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

[BertrandRussell]

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

2StripedSocks: I would agree that a good comp stretches high ability pupils. I mean a good comp, not an Ofsted 'good ' category.

The schools listed in the Golden post are all Ofsted 'outstanding ' as it happens, and there are at least 3 other comps geographically between and next to those named which I could name that are good in real terms.

How is it controversial to say that if a comp delivers a good education to its high ability students (amongst others) then it is a good school? Such comps do exist , without selective streams, as evidenced by the stats posted by GoldenBeagle.

I would say though that there are other comps also nearby that have much lower overall statistics. But all that I know of do push as much as possible, and actually do well in terms of the intake.

Why not fix comps, support good teachers to deliver rich curricula (not the crap that is the by rote teach to the test current GCSE league table driven curriculum), support kids to develop and be able to move sets as required?

I don't think our education provision is functioning as well as it should, but more of its problems will
Be fixed by ensuring good education in a permeable, flexible school (comps), than airlifting a certain section of children out into an isolated, non permeable, seperate building.

The quote by a PP about solutions explains what is going on exactly , I think.

Latin or Mandarin on page 24, Bertrand.

Yet B Tecs are a good qualification and the fact that they don't get the recognition they deserve is because of our dismal attitude towards vocational education - it's for the thickies, not for people who want to be CEOs of a PLC. The tradition of the Gifted Amateur lives on. Although one such Gifted Amateur, namely Cameron, has just made a spectacular mess of things.

We have lots of GS's by us and the local high schools are very poor. It's really concerning for me as without tutoring my DC will have to go to the local high schools.

When you say the local high schools are "very poor" do just check that you aren't going by results alone. Remember that a high school can be an excellent school but not look good on paper because they just don't have the cohort to get stellar academic results.

Obviously, some are pretty crap. But many aren't.

Why is it assumed that children who are not academic will be vocationally gifted?

I'm always puzzled by this one too. The 11+doesn't test for vocational abilities (whatever they are) so how does failing it prove you have them?

No Bertrand you didn't answer at all previously, other than to say you were very worried and what else did I expect you to say. Well, since you're asking others on this thread of yours how they would model an alternative for the lower ability kids in an area with grammars, I think it's right that you tell us, given your knowledge of the new reforms and a lower ability setting, what you'd like to see instead - because the reforms aren't going to be shelved anytime soon. The problem with what you think is a response to my question is that it's actually merely a complaint, or soundbite. There are no suggestions from you about how best to serve the interests of lower ability kids in the new era of reformed GCSEs, no vision at all - just a bit of a rant about the government. I think you're too fixed on the idea of all ability settings and too unwilling to move from that position to see that lower ability kids need something different, and soon.

"Why is it assumed that children who are not academic will be vocationally gifted?"

I don't think most people really believe this. I think it's just a way of justifying the process. If you kid yourself that le autres are actually happier and better off being educated away from the high fliers then you don't have to think about it any more.

Don't be put off by the fact this is the Guardian - it's excellent

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/08/the-guardian-view-on-grammar-schools-the-wrong-answer-but-the-right-question

Did anyone catch NewsNight last night? They had a piece on brining back selection. During the piece they showed a graph with student GCSE attainment on the Y axis and family earnings on the X axis. The nations' children were plotted as were just the children in Kent. It showed that poorer children definitely had worse results in Kent.

I am sympathetic to grammar schools, but I thought this was compelling. I would like to see a chart like that showing Northern Ireland vs. England. I would like to satisfy myself that it is not just the case that Kent is doing a lousy job, or that the Kent/London border is clouding the picture.

@mummymeister "
a thread about grammar schools always seems to assume that its rich middle class kids that go to them. in my case, going to grammar school was my way out of poverty. we couldn't afford private school fees. we couldn't afford to move to a naice house in a catchment area for a naice school. going to grammar school gave me the opportunity to be academic and to learn. without it I know where I would be."

Totally this ^^
We are in the same situation where we can't afford to move to a good catchment area and the local senior school's results are shockingly bad. Rich parents moving to better catchment areas is a similar situation IMO to parents tutoring for grammar schools.

however, it's wrong to ignore experts and if my DC failed the 11+ then we'd be in an even worse situation.
This article is excellent - www.thetimes.co.uk/article/return-of-grammars-would-be-disastrous-warns-ofsted-chief-js08l9nvx?shareToken=79a8212c71d43ed7d1eef72f03444098

Academic success so often comes down to having parents who value education/training. There's room for that in the current system.

Goodbyestranger- that's probably because I don't know. I don't think, by the way, I mentioned the government in my reply did I?. I regret and resent very much the systematic undermining of the BTecs- I think they are an excellent thing for lower ability kids- and for some higher ability ones too. I think that linear, non course work GCSEs will impact disporoprtionately on lower ability kids and the schools who teach them. I think money and effort should be put into proper apprenticeships.
But at a risk of being accused of ranting, the undermining of BTecs and the pushing of academic GCSEs is what happens when you have the mind set that higher ability children matter more than lower ability ones, and their needs should take priority with everyone else fitting in. And, if I can mention the government, it happens when the government has its eyes set on the votes of the middle classes. The same applies to this grammar school green paper. Middle England will be delighted.

This...
As a pp said if comps are failing the brightest pupils then there would be far fewer comp pupils going off to university. This is obviously not the case and according to the Sutton Trust they actually do better than grammar school pupils with higher A level grades when they get there.
Justine Greening sounded unconvinced by her own reasoning on Radio4 this morning, I wonder if she knew this was on the cards when she accepted the SoS job?

Nothing wrong with mentioning the government since obviously this is all about government policy!

I completely agree about BTecs and apprenticeships.

It's an honest answer Bert but a more rounded one would be better! The issue is how best to serve lower and higher ability kids especially given the wall facing lower ability kids with the reformed exams. That issue won't go away by all ability teaching - that's a separate argument altogether and probably not the most urgent.

I'm pro grammar schools and would send my children to one of they passed their 11+. I think if your are exceptionally bright then you do better with a similar cohort of children. I can't see the problem really with children who don't get in. Their education will continue in the way it does now. I can see overall comprehensive grades may go down on average if lots of grammar schools open but this is only because the brighter children aren't bringing the average up. The rest of the children will still have an education.

Michael Wilshaw's article was good, and he is no Leftie by any means.

It has been noticed that coastal towns are often doing badly educationally. I notice that one commentator pointed out that such towns are full of B & Bs filling up with the homeless moved out of cities. I have never made the connection before. Quite honestly, banging a grammar in in such a place won't help them; providing the chance of decent housing and work might offer better life chances. But for all her rhetoric, I don't believe that May wants social mobility.

The issue is how best to serve lower .. ability kids.
This is an issue which is not being addressed with the grammar school debate. There have been a number of good reports over the years about what to do with technical and vocational education, and neither Labour nor Tory Governments have wanted to know.

"That issue won't go away by all ability teaching"

Who's advocating all ability teaching?

I'm in S London and know the schools mentioned above well. In danger of outing self, but we are in the middle of 3 outstanding comps. Would have been delighted with any option, especially the nearest - 1 km from our house. They all stream.

We were 120m too far away, so DC was allocated a much poorer school, further away. It does not believe in streaming and they want a good mix of abilities in each class. I do not believe this would suit my (bright) DC.

I believed the State system would work for us, but it hasn't. My mistake was thinking the Grammars were too far away and not applying.

If I was PM I would have more Dunravens and Graveneys (good streamed comps, with in G selective stream), and phase out other schools. I wouldn't go for more new Grammars - but by god I wish we'd sent him to the existing grammar.

I think if your are exceptionally bright then you do better with a similar cohort of children.

The thing about that argument is that grammar schools aren't the only way to achieve that. Banding is a far fairer/ better model - so if you don't know, all the kids in the borough take tests in yr6. They're then allocated a band (A-D) and each of the secondary schools in the borough have to take 25% of their intake from each band. So that means no school is able to cream off all the bright kids, as there's a ceiling on how many they can admit. Each school has similar numbers of kids at all abilities and as a parent you know that whatever school your child goes to there will be other kids working at their level.

Also the kids don't feel labelled or stressed by the banding. Most of them don't have a clue what the tests are for and they're not even told what band they get, though I think you can find out. That mean's nobody's labelled at 11 or feels like a failure as they failed a test to get into a school. It's fairer and the schools know they have the whole range of abilities to cater for.

Another argument against selection, but what about the average child? So say your child's middling when they leave primary school and fails to get into a grammar school. Most in a grammar school area would argue that's fine, as they would have struggled at the grammar school, and are probably right in lots of ways, but kids don't develop evenly and so shouldn't be labelled at 11. Some blossom academically later on. So if that same middling kid starts his secondary education in a comp with kids of all abilities and suddenly clicks academically, they can then move into top streams and work with the higher attainers/ be more easily stretched. They can't do that if all the more academic kids are hived off into another school

They used to have 'bilateral' schools where the grammar and Sec Mod were in the one building. The Catholic secondary in my town was one of these. I think there weren't enough Catholic pupils to support two separate schools. I have no idea how they worked out in practice, or how much movement there was between the two streams, but at least you couldn't tell by looking at the children which were which, because they all wore the same uniform.

If you live somewhere where your children can go to a 'good' comprehensive you have a totally different view of comprehensives than someone cannot send their children anywhere apart from a bad comprehensive, unless they were baptised Catholic (there very few Catholic Churches here, but so many Catholics) or are rich enough to move or go private.

I went to a crappy comprehensive. We didn't even have sets for all the lessons (something to do with GCSE choices meant that we had a mixed ability class for Science and French). I struggled and worked so hard to get my GCSEs and achieved them despite the school and not because of it. Bright children do well anywhere? Maybe, but I truely believe my school held me back (as well as giving me mental health problems). Yes, comp school children go to uni, but their are comp schools and comp schools. I think there were about 5 out of my year group who went to uni at all. So many more would have been able to if they had been give a chance and their schooling was ruined by a desire for a one fits all equality.

I don't know if Grammer schools are the way- idealogically they feel wrong- but I hate being preached at about how wonderful comprehensive schools are by people who didn't have the crappy experience of comprehensives themselves and whose children don't face going to the same crappy comprehensive themselves.

Bertrand all ability schools, not teaching. My bad but same point.

I have a DD at grammar. Several children have left as they struggle with the rate of the work . They were taught to pass the 11 plus exam.
My other DD is at the local academy and has several friends there who passed the 11 plus but decided to go to academy and are doing very well.

HPFA Fri 09-Sep-16 08:08:02 According to the Telegraph there could be hundreds of new grammar schools rather than 20 or so

So has anyone asked where the money will come from for all these new schools?

Has anyone asked what will happen to those schools who can no longer fill all their places due to a number of local children going off to the new Grammar school. What level of undercapacity will see comp./sec.mods. close leaving those kids who didn't make the 11 plus cut even worse off than ever before.

If the money is there to allow all these new Grammar Schools to be set up, why are current schools seeing their budgets cut year on year?

Burntheblacksuit, not sure anyone's preaching, but you're of course, there are crappy comps. But that doesn't mean they can't be made good. The fact that there are good comprehensive schools out there shows it can work. So why not put time and effort into doing that, rather than starting new schools and creaming off the brightest into grammar schools? How is that ever fair?!