Who saw BBC 2 Grammar schools - who will get in " last night?

[Foxy333]

Watched this last night with interest. We're not in Grammar school area and generally I think it was / is a bad system that works for the top abilities but not for the middle and lower ones. However I've seen my daughter suffer in years 7 to 9 or a comprehensive from not being stretched and teachers concentrating on the most demanding pupils who need lots of help and ignoring the quiet well- behaved pupils who going to pass GCSE's anyway. Often some pupils disrupt the class and the whole class gets punished.

They only set them for 2 subjects and I've heard that's changing in future to one. so I see why a Grammar would suit some. But why cant all schools be good. Is it stricter discipline that's needed?

Felt for the children in the program, so young to face this divisive test.

I didn't like the Head of Townley at all. Very smug and he tried to blame parents for making children feel that they've failed. Of course kids will feel that they've failed if there is a pass mark that they haven't attained! Glad i live in a fully comp county

Secondary moderns offer less subjects across the board. So your kid ends up with 8 Gcses not 13 or 14. Only 1 language- so just because a child doesn't pass the 11plus they are a) shunted into a technical path and b) denied a chance to learn another language. In fact, that one language isn't even compulsory to be studied to GCSE.

Bright kids don't always do well whether they are at GS or the alternative. If the alternative is poor, as most schools in Bexley are, it doesn't matter. I'd say this is especially true of boys.

And some Sms are shit. Why should we lie about it? I'm not tryibg to promote hysteria by saying that. It's a fact. And another reason why we should get rid of grammars because they perpetuate 2nd rate education.

When I was at school there was a remedial class for the least bright kids in the year about 15 in total. All were well behaved and not disruptive just not very good at school work. So they didn't have lessons. They watched tv or videos mostly. They used to get taken out - to the park, local shopping centre, etc, 3 or 4 times a week. They all left school pretty much illiterate and ended up in min wage jobs where I know at least 3 of them still are 30 years later. Now you can say that wouldn't happen today but in reality the same thing still is happening - GS kids are being educated because they're perceived as clever enough to deserve it. Those who didn't pass...A 2nd rate education will do for them

I expect to get the kitchen sink thrown at me. This by suggesting the 'modern' incarnation of Modern schools are more than adequate for educating 60% of the cohort ! This is to suggest that a Modern school say attaining 45-50% pass rate @ grade 4 English/Maths is equal to a Comprehensive attaining 65-70% @grade 4 Maths/English. This being because the comprehensive 65-70% is boasted by the top sets !

The problem with the current selective system is the 15% or so below the usual top 25% model !. These are the ones who perhaps should/might be able to benefit from a grammar school type education .

Therefore a solution could be to take the top 40% in place them in to a selective school . This could then concentrate on the 60% who do not need to be taking 11/12 GCSEs This being commonplace in some schools despite the pupil only achieving at grade 4 in Maths/English !

For many years I was a fervent supporter of grammar schools, primarily because I attended one myself, but age has changed my perspective on these things and am much more of a fence sitter now. Ironically one thing that has swung me more back towards grammars of late is the decline of a rural comp where a friend teaches. Previously it taught three languages to A Level and sent kids to Oxbridge and RG universities every year to do languages. Now, due partly to funding cuts and partly to senior management decisions there is no more a level language, one language only to GCSE. No music. No drama... the intake has not changed, the kids are no less able or talented in these areas but there is no other choice of school for them. That area is failing a generation of kids. And while I know GS aren't the answer I look at that area and think that maybe it might help. I suppose the upshot of my post is that some comps are amazing, and some, despite having a mixed social intake, including wealthy families with able kids, are really, really not. It's not just about core measures in a few subjects. It's about the breadth of opportunities and experiences you can offer children.

How about selecting the bottom end and putting more resources into SEN and behavioural provision.

I don't see many kids doing more than 11 GCSE nowaday. That's long gone.

due partly to funding cuts

How about selecting the bottom end and putting more resources into SEN and behavioural provision.

More money for all comprehensive schools and far better-funded specialist provision (both inside and outside education - the whole 'team around the family' approach) for struggling children and families - absolutely. I'd man the campaign for that (plus fairer admissions)

But what do we get instead? More money for grammar schools....

I agree that some SMs are shit. But some grammars aren't actually that great either. But they will always do relatively well in results tables because of their intake. As I've said before, I'm not arguing in favour of grammars - I'm just saying that not all SMs are shit, and that an SM doesn't by definition have to be bad. I guess what I'm arguing against is the assumption that everyone who attends an SM is automatically receiving a 'second rate education' - just as everyone who attends a grammar isn't automatically receiving a 'first rate education', just because they get to do Latin and three languages etc.

It's about the breadth of opportunities and experiences you can offer children.

If the comprehensive you describe (and remember it is rural counties which are most unfairly served by the current funding formula, by thousands of pounds per pupil) had retained previous funding levels, or even increased them to be in line with average funding in e.g. Manchester (let alone London), so you think it could have retained the breadth of opportunities?

In other words, is it the school and its comprehensive nature OR is it central government decisions about school funding?

No- many secondary modern schools are excellent. The problem is that they don't look excellent unless you dig into the stats because their results can't be as good as grammars or comprehensives. And they will also have a higher % of disadvantaged and troubled children, so discipline is, by definition, more of a challenge. It's easy to run a school where the vast majority of the kids are well supported and motivated. Generally you just wind them up and let them go and they come out at the top with their As. Or 8s and 9s in today's money.

The thing is, for the whole of this thread, I absolutely agree with the identification of many problems with England's education system:

• Lack of funding, leading to narrowing of a school's offer.
• League tables driving decisions that are not child-focused.
• Use of admissions criteria - for example faith - and other means to 'manage' the profile of who the school accepts / retains.
• Evaluation of schools, by Ofsted and public opinion, based on raw data which is highly correlated to the socio-economic and ability profile of the school's pupils.
• Poor provision for SEN, those from highly deprived backgrounds and with behavioural issues, including 'encouragement' to Home Educate.
• Low status of vocational qualifications and courses.

However, while i agree that those are the problems, none of them logically seem to say to me "Oh, the OBVIOUS solution to this is the bipartite selective system of grammar schools and secondary moderns'. Am I missing something glaringly obvious here?

I found the programme heartbreaking. I think people are being harsh on Joanita’s Mum. She couldn’t read English, her eldest daughter was a young mother living on a shared bunk bed in Joanita’s room with her baby. She saw her bright daughter having a better future and paid £300 pm for a tutor from her minimum wage job. If I were her I’d have been pretty upset too. There is no way you can say the SM in that programme would be able to offer that girl the same chances as the grammar -how much of the SM’s (wonderful) teacher’s time was being spent on managing children’s attitudes and their lack of home support. Compare that with the grammar where all the girls seemed bright and motivated. You heard the boy say how many science teachers he’d had and the constant supply teaching. Why would a teacher opt for a SM when they could have an easier life at a grammar?

I don’t think we can carry on with either of the current systems. The grammars clearly advantage those children who pass and clearly some secondary moderns clearly disadvantage those who don’t.

Many comprehensive areas outside of London are no better really. There is selection in many areas by other means (independent schools, faith schools) and the same challenges with recruiting teachers when there are easier options.

I think the answer is to select at the bottom, ie put the resources into children who are struggling; secondly have seperate units for the poorly behaved, who are going to need a lot of help to reach their potential. The rest will do just fine without the distraction. Parents will be less inclined to opt out of schools if the badly behaved are not there.

Portico and IheartNiles I agree, I thought that Joanita's mother is amazing and the reason that many first and subsequent generations of immigrants outperform Caucasians in their ambitions for education including entry to grammar schools. As the primary school teacher said Joanita's mother has installed a work ethic and ambition in her. That's not failure.
I hope though that the money she spent on tutoring was not just practising non verbal reasoning but improving Joanita's English and maths.

Brickinwall - you make another good point.

If all 11+ exams tested knowledge drawn from the national curriculum up to the end of Y5 (due to the date of most 11+ exams), then not only would the test be truly accessible to all state school pupils, but any coaching would be useful in terms of real curriculum skills.

If it tests VR / NVR, or other skills outwith or beyond the NC for the appropriate age (e.g. Maths not covered until Y6 or secondary in the NC) then not only are uncoached state school children disadvantages, but any coaching time is wasted because the skills that are needed are essentially useless except for passing the test.

The unsaid is that the badly behaved are what disadvantages both themselves and other children.

Remove the badly behaved and there is no need for grammar schooling.

Remove the badly behaved and the comprehensive system will thrive.

Remove the badly behaved to a two way street system with access back into mainstream, throw massive resources at that cohort and they and society will benefit.

Surely the 11+ exam could be scrapped and you could just use the SATs results. No need for any child to feel they are a failure as applying to grammar could be just part of the normal options system. A child need never even be told their exact SATs score.

SATs results aren't available until the very end of the summer term of Year 6. Are you suggesting that pupils are not allocated their secondary schools until after these are published?

Why do you have to put children into ^different buildings"?

The supposed idea of why the 11+ is suitable is that it's not testing what you've learnt, it's testing ability, which is why it's claimed tutoring for it is not worth it beyond limited familiarisation. Of course that's unlikely to be strictly true, but it's certainly a lot more true than SATs which have been designed to test what you've learnt, not your ability.

SATs would be a much worse choice for selection than even the 11+.

I've been thinking a bit more about the issue talked about a lot on this thread of covert selection / selection by house price within the comprehensive system. Obviously it's only an issue for cities / bigger towns where there's more than one school available, but clearly it is a major thing in some places.

I was wondering if there was any reason that oversubscribed schools couldn't be obliged to offer places as a priority to children eligible for free school meals (or pupil premium) such that the proportion of their intake receiving FSM would be at least the county average %ge.

So effectively (after looked after children etc), FSM children would be the next highest priority (presumably in distance order) until say 20% of places (or whatever the county average is) had been filled. At which point acceptance criteria would revert to the normal one of siblings, distance etc. I know FSM is a crude measure, but it would push the socio-economic make-up of over subscribed schools a bit closer to the average.

In My Glorious Reign, school places wi be allocated on a mixture of lottery and fair banding. Not sure if all the details yet-but that's what Civil Servants are for.

MumTryingHerBest I just thought it was interesting, I don't know what it is likely to mean for either school so was hoping someone cleverer than me would leap in with some info

Interesting that they'd done it, and interesting that the link between the schools hadn't been mentioned at all in the documentary

BertrandRussell said:
In My Glorious Reign, school places wi be allocated on a mixture of lottery and fair banding. Not sure if all the details yet-but that's what Civil Servants are for.

Let’s hope a usurper thwarts your twee virtue signalling ambitions.

lottery and fair banding
I know those type of schools and they are a selective as any other.

oversubscribed schools couldn't be obliged to offer places as a priority to children eligible for free school meals
So wealthy areas that dont have any FSM children still wont have any FSM pupils in their school, just like it is now. Unless you are suggesting bussing poor children all over the city.

Bertrand will you also be closing faith and private schools? I'll vote for you!