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

[BertrandRussell]

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

They only admit for legal reasons.

random89 speaks truthfully, if harshly, when she says that resources have less effect on grades than effort and leadership. There are too many people in schools (students and teachers alike) whose whole demeanour suggests they can't be bothered.

Obviously, no one on here is guilty of that charge; we might be thought over-invested, as this is at least the sixth thread on the subject running into hundreds of posts recently.

What is clear is that there are significant numbers who cannot grasp or appreciate the purpose of education.

Sorry, pressed post prematurely.

How society might convince such families to 'buy in' to the concept of education would make interesting reading.

The OC and Random make a good point.

There is a massive problem with people not seeing the value in education. I went to a shit-tip school in the North East and I was surrounded by this. The problem is making a clear link to an opportunity at the end of it. If you live in an area where there is almost no prospect of getting a decent career or job, why should you bother?

noble, you are a maths teacher with high IQ. So your dcs are covered.
Only secondary in my town is very shitty. It's likely that I have to send my ds there. It's depressing.
So, news of grammar school seemed like a light at the end of tunnel for me.
(Although I'm sure it won't happen soon enough for my ds.)

Irvine, I don't think a grammar school would cater particularly for your DS either, TBH. I've taught loads of kids who would get into grammars no problem, and they're nowhere near your DS. I think a bursary for a private school would be your best bet.

"What is this premium education you get at a grammar exactly?"

I honestly think half the appeal is that there aren't low achieving low/middle ability kids at grammar schools. Your dc doesn't have to mix with the riff raff.

That's it. It's the appeal of being in a social environment that's the same as an academically private school, but without having to pay.

No, the whole anti argument is based on the evidence that grammar schools are not good for education.

noblegiraffe Fri 16-Sep-16 16:22:10 Irvine, I don't think a grammar school would cater particularly for your DS either,

+1

"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."- Which is why I am in favor of a fairer system. And all anyone else is saying a) lets keep wealth by selection, b) the unfunded un-achieved utopian, lets make all schools good schools

unexpsoc
"the country with the most successful system (Finland) has no selection whatsoever"
What is your definition of success and should we impose it on the UK whether we want it or not? Finland has a lower GDP per capita than the UK, is that success? UK has two and a half Nobel laureates per capita more than Finland, is that success? Are you willing to impose higher taxes to pay for Finland's more expensive system? Banning private schools will also cost a LOT of money, so expect a lot more tax!

Finland's system strives to make everyone equal around the average, they help all up or leave them to float down to that level. So we would have more social mobility at the expense of high achievement. The math in a typical secondary level Finnish classroom is not particularly rigorous or advanced, the topics covered in most classes are not difficult.

Finland doesn't teach pure maths at secondary, it teaches what the UK would call functional maths, coincidentally identical to how PISA measures maths, so they are essentially tutoring for the test. The UK has parents with a desire to maximize academic ability not dumb it down. How is that success?

only that it doesn't advance the disadvantaged as much as would be like.

Er, you mean disadvantaged pupils are even further disadvantaged by a grammar system compared to a comprehensive system. I'm not sure I would call that an 'only', as if it is easily disregarded.

Apart from the fact that selective education hinders social mobility and increases social inequality, there's also the issue that grammar schools then make the schools around them worse. Secondary moderns find it harder to recruit and retain teachers, especially experienced teachers and especially in shortage subjects. They are more likely to be graded inadequate or requires improvement, and more likely to fail to meet floor standards. Then you have the issue of the 11+ being an inaccurate test of ability with thousands of students ending up placed in the wrong school for their ability. Then you have the psychological impact of being labelled a failure at a young age.

Surely schools should be achieving good results regardless of who is in the class

Your 'few children removed from a class' is generally accepted to be the top 20-25% when grammar schools are being discussed. If you want to talk about superselectives, this is not what is being proposed. There doesn't appear to be any restriction on how many grammar schools can be set up in a given area. Try achieving good results (which tends to be seen as attainment rather than progress) when you have a class dominated by low and middle attainers, compared to a class composed entirely of high attainers.

"What is this premium education you get at a grammar exactly?"

I disagree its a premium education, I was just hoping it was an education that challenges everyone to the best of their abilities/desires rather than a national average. Its to late for my DC, so not personal interest anymore. With no direct experience of Grammar schools I still think its better than wealth selection that most MN seem to want.

The real question is, why do parents (I dont know the right way to describe this), with children who are not highly academic want a highly academic education for their children, and why do you think this is some sort of premium? Academics and scientists are not very well paid, so it can't be for the money. This is a genuine question!

Comprehensives disadvantage the disadvantaged on a far wider scale

No they don't. Selective systems do, look at the graph.

And there is a fix for recruitment in secondary moderns - it would require lots of money. Or we could save that money (and the £50 million that's going to be spent on opening grammars) and keep the comprehensive system.

Why is London so high on that graph, from the rest of the country?

Academics and scientists are not very well paid

We're talking about GCSEs here. An Ebacc of GCSEs opens doors to higher paying jobs in a way that BTEC Health and Social care just doesn't.

Personally I have no problem giving teachers a premium pay to teach in 'challenging' schools. Therefore teachers would be keen to teach in non grammar schools.

It's good isn't it, mathsmum. We've got people running the country looking at that graph and saying 'what we need to do is copy Kent', not 'what we need to do is copy London'.

London schools used to be the worst in the country. There have been massive funding increases and stuff like the London Challenge to encourage teacher recruitment. Some evidence also shows that a high immigrant population there leads to better results due to work ethic compared to Brits.

The government has abolished the national pay scales so they can technically say that challenging schools can pay more to attract good teachers. Except there's no money and school budgets are being cut.

Nobel, my DC goes to an average comp which I like but it doesn't do well by him. It doesn't do a single BTEC in anything. Are you telling me that my DC's comp is abnormal and BTECS are the norm in secondary moderns?

Nobel,
OK, so London schools were flooded with money, that is not possible country wide. I don't hear any one saying we should copy Kent, I hear lets NOT copy Kent. I do NOT think flooding the UK with immigrants would be palatable. The immigrant work ethic is possibly the result of abject poverty, not something I suspect you would advocate? I agree cuts are being made in schools but its an amateurs argument to say just shake the magic money tree.