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.

honeysucklejasmine I was talking about the schools in Cheltenham that can'tkeepawayforever mentioned. It does not sound as though Balcarass is suffering because of the grammar but is that because a MC nice area school attracts better teachers than the nearby ones which have a higher frequency of deprivation?

Brickinwall,

If it is relevant, all the other schools seem to be Ofsted 'Good'.

I think the obsession with pp numbers in these debates is a bit foolish,you're never comparing like with like and often ignore those just over or those who don't get help with social housing.You also ignore the numbers of pp kids in comp top sets. Grammars are expected to have the national average of pp kids well so then should comp top sets as that is the same cohort level that is being focused on. We never know said comp top set levels.

I have family in Cheltenham going through the process. They'd love to send their dc to Balcarass and have family in the catchment but it's way too expensive for them. They're not eligible for social housing so haven't got a hope in hell. Balcarass has been outstanding since 2001. Plenty of people within that time will have had families,left or moved in to Cheltenham. Not entirely sure why only those lucky enough to have a big mortgage or social housing should be the few to get places.They've got more chance of getting into Pates.

Cheltenham is an expensive city. Woopy doo Balcarass has 8% fsm,the other comp school in the cheaper catchment they're looking at has 15%. Both are below national average. Balcarass has less fsm than our grammars. Parents in Cheltenham have hoards of choice. Good comps,loads of grammars and yes Balcarass. Focusing on Balcarass having a few more pp kids than all the grammars is kind of ridiculous. The kids in that town are pretty fortunate.

brickinthewall I've not worked in Glos, but if I was going to I'd be looking at the privates and grammars first, then the better rated non selectives. Tbh I wouldn't apply to my local school because I don't like to work where I live. I might consider applying for the big "failing school" in Glos City, but I'd have to believe it had a chance to turn around, and I'd have to like the atmosphere there. I did my teacher training at a rather "rough" school and worked in another too, I'm not scared of them. But I'd rather not.

They'd love to send their dc to Balcarass

If the Grammars are much easier to get into and bright DCs do better in Grammars, why would they want to send their DC to Balcarass?

I’m slightly bemused as to why the difference in children on FSM is grammars being lower than that of the general population is so shocking to people. Surely it only makes logical sense. Entrance to grammars is supposed to be meritocratic. Evidence demonstrates that There are substantial IQ differences between SEC therefore it is hardly surprising that there is a difference in FSM at a grammar than in the wider public. Also, on mathematical grounds, the more selective the school, the bigger the difference there will be.

What I find more damning than the question of grammar schools is that the difference between iq’s triples between the age of 2 until early adolescence where iqs stabilise. The focus in social reengineering should be in those years to try and maximise potential.

Maybe because the easier to get in grammars are in Gloucester and Stroud, not Cheltenham. The one grammar in Cheltenham takes 150 DC, tends to be rated above the Gloucester grammars and is very difficult to get into. Tutoring an average child won't do it.

Balcarras has a catchment that includes a small amount of social housing. It gets as good results for high achievers as the grammars. It costs £1200+ for the coach to Gloucester from Cheltenham. It's co-ed not single sex. It's not a grammar school. Lots of reasons many parents might prefer it.

honeysucklejasmine I expect that you are fairly typical of lots of very good teachers. I guess that supporting DCs from deprived families has to be a vocation and many excellent teachers who love teaching their subjects don't have that vocation. That is part of the problem of why schools can never be equal.

Momin,

i think it depends whether you want to accept the view that children from economically deprived backgrounds are destined to be 'less academically capable' than their more privileged age peers, or whether you want, as far as possible, to mitigate against that (and whether IQ is a good measure of actual inborn intelligence / potential, or is itself likely to be influenced by background / experience - but that's another question).

So it may be that children of very high ability (or rather very high ability measured in a particular way, using a particular test) are statistically less common in different socio-economic groups. However, when there are other barriers in play - access to tutoring, quality of primary school, parental education and ability to help, housing, sleep, nutrition - how can we determine whether these are 'genuine' inborn differences in educational potential, or simply a demonstration of the different barriers to success?

I guess that supporting DCs from deprived families has to be a vocation and many excellent teachers who love teaching their subjects don't have that vocation.

Part of the problem is that in some schools, teachers are just expected to be teachers. In others, they do the dual role of teachers and social workers (and many bits of other roles, as well, including HCPs, police...). If society accepted this, and funded such schools to divide these roles - qualified social workers to one part of the role, qualified teachers to do the other - then teaching in schools in very difficult catchments might be rather different, and fewer teachers in such schools would make themselves ill trying to meet every child's social and economic as well as educational needs all the time.

EllenJanethickerknickers do you agree that "Parents in Cheltenham have hoards of choice. Good comps,loads of grammars and yes Balcarass...The kids in that town are pretty fortunate."?

Can’t, the evidence is pretty clear that there is a difference. However, as I noted, the difference triples during the primary year’s - year’s spent in a comprehensive academic setting. Even more damning - there is evidence that children who started at the high end end and are lower SEC regress. This is what makes me much more upset than the issue of tutoring for grammar schools.

Much more will be done to allow bright poor children to succeed by addressing this issue than debating in circles about an institution which does not affect the majority of children, and at it’s worst, seems to have no impact on outcomes (my interpretation of data showing that outcomes of grammar ares are the same as comprehensive - I know that there will be differences if you look at specific subsets, but I am just taking a big-picture view).

cant got it in one. The way education is right now... Unless I actually thought the school had a chance, I'm not going to sacrifice my mental and physical health trying to be all things to all people. I generally had a pretty good relationship with more difficult students, but they need me to support them with their life and my bosses are just interested in bums on seats and exam results. Sometimes, it's possible to do both. But rarely. And you'll burn out trying.

Sometimes, it's possible to do both. But rarely. And you'll burn out trying

So you are saying it would be better for teachers if we had schools where you only had to do one of those things?

Haha! Those schools simply do not exist!

Walking,

It would be better for all teachers in all schools if there was funding for the specific employment of [lots of] 'staff with professional social work / counselling / mental health qulifications' within every part of the education system so a pupil / family can be referred to such staff IMMEDIATELY (ie with no waiting list or referral delay) when a problem arises.

Not if we create / expand a level of schooling - the grammar schools - where such staff are 'less necessary'. while creating another level - the secondary moderns - where far more are required.

can'tkeepawayforever what you say has parallels with an increased need for investment in MH and welfare services at universities. However the latter have economies of scale being such large institutions. It is not feasible to fund such on site staff at every comprehensive (or SM). Referral off site may be fine in many situations but won't there need to be staff on site as well?
I don't know what the solution is, I just can't see how the utopia of social mixing with most appropriate education for all is achievable unless money is limitless.

I'm not sure what the ultimate sulution will be either. I just know that creating a system which is for the actine benefit of only the high achievers has to be wrong.

BertrandRussell forget the grammar selection.
Cheltenham is a very good example of working out potential solutions from what happens in a small town with distinct areas of deprivation and MC high cost housing. The MC schools scored better on Ofsted but the other comprehensives / SMs may be doing a very good job with the pupils they have but probably don't have sufficient high end academic teaching due to the feedback here that many (if not the majority) good teachers will gravitate to schools where they can focus on teaching.

Putting in resources for social support at Balcarras would be a waste of money unless sufficient pupils from the deprived area came to it. That would be feasible if buses were provided but would split up local communities in deprived area and might not redress teacher balance for some time. It would also cost twice as much to have social support at both sites. .
So then you need very big schools. Very costly new building projects if a site can be found plus additional transport costs.
Potential segregation of pupils within those by setting or streaming.

That then comes back full circle to the model of what is actually happening, 'specialised' schools serving their catchment area most appropriately but not facilitating social mixing except for a small minority or academic potential of the bright in the deprived area school.

I am sick of seeing tv programmes whether 'fictional ' (Ackley Bridge Waterloo Road or fact Educating Yorkshire) . The obsession of television companies is to paint all schools as bear factories and as challenging institutions !

Why can't we have depiction of a highly 'academic' state school that has few behaviour problems and sends most pupils to University. This would give state education a much needed public relations boost. Why can't we see the best of state education , this being giving an education of equal quality to private schools.

I would be all for an Educating Kent , the difference being using Cranbrook School. This instead of the usual practice of searching for a school with the most challenging problems and issues .

It seems to me these programmes are made not with the intention of presenting state education in a positive or informative light, but to make a political point !

Have few behaviour problems!

Perhaps that would mean grammar schools would come out this very well . This would not bode well for the political agenda attached to programmes about schools.

Interestingly, again using Cheltenham as a model, one thing they seem to have done is partnered a 'low deprivation' school with a 'high deprivation' school:

Old news but I think still exists?

Looks as if Ofsted report has gone from Grade 3 to Grade 2 (Good) since then, with partnership specifically mentioned in the most recent Ofsted?

Current and historical reports

To my knowledge, that 'partnership' was only on paper. Nothing much came of it.

mumtryingherbest Re: 'hoards of choice' it's the usual, if you can afford to live in catchment of Balcarras, and to a lesser extent Bournside or Cleeve, you do have some choice. Pittville is actually improving. Sometimes it just takes parents to have the perception a school is improving for it to become a self fulfilling prophecy. As more parents are happier to send their DC to Pittville, you end up with a more comprehensive cohort and the school improves. I think All Saints will struggle to rid itself of the negative perception parents have of it due to its location in the midst of social housing. Those parents in catchment certainly can't afford to move.

I don't think Pate's is a choice unless you can afford a private grammar crammer primary school, and/or tutoring and you have an extremely able child. Maybe 1 in 60 go to Pate's from state primary schools locally.

In my local area there is a girls' grammar school which attracts applicants from miles around, and whose A-C GCSE pass rate is 99.9%; it's A level A-B rate is 93%. There is also a girls-only comprehensive school whose rates are respectively 93% and 69%. Its A*-C A level pass rate is 94%. Given that the comprehensive school is non-selective and has a number of pupils with SEN, it's difficult to suggest that the grammar school is offering a better education.