If you're anti grammar schools, then please answer me this:

[Proseccocino]

If your child had a gift for music, then you might send her to a school which excels musically.

If your child had a talent for sport, you might send him to an academy which excels at sport, one where he can really focus and develop in the area in which he is better than his peers.

And so on....!

So, if your child is intelligent, academically gifted... Why is it bad to say you would send her to a selective school where she can study along with other bright students?

If it's OK to separate children according to ability in sport or music or drama or technology, and send them to specialist schools which excel in these areas - why is it a different story if their talent with their academic ability?

Many children don't experience failure until year 6. (With half decent parents they are pretty obvilious about key stage 1 SATs). They still believe that they can be an astronaut or a doctor or a footballer or rock star. They still believe that their dreams are possible with hard work.

There is not clear research that shows that grammar/ secondary modern education is better for the cohort. Maybe we need to look at other ways of stretching and teaching the more able.

Sandy

Please explain what I should say to my son if he doesn't get the score required to go to the school he wants to go to, without making feel like he isn't clever enough.

Given the whole point of the test is to pick the clever ones.

And if the whole school system is designed for the benefit of the 'clever' ones, how do we make him feel like that is not the best thing to be.

All suggestions gratefully received.

When we have a system where all schools push children and all have challenging targets why do some foolish pointy elbowed parents who think grammar schools are somehow better want them back?

I went to a school that had recently stopped being a grammar and was absorbed into the comp system - but retained all the staff and same structure. It was terrible. Any of the local comps - even the worst one in the area - are better than the crap they dished up.

"You really can't say the bottom end need a special school and therefore the top end do too."

Many special schools have a huge range of ablity. Special schools often have a significantly different environment.

The school I worked at some EBD kids who were intelligent IF only they were prepared to apply themselves. They needed a special environment because they were danger to themselves or other children. Often they had been excluded from several mainstream schools and needed an environment with tiny classes and lots of pastural care. Some of these children have suffered horrendous child abuse and LAC children are over represented in this group.

There are children with autism who have senory issues. They find a mainstream class with over 30 children too much to cope with.

There are children who mouth objects and they need an environment that is child proofed. Again these children needed tiny classes and a developmentally appriopiate curriculum.

There children who need their lessons in BSL. Its easier for them to have a teacher who can sign directly to them rather than having to rely on an interpreter. BSL users also like to have a peer group to socialise with rather than being the only deaf child in a mainstream school.

There are children who are long term hospital inpatients for a whole host of reasons. It would be impossible to keep a suicidal child safe in a mainstream secondary school. A child recovering from chemo might need to be kept away from germs.

I feel its wrong to think of any child as stupid. Children can surprise you even if they have severe disablities.

www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/press_brief/Biography_Stephen_Wiltshire.pdf

I bet that Stephen Wilshire can draw better than many grammar school/ private school kids. (Autistic savants are extremely rare and most autistic children do not have an exceptional talent.)

Special schools are funded better and that makes up for the fundermental unfairless in life. Some children are dealt a really shitty hand in life.

zzzzzz But your statement that education is the same at both Grammar schools and the others (in selective areas) is untrue (if you mean they will allow him to achieve to his highest ability)

The actual evidence shows that a 11 plus failure (or equivalent in comprehensive area)will do better in a comprehensive area than in selective area. See fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/

So, the evidence suggests that the Govt, by reintroducing Grammar Schools, is planning to reduce the outcomes for the majority of children in England. Whilst a small minority might do marginally better,. can we afford, as a country, to have the majority of children do worse?

"My point about Special schools was entirely that I DON'T see people wringing their hands about the lack of a different and non aspirational section of society not being in their all serving comprehensives."

Most people apply a bit of common sense. They know that grammar and secondary modern children aren't that different.

Plenty of special school kids do achieve and certainly there are children at schools with aspirations. Sending a child to a special is not about lack of ambition its about getting them an appriopate environment.

A grammar school is not really radically different to a secondary modern in terms of curriculum or teaching style. They sit the same exams... They study the same subjects... Secondary modern children even sometimes go to the same universities.

Tom I would hope that you have already explained to him that the education is the same at both schools and that the test is for the teachers to work out who is going to enjoy and learn the most where. That different schools have different approaches to teaching and that some favour more homework and testing and some less homework and testing and more participation within the school day. Surely you have quite a good idea that he will get in or why take the test?

Except that would be rubbish. The test can't tell who should be educated where. It just tells you how different children performed on a test on a particular day.

Nobody believes that the test is tutor proof. Evidence clearly shows that it isnt able to pick out bright but disadvantaged children.

And again, children in grammar school areas who don't go to grammar schools do worse than equivalent children in comprehensive areas.

There is no way to pick out a child at 11 and define their abilities with a test. There wasn't in 1952 and there isn't now.

Goodness such rage at a difference of opinion on the hows and whys of school selection.

Opinions need to be supported by evidence to have value. There simply isn't the evidence to show that grammar schools do anything other than give some parents another differentiating hoop to jump through, with little overall effect on achievement.

Parents have a duty to do what is best for their children. But government policy should make sense and not just be an expression of nostalgia.

I think that it IS true in many areas (including mine) and that if it ISN'T
that's what the problem is.

No, it really isn't. Fully selective areas do no better overall and there is far less social mobility.

Because some areas have stayed fully selective, we really do have the evidence to show that they don't work.

The last school I worked at was a specialist language college before it became an academy. Our language results results were shockingly bad so I questioned why this was - they wanted the funding to try and improve the atrocious results! It didn't work. So I think the idea that people have a choice to send their child to a school that will boost them in a particular area is a fallacy anyway. The only people who support grammar schools are those who are confident their children would get in. Would you really want your child in a secondary modern? Or are you rich enough you would send them private if they didn't get in, as I know many do?

zzzz On reflection the thesis of Grammar Schools as akin to Special schools might work for allowing a few super selectives (who take a tiny % of very high scoring children from a very wide geographic area). The research I referred to is very much based on the more standard Kent/Buckingham Grammars who take 20% plus.
However, will you Teresa May types be satisfied with such a few of even Mumsnet's type parents kids wont get in? Plus the pupil premium numbers of places like Colchester Royal Grammar School are tiny; and the ex- private school numbers very high. So the social mobility aims very unlikely to be met.

Areas like Kent and Buckinghamshire where there are a high proportion of grammar schools don't do better overall than other areas and have much less social mobility.

Areas like Kingston have super selectives, but they are so selective that you can still be heading for Oxbridge and fail the entrance exam. A smaller percentage of local children attend. Many will come from outside the borough. It's not so easy to ascertain their affect.

However, will you Teresa May types be satisfied with such a few of even Mumsnet's type parents kids wont get in? sorry horribly garbed question... rather it should be:
However, will you Teresa May types be satisfied when such a few of even Mumsnet's type parents kids get in?

Bertrand I mentioned special needs schools. Well, I didn't actually. What I said was that we need inclusive education and gave an example that special needs units within a mainstream school can and do successfully educate children in an inclusive manner. I think that children who are exceptionally intelligent should be able to access extended learning activities....within the comprehensive system.

I don't have rage but I realise that good education for all children is good for society. I don't think that my bright teenager deserves better education at the tax payer's expense when other children are left floundering. I believe all children deserve excellent schools, not just the top whatever percent. I don't believe that creaming off children of parents who can afford private schools and tutoring is the way to do it.

Maybe you could find some evidence to back up what you believe zzzz?

zzzzz Mon 12-Sep-16 10:33:40 I think part of the problem, is I really wasn't aware that Kent/Buck where the more standard, because of course here they aren't grin

Which other areas are full Grammar areas?

Genuine question as, from what I can tell, not many areas are full Grammar i.e. taking the top 25% of the children within the local area.