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?

You said teachers don't want to teach at the grammars.

When? That TES poll? That's not about teaching at the grammar, most teachers don't live anywhere near a grammar so get to teach in comps. They probably wouldn't vote to teach in a secondary modern either. Those that live near grammars have to choose, and the evidence shows that if you have to choose, grammars get the better teachers.

What does catering for low attainers actually mean in principle . For instance catering for high ability students means enabling them to access higher education , catering for middle ability pupils means getting them on courses at FE /Sixth Form Colleges E.T.C.

However, what is the aim for 'low attainers' who really are just 'clock' watching after 16 if they are still in education !

TES article was pointless

Not a great question but a poll of teachers and the majority of them said they'd refuse to work in a grammar is a pretty visceral reaction to the idea of grammars.

Teachers = not in favour. Which might surprise some like my mum 'oh wouldn't you love to work in a grammar?' Because of course grammars have the status of most desired school, even though some pretend that going or not going is simply a bit meh.

2StripedSocks Tue 13-Sep-16 21:15:46 Interestly I know several teachers who have flitted between both.

A number of the secondary school teachers I know have said their school is cutting back on staff due to budget/recruitment issues. I know a number of teachers who are now teaching more than one subject due to this.

You're missing the point, striped

Teachers are saying they don't want to teach at grammars. They are opposed to them. They don't want their school to become a grammar.

That's not saying that grammars are going to have trouble recruiting. Evidence shows they have less trouble recruiting than secondary moderns.

I think they should ensure existing Grammar schools are properly funded before opening up more:

www.theenquirer.co.uk/petition-launched-to-help-southends-grammar-schools-in-financial-crisis/

www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/grammar-schools-devon-somerset-urge-politicians/story-26109909-detail/story.html

www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/14349571.Teaching_jobs_axed_as_schools__cash_crisis_takes_toll/

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/secondary-schools-across-merseyside-facing-8974100

OK this one's a bit old but threw it in anyway:

www.standard.co.uk/news/tiffin-boys-school-in-crisis-as-800000-reserves-disappear-6905404.html

Well you won't be getting rid of the Catholic schools if TM has her way - they will be more exclusive being able to choose 100% of their pupils by faith.

If it's fairer funding you're after, forget grammar schools and look at poor old Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and South Gloucestershire.

www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/how-much-per-pupil-funding-will-your-school-get

The Fairer Funding Formula was supposed to be released this September, but has been put back, presumably so the DfE can fanny around with this nonsense. The £50million earmarked for opening new grammars with no evidence base that they will improve education outcomes overall could make a real difference to those existing schools.

noblegiraffe Tue 13-Sep-16 22:07:17 The £50million earmarked for opening new grammars

So where's the money coming from to maintain those schools once open?

I don't know, mum. There's a lot of extra kids coming up from primary soon so new school places will be needed and the money will have to be found somehow. I don't know if, in the green paper, when it says that independent schools and universities will have to sponsor schools whether that means funding them.

noblegiraffe Tue 13-Sep-16 22:35:17 when it says that independent schools and universities will have to sponsor schools whether that means funding them.

Noblegiraffe these questions aren't aimed at you specifically.

What is the incentive for independent schools and universities to sponsor new state selective secondary schools?

Independent schools will lose their charitable status if they don't (or they can offer a load of fully-funded places at their own school for poor kids instead), and universities will have to do it if they want to charge higher tuition fees.

Mum . My DC are at two of the grammar schools named in 'Financial' strife !

It makes a mockery of the perception of some 'posters' but perhaps more 'hilariously' George Galloway on his Radio show on Talk Radio who thinks grammar schools take all the money ! His Ignorance he does not even know that funding is based on a number of things not least SEN and FSM numbers!

Grammar schools are among the worst 'state' funded schools !

Of course they get stonking results, they're stuffed with clever kids, and staffed by more experienced teachers. Way more important than a shiny building and IWBs.

noblegiraffe Wed 14-Sep-16 07:09:08 Of course they get stonking results, they're stuffed with clever kids, and staffed by more experienced teachers. Way more important than a shiny building and IWBs.

Not to mention the extra support most get from parents and many get from tutors (although most will claim this second point to be completely untrue despite the fact that large numbers are using tutors to get their DCs into the schools in the first place).

"Ours are struggling but still get stonking results."

Of course they get stonking results.....it would be a scandal if they didn't!

My ds's secondary modern gets pretty stonking results too- around 50% A*-C..............

It's fascinating that they work so hard at grammar schools and do "mounds" of homework but still come out with the he same grades they'd get at a comprehensive school............

I very much doubt teachers are saying working in a grammar school wouldn't be a nice job. They are saying they don't agree with them. It's not about whether a grammar school would 'suit' them. It's a question of principle and experience of the system.
I admire their principles. I don't think there should be grammar schools, but while they do exist I'd definitely work in one.

they work so hard at grammar schools and do "mounds" of homework but still come out with the the same grades they'd get at a comprehensive school............

Because so far A* is the highest grade you can get, that is the glass ceiling bright kids face. Lets hope the new progress 8 and 9-1 system encourages schools to stretch bright children.

Oh, so all the mountains of homework is extension work and nothing to do with GCSEs?

Because so far A is the highest grade you can get, that is the glass ceiling bright kids face.*

But only a very small fraction of kids have been getting straight A stars across all GCSEs from one sitting.

Most of the kids entering Oxbridge don't have straight A stars at A level and (almost) no university courses require straight A stars at A level. (A few offers from Imperial/Cambridge STEM may ask for straight A stars but this is unusual.)

All this implies that getting A stars is not entirely trivial, even for the brightest students.

Presumably your own DC are not yet far enough through the education system for you to realise this.