People who are in favour of grammar schools....

[BertrandRussell]

....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?

It's pretty easy to teach different abilities if you are properly trained and interested in kids. I would go further and say if you can't, then you shouldn't be in the job.

In actual fact the differences between sets can be relatively small within a school. Sets are a bit of an artificial construct.

Looks like I'm not the only teacher not keen on teaching in a grammar:

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-majority-teachers-would-refuse-teach-a-grammar-school

This makes for interesting reading:

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Indeed. Anyone who thinks that the 11+ selects on natural ability is mistaken.

the case of your aunt - this is a really good article by David Willetts which deals with the myth about grammar schools having led to social mobility. Shame that Willetts doesn't seem to be doing much to promote the careers advice and other necessary services that he is supporting here, but the points are well-made. www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/grammar-row-education-system-should-focus-on-social-mobility-argues-willetts

My thoughts on grammar schools - basically don't all our children 'merit' a good education, rather than just some of them? emmabishton.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=600&action=edit

I think there is a lack of understanding about teaching if people think that they can't manage all abilities, or they just want to teach the best.

To answer OP- they basically couldn't care less until their child fails and then they will be very bothered!

They will also be bothered when they have more than one child and they fall either side of the divide- that was terribly common- even with twins.

I think Grammar schools should jump through a few hoops before even considering grammar school status. I have actually changed my mind from being pro grammar to anti grammar.
Point one no grammar school would be placed in the most socially depraved areas. Even if it was would they share their facilities with the plebs in the comprehensive next door?
Point two a points grading system to positively discriminate for the most socially disadvantaged would be impossible to police. Leaving those with attentive parents or parents that can afford tutors an advantage.

The end product would be a leafy grammar servicing the middle class and not the deprived children.

Of course they would, Grikes and that is why those who think their child would get a place want one!

I think that it is 80% of teachers who don't and there will be at least 75% of parents who won't want one. Why would you want your child to swap a comprehensive for a sec mod?

I didn't agree with Margaret Thatcher on most things but she realised that grammar schools were a huge vote loser. I find the link.

IT is here Thatcher wary of political suicide

Here are the 80% of teachers against grammar schools

As a country we can't afford the silly idea of deciding a person's likely future on a test taken when many are still 10yrs old! It is a madness we can't afford- especially when many are trained to the test.

I don't think pro-grammar people will particularly care that teachers are against the proposals because they can be written off as 'enemies of promise'. What should be really concerning to those in favour of opening more selective schools is that Tories that are involved in education are also against this. Gove, Morgan, Greening, Gibb (you can see the latter two's deep unease at this proposal even as they defend it). Gove's former advisor, a staunch conservative, is actively campaigning against it. This is not a Tory education policy, and completely messes up the Tory education plan. It's someone who isn't involved with education sticking their oar in with potentially disastrous consequences.

Theresa May couldn't name an education expert who is for the system.

Actually the system is flawed. It does not aid those that it is supposed to help. In essence it's just another freebie for the middle class. At the expense of the plebs. What should be happening is smart bright children should be encouraged at school to do better. It must be remembered some children do not develop till later. If we have a comprehensive system. Then they can be encouraged to do the best they can.

Then there is the argument that bright children will be dragged down by the less able students. Bright children will do well anywhere if they are encouraged to do so.

Make the lessons more engaging and a comprehensive can be better than a grammar.

Grikes, perhaps you have some insider knowledge about the 'new system'. otherwise how do you know it is flawed etc? Because the 'new system' is still out for consultation, nobody knows what it will be.

Currently if a DC develops their intellect at 13/14 they have ZERO chance to be moved into an academic comprehensive that selects by wealth.

Bright children will do well anywhere if they are encouraged to do so WTF, so why doesn't it happen everywhere now? because all comprehensives are NOT able to!

Make the lessons more engaging and a comprehensive can be better than a grammar. WTF, same answer as above!

I'm not living in a grammar school area so I don't really know about them. Can a grammar be a faith school too .

mathsmum we know the new system is flawed because these schools already exist in parts of the country and the evidence is there. You don't need insider knowledge, you just need to read the articles that have been coming out in the newspaper presenting the facts.

The big claim by Theresa May is that these new grammar schools will improve social mobility. That is demonstrably false.

Maths I cannot see how the new grammar will differ from the old grammar that exists now. So in essence it will be as now a place where the middle class send their kids for a premium education free of charge. The idea is to help the more depraved parts of society a helping hand for social mobility. Will it do that? I'm afraid it won't. So what is the use of it? Votes from the middle class?

noblegiraffe, unless I have miss-heard TM she will not be creating a new binary grammar system like the one we had before and is having a consultation on how to do this. The 'flawed' system you are referring to is the old binary secondary modern/grammar that remains in some parts of the country and unless TM goes back on her word, will not be the new system.

So I don't see how you can can you know it won't increase social mobility. If you have demonstrated anything it is at best tangentially relevant and could in fact help us create a better way of doing things that is beneficial.

m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/lisanelly-campus-is-meant-to-be-a-model-for-shared-education-but-the-120m-question-is-how-much-of-it-will-actually-be-shared-29695744.html
Food for thought

mathsmum there are parts of the country which are not fully selective, just the odd super selective, and we know the poor kids don't get into them fairly either.

I don’t know why people think new grammar school will bring down the standard of all the existing comprehensive school. A good school is really depending on the SLT, teachers and the resource that school have. A few bright students leave, would this make the school fail? I don’t think so. The school will only fail if the SLT isn’t strong enough, the teachers couldn’t deliver the teaching.

The current school system in England is really not fair, children have a better education if their parents can afford a good school catchment house or private school fee.

In my old school days(not this country), the education is totally free, no private school exist. Everyone had to take exam at the end of primary school and junior high school( a common exam in the whole county) and according to the result, you apply to the school you want. So you have 2 chances to switch school(age 11 and 14). The school has rank, there are some very academic ones(like the grammar school here), normal ones and the career school. I think this system allows social mobility. When I went to University, I had classmates from all background. There are lots of bright students from poor family.

I went to a top boarding school in my county, the school actually didn’t have good facilities, as it was in a poor area and didn’t have enough funding. Most of my classmates were from less well family, they worked really hard. However, my school had always got the best exam results for university entry exam.

I visited a few secondary school in England when DS applied, I was so surprised to see the good facilities in every school, every school has the condition to provide a good education. However , the GCSE A*-C in our local school is only 40%-50%. Does the school not have the resource, of course it has. I think the true reason under the bad performance is the attitude. Lots of children don’t know education is important, they don’t care. The school is not strong enough to introduce good decipline.

Mathsmum
"So I don't see how you can can you know it won't increase social mobility. If you have demonstrated anything it is at best tangentially relevant and could in fact help us create a better way of doing things that is beneficial."

International studies across a range of states (most notably focussing on our near neighbours) have proven that selection of this sort not only reduces social mobility (through Human Development Indices) but leads to poorer results overall. In fact the country with the most successful system (Finland) has no selection whatsoever.

So, yes, there is plenty of evidence that selection (however PMTM wants to colour it) has a detrimental effect to social mobility.

mathsmum314 Fri 16-Sep-16 13:14:37 The 'flawed' system you are referring to is the old binary secondary modern/grammar that remains in some parts of the country and unless TM goes back on her word, will not be the new system.

I think you might want to do a little research on the SW Herts Consortium Schools. Apparently they're comprehensives ;-)

Well they admit all 'abilities' (just not very many of them) obviously they only admit them only for legal reasons .

The low ability students must be viewed in the South Hert's Consortium schools with a mix of curiosity and bewilderment as to why they are there .
I suspect the low ability pupils that these schools are 'forced' to take are seen as an occupational hazard.