton; your dc would only end up in the same school by chance.

No- they are not suggesting it because the present ones are failing the disadvantaged child.

Are you really saying that children of lesser ability don't need a qualified maths teacher?!!
The lottery system would cause massive problems - parents wouldn't stand for it.

The lottery system is a massive vote loser.

All the more reason to have them in the same school. I want my less able child to have a good teacher qualified in the right subject. If we have a shortage I don't see why the less able are the ones to suffer.

I am horrified by the 'my child is the best and he must have the best- other people's children can put up with less than the best'!

"Lack of resources is one reason - we currently have a severe shortage of qualified teachers especially in subjects such as maths and physics."

How this is an argument for grammar schools? It sounds as if you think that only high ability pupils need qualified teachers- but you can' presumably be saying that........?

But unless you think that ( that high ability children are the only ones that need qualified teachers) budgetary restraints point to comprehensive schools.........

FreshHorizons again:

I needed a school where the high ability one was going to be in classes with those aiming for top universities.

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 6th form to a school that didn't give this, to sacrifice him to ideological view points.*

So what you mean is that there is no way that you would send your high ability child to a comprehensive school that did not offer the same standards either but you expect others to do so. Considering that 2000 schools in the UK have never sent even one pupil to medical school I guess that you would reject over half of our country's secondary schools as not suitable for your child as their maths and science teaching would not be up to scratch.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2869395/STEPHEN-GLOVER-does-fact-half-schools-fail-send-pupils-study-doctors-say-Britain.html

Calvinova- your point about qualified science teachers and grammar schools......?

It boils down to wanting the state to provide an education, equal or better, to a private education for free No it doesn't it boils down to wanting the state to (attempt to) provide an education that stretches all children to the best of their ability.

All schools should offer the best possible education to all children whatever their diverse range of abilities and interests Nice idea/soundbite, something to aim towards, but practically impossible in today's system.

My comprehensive only sets for maths and languages (at GCSE), so all this talk about moving up and down sets is nonsense in some schools. For a couple of years we were promised 'differentiation' in class but that has disappeared as it proved to much for teachers (not blaming them). Children working in higher year groups is a timetabling nightmare ie impossible. There isn't enough 'very bright children' (idk what a PC term for that is) to even have a proper top maths set.

So I dont care about the privileged middle class argument that grammars are a way to get a free private education. I want at least partially selective schools that have enough very clever children so they can have a top set. NOT because I want an exclusive education, because I want EQUALITY, the ability for a child to go to school and actually be taught something they dont know.

But there aren't enough specialist maths and physics teachers to go around - hundreds of thousands of pupils are being taught by non-specialists already. It must be more important that our future engineers/doctors/physicists are allocated the specialist teachers (I am certain this happens in every comprehensive school at the moment anyway) - and less important for the future insurance clerk.

Bertrand has suggested a lottery system on this thread.

I believe all children should be taught by a teacher capable of teaching them to the highest level the child is capable of achieving.

My DD2 has just made the maths top set at her grammar. Her, and the rest of the top set would run rings round a maths teacher who wasn't a strong maths graduate. They all got at least a Level 6 in Maths at primary school. Her top set also takes the standard Maths GCSE and the separate Higher Maths GCSE too (at only 12 they are already capable of a pass at GCSE I understand?) and they take a further paper in Statistics (I think).

Whereas, I (who was always weak at maths) could have easily been taught maths by someone with a decent O Level in it

I was never going to be questioning, or querying, or making huge leaps of understanding in maths.

But, again I stress (because I know Bertrand will rush to misquote me) that all children deserve to be taught by a teacher who can competently meet their academic need.