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?

haybott Thanks :-) I don't have much knowledge of the various education systems around the world.

Why can't every child have the opportunity go to an academic school which has great facilities and tuition for music, sports, art etc? Perhaps they already do. They're called Comprehensives......

Germany's school system has been condemned by the United Nations for perpetuating social inequity. Fierce resistance to getting rid of the system there by the parents of the kids most likely to get into the Gymnasiums.

So I am hearing it would be better to have access to UTC's at 11 rather than 14, as Germany does?

If our country is short of science graduates then maybe its because we are not pushing our gifted academics anymore.

haybott, perhaps I am misunderstanding. If a student doesn't repay their loan its written off, yes. But the universities still need money, so tax payers pick up the tab? Are you saying the tooth fairy pays theses loans off?

God no, don't funnel kids into UTCs at 11. The international evidence clearly shows that the earlier you select kids, the worse it is for social equality.

All the poor kids get sent to the UTC to learn a trade, all the middle class kids get sent to the school for an education.

What we should have is a broad academic education for all, till 16. The potential for some vocational training alongside an academic core at 14 is fine, but fgs don't close doors to kids that early. From my knowledge of kids who do work experience placements etc, before 16, it's crap because they don't have the insurance to do much of anything.

ok noblegiraffe I accept you want the best for all, but what happens what there isn't jobs for everyone yet you import migrant to do jobs, when everyone is over qualified, but no one is qualified for the average jobs. When the state doesn't have more money for for eg health care because all the gifted wealth creators go somewhere they are appreciated?

Does that make people happy?

What on earth makes you think that a handful of academic GCSEs makes someone overqualified to do average jobs?

It's bizarre, it's like you're arguing that comprehensive education is producing too well educated children, so we have to somehow ensure that a large proportion of the population receive a crappier education so that we have enough fruit pickers.

If our country is short of science graduates then maybe its because we are not pushing our gifted academics anymore.

Again, academics are researchers in higher education institutions. You don't mean this word (and I'm not really sure what you do mean).

The country is short of science graduates in part because of poor science teaching at school (shortages of teachers), poor careers advice, a culture of not studying science, lack of understanding that STEM careers pay well. Many, many reasons. But not pushing bright children is not believed to be the issue, according to most reports on this subject.

yet you import migrant to do jobs

I would suggest that you look up some real data. Two thirds of the EU citizens living in the UK are degree educated. EU citizens are considerably more likely to work in graduate level jobs than UK citizens.

There is NO unskilled non-EU immigration allowed. A work visa from outside the EU is only possible for skilled workers earning considerably over the average wage. Most employers do not have the rights to sponsor work visas for workers from outside the EU.

What are we talking about anyway, "gifted academics" or "the top 25%"?

Mumtryingtodoherbest - I am going to support Howabout in her statement that "It is not my experience that DC are exclusively academic, artistic, musical or sporty."

This is not rare.

I know many kids at ds' school who are extremely talented at various sports (representing the school at swimming, running, rugby, gymnastics, doing other sports outside school like cycling, doing well at a national level too) yet who are also in the top sets for English and Maths and get excellent exam results.

Ds is one of the them - doing well in his exams but also a committed (and talented if I say so myself ) sportsman, training or coaching (passing on his skills) 5 days a week.

I also know kids from the school who were in top sets who have won places at highly competitive Art Schools. Ditto with talented musicians and actors.

The school is very proud of its highly mixed demographic of its pupils (from the offspring of millionaires to asylum seekers and children who literally don't know where the next meal will come from), how it ensures that no one loses out because of financial constraints (supported in this by its Parent Teacher Council) and how it copes with the 54 languages spoken by pupils at the school.

The school strongly encourages the development of rounded individuals: so while it expects a lot from its pupils, it doesn't concentrate on exams to the detriment of sports, artistic efforts and contribution to society (ie volunteering). It is its experience that such kids will be more successful in the long term (very low drop out rate in the first year at Uni, for example).

I also see ds' friends (from his rugby and cycling clubs) at other schools across the city and surrounding area, doing similarly well at both sports and exams.

The difference that howabout and I share is that we both live in Scotland where we have had a truly comprehensive system for c40 years.

Despite - or because - of this, in Scotland we have a lower proportion of pupils in private schools. The only exception is Edinburgh where it is arguable that the high proportion of private schools creams of the best kids and creates a self-perpetuating market . Just like grammar schools

noble - maybe it's all part of a long term plan to deskill the workforce and replace the Polish cleaners and fruit pickers when we leave the EU...

prettybird Tue 13-Sep-16 09:31:08 Mumtryingtodoherbest - I am going to support Howabout in her statement that "It is not my experience that DC are exclusively academic, artistic, musical or sporty."

So you are saying that the majority of children in Grammar Schools are both academic and sporty or academic and musical or academic and arty?

I wonder if this rings true for the likes of QE Barnet?

Why can't every child have the opportunity go to an academic school which has great facilities and tuition for music, sports, art etc? Perhaps they already do. They're called Comprehensives....

I have mixed feelings about grammar schools, but people really shouldn't be complacent about comprehensives in poorer areas. Here's a quote from a teacher (apologies for length) commenting in the Guardian CIF:

I'm unsure how I feel about this but I'm not dismissing it completely. Comprehensive education is broken in many parts of the country including Stoke where I used to work. Poor but intelligent kids, unless they are in a very well behaved top set or have a hard as nails teacher, face having a poor education. Even those kids don't set their sights high as they have little competition so think they're geniuses thus slacking off and their friends aren't often ambitious so don't encourage them.

I have seen many children that have wanted to learn but can't because of the terrible behaviour of the minority or sometimes majority. This can destroy students chances or lower their expectations. I've seen head teachers walk past awful behaviour and ignore it. I've heard them shout pitifully down corridors for Kates and Dylans to come back. I've heard them make excuses such as 'these kids are different' or ' they come from x area'. I was even in one place where the head told me to 'make friends' with the kids. At least they went into special measures.

Unless we can ensure good behavioural standards and consistency in school culture then grammar schools may yet have a place in education. Too many weak heads allow schools to be pits of lost ambition. I, for one, wouldn't send my own child to any school in Stoke apart from one elective school as behaviour and achievement are excellent. These schools tend to have no clue how to improve apart from to game results, fudge data or cheat on coursework. It's depressing to watch. Why are they so scared to fix what really matters? Like behaviour.

I don't think it's at all surprising that some poorer parents of bright children, faced with such schools, favour bringing back grammars. Even if you disagree, I think it's important to recognise the problem, rather than imagining that all comprehensives are good.

But why attempt a solution which will only 'rescue' a minority of those kids? It's important to the country that we have a literate and numerate population but this proposal does nothing for the middle attainers who are automatically excluded who want to get their heads down too and get vital passes in English and Maths. Do we just say 'screw them, at least Johnny, who was already going to pass his GCSEs now has a chance of some A*s'?

Why look to Kent for a solution and not London where schools are now the best in the country after years of being crap?

I agree we should look at London or at least do some research to see what works and what doesn't.

It pisses me off that radical change can be made on a whim of whoever is in charge. We don't tell doctors and nurses how to organise hospital wards so why should selection in education be introduced?

No mumtryingherbest - I'm not saying that. You've completely missed the point of my post.

I'm saying you can't filter (or select) on just one of those attributes. I'm say that there are schools that cater for any and all of them at the same time.

They're called comprehensives .

There are kids who are good at sport who aren't in the top sets for English and Maths. There are kids who are good at sport who are in the top sets for English and Maths. There are kids who aren't good at sports who are in the top sets for English and Maths. There are kids who are in the top set for English but are in the bottom set for Maths. There are kids who are in the top set for Maths but really struggle with English.

Ditto for music. Ditto for art.

And funnily enough the school copes** and the pupils thrive.

But why attempt a solution which will only 'rescue' a minority of those kids?

Desperation? (At least on the part of poorer parents.) Teacher training colleges have neglected behaviour management for a long time (see Carter review), or have told trainees that children will behaved provided that lessons are 'engaging' (i.e. dumbed down). And SLT then use that argument as a stick to beat teachers with. Similar views include the notion that children never misbehave unless they have SEN or are traumatised, and that no child should ever be permanently excluded. Guardian Education ignores or dismisses the problem; TES might be better now, I don't know. Ofsted claims behaviour isn't a problem and is mostly good; they won't visit schools unannounced to see what they're really like. What levers does the government have to change these attitudes?

Why look to Kent for a solution and not London where schools are now the best in the country after years of being crap?

There is a strong argument that the main reason for London schools improving is the influx of immigrant families with a strong ethos of working hard at school. But yes, I would rather see, instead of grammars, more schools like Michaela in poorer areas. But given the opprobrium with which the loudest voices in the education world view Michaela, what chance is there of that?

"But yes, I would rather see, instead of grammars, more schools like Michaela in poorer areas. But given the opprobrium with which the loudest voices in the education world view Michaela, what chance is there of that?"

Do rich people choose to send their children to schools like Michaela? Again is it choosing schools for other people's children.

I would like schools to be more socially diverse and children with extreme behavioural problems in seperate units/ schools. Every child deserves a place in a good school. No child should have their lessons ruined by distruption.

I feel the best way of ensuring a good school for EVERY child is to improve choice. This means more schools and more school places.

Do rich people choose to send their children to schools like Michaela?

Yes, in that Michaela says it has a private school ethos, and it resembles a private school (or perhaps a good comp in a wealthy area) in many respects. For example, excuses for not doing homework are not accepted. The biggest difference is the tighter discipline; however, that comes from the headteacher having previously seen many children at her former school sucked into street culture, and stopping trying in school, due to peer pressure and the poor discipline in school that prevented learning. Wealthier families do not normally face such challenges.

Obviously Michaela wouldn't suit everyone, but it is over-subscribed, so it is giving some parents what they want. I don't think that suggesting there should be more similar schools amounts to "choosing schools for other peoples' children" I mentioned it, however, as an appropriate non-selective alternative to grammar schools, as a way of offering a strongly academic education to those who aren't able to attend private schools or a good comprehensive.

And yes, given the choice, if there was a school like Michaela in our area, I think my children would have been much better off there than in our local comprehensive.

I haven't heard any realistic suggestions on how all comprehensives will ever be able stretch and challenge academically gifted children, other than giving them a lot more money. Which we don't have.

Also all these negative comments are referring to the old grammar system. From what I have heard on the news it won't be the same binary system with secondary moderns. So until we see details of the proposal I dont know how posters are writing it off.

I identified with some reasons, on another thread, that could explain why some comprehensives are letting down the gifted academic students.

Top set teacher gets switched into another room to help those who need it more and yet another cover lesson is arranged.
The top set is very big to allow the bottom set to be very small.
Misbehaving children (from lower sets) are regularly parked in the top set as punishment and the whole class is disrupted for rest of lesson.
Several lower set pupils, who cant keep up with the work, are moved up to boost their confidence and end up taking up all the teachers time.
Little provision of extra curricular G&T things because its easier to provide for the average pupil which gives the message that the needs of the most able are just very low priority, pretty much permanently last in the queue.
I have actually heard this said by more than one teacher, "I won't bother setting/marking any homework this time because I know not everybody will/has done it".
A lot of subjects are not set because "its good for the struggling pupils to sit beside high achievers". aka high achiever learns nothing the whole class/term.
Differentiation = same level of work for the whole class but brighter kids get more questions to answer. wtf.

"Top set teacher gets switched into another room to help those who need it more and yet another cover lesson is arranged.
The top set is very big to allow the bottom set to be very small.
Misbehaving children (from lower sets) are regularly parked in the top set as punishment and the whole class is disrupted for rest of lesson.
Several lower set pupils, who cant keep up with the work, are moved up to boost their confidence and end up taking up all the teachers time.
Little provision of extra curricular G&T things because its easier to provide for the average pupil which gives the message that the needs of the most able are just very low priority, pretty much permanently last in the queue.
I have actually heard this said by more than one teacher, "I won't bother setting/marking any homework this time because I know not everybody will/has done it".
A lot of subjects are not set because "its good for the struggling pupils to sit beside high achievers". aka high achiever learns nothing the whole class/term."

I can see why all those factors would be not popular, and not work in the interests of many students.

What I don't see is how a separate school is needed to stop these things happening, or how a separate school would work out cheaper!

Very few of these (maybe none) happen in my DCs comp, as far as I know.

I think a lot would be solved by measuring progression in schools rather than number of GCSEs At the moment it is in every school's interest to get as many A-C passes from as many pupils as possible. The DoE has even made it harder to look at the VA and progression stats on each school's profile. It has to be tempting for every school to concentrate on the ones needing a boost rather than the coasting top sets.

If all schools, including selective, were scored and rated on progression of all pupils we would see a more accurate indication of the quality of education on offer for each ability group, and bright (and other) pupils in all schools would be pushed to progress to the max.

There are Grammar schoolswith a lower than 100 VA score.....

I see a lot of that happening at my dcs school, mainly because they aren't put in stream for every subject until Y10.

YY to little provision for G&T children and little differentiation (only 4 sets) whihc doesn't really work for the most able.

I agree about measuring progression too. BUT again it might be easier to make those at the bottom progress rather than those at the top.
Eg a child who starts Y7 with the level required in Y9~Y10 has much less scope of progression than. The ones who start with a much lower level....
I'm also sure that the level of progression is already one of the ways a school is evaluated by OFSTED anyway

As for why do something for a minority of children that doesn't benefit the other 80%?
Well for one because these 20% are the ones that are going to be the next set of bosses, researchers, doctors etc etc. You don't want to 'loose' them because they have lost interest in learning (that's what I see at my dcs comp) You want to be sure they are well educated at secondary school so they are well equipped to the more challenging degrees (to be able to train for those top jobs). Otherwise you end up having to bring people from outside the country (eg doctors, engineers etc...) which isn't ideal.

"I haven't heard any realistic suggestions on how all comprehensives will ever be able stretch and challenge academically gifted children, other than giving them a lot more money. Which we don't have. "

So what money will be used to build and run new grammars? How will grammars be able to stretch and challenge academically gifted children? I do agree that these children should be and need to be stretched.

Maybe schools should / could be released from teaching kids in their cohort year group - gifted maths students get put in lessons with kids older.