Labour advised to finish closing all grammars

[twistyizzy]

Advice currently being given to Labour by same group that support VAT on private schools.

People do pay attention to these things?

We know that funding has been withdrawn from international teacher recruitment incentives and from subject knowledge enhancement courses in the last few months, for example.

As the 11+ takes place in Y5 and includes topics that aren't covered by the national curriculum until Y6, the only way any child stands a chance of scoring highly in the exam is to be tutored.

This defeats the whole point of grammar schools. They're meant to be places that offer ALL bright children the opportunity for an academically focused education. But in reality it's just the parents who can afford to tutor their child who invariably get the places. The thing that many are missing is that those tutored children are not necessarily the brightest and often struggle at grammar school because learning DOESN'T come naturally to them.

There will be children who are bright but don't have access to a tutor to teach them the Y6 level topics, so they can't compete in the 11+. And yet these children could probably do great at a grammar school because they're naturally bright.

Why grammar schools set a test that can't be accessed by all is beyond me. Why can't the 11+ only cover topics that are covered in Y5? Then tutoring wouldn't be needed and all children in the area could have the chance to go to a grammar school.

I've actually had parents tell me that their children can 'relax and enjoy' Y6 now that the 11+ is over. So not only have these privileged kids been given a tutor, now they're going to be bored and disruptive throughout Y6 when those who haven't had a tutor need to be learning!

The whole system is a mess. If grammar schools stay, I'd just like to see them revert to how it used to be done. The whole class sits the exam... nobody has been tutored... and the brightest are given a chance at an academic school regardless of their social background.

No I am in England. And as I said, I don't particularly support grammar schools. I just happen to work in one. And see a lot of what is said about them is ignorant.

I think overall it’s good. Children self select into groups. If you think your child is bright and at a grammar then they will be bright at a comp. It doesn’t change their ability. It’s better for the community and environment if everyone goes to their local school.

I live on a border of school types. I remember seeing some children at the end of year 3 stopping Saturday swimming lessons and football to be tutored instead for the grammar school in the next county. And the parents were stressed about who the best tutor was and tutoring prices. I also saw the parents whose bright boy played football not want him to go to the grammar because ‘it’s snobby’. This is not selection by ability.

My DC went to the local comp and got all A and A*. So did a few of their friends. The setting of maths and languages by gcse meant that there was a knock on effect to other subjects. I think having a greater number of high achievers in a comp will just mean the ones that want to do well will still do well. It’s just that the top end will be bigger. And the ones in the middle who want to do well will have brighter pupils around them. The difference is everyone local goes to the comp.

It will be fine. There was always trouble at the comp but the biggest disrupters by 6th form were a group of boys that had been chucked out of private school from the next city. That must have been lovely for the private school. But a pain in the arse for the comp. None of the group did well as they did not seem to have the capacity for independent learning.

Being the first in the family to go to university and get a degree is not the same as it was when you have so many getting degrees. One DC dropped out of uni (arts subject) in the first few weeks as they decided it wasn’t worth it, no one was attending lectures anyway and the academic rigour wasn’t there. DC impressed at interview on the strength of their A Levels, is earning and paid back the student loan, is learning skills and enjoys their job. They are doing an evening course in the subject they really loved and went to uni for - difference is the older people he’s with really want to learn. DC’s friends are mostly still at uni and will be coming out with lots of debt.

So what?

They'd be the first in their family to go to uni if they lived in an all comp area. That's a feature of the fact 50% now go to uni. Grammars aren't practicing magic. They take clever kids, give them a slightly less good education than the best comps, and wave them off to uni.

Why do you believe that grammars are educationally special? They are not. The point is social segregation.

I grew up in Cambridge, schools went comprehensive in the early 70s. Before that we had 4 grammar schools within the city boundaries - 2 girls grammars and 2 boys - 2 used ‘County High’ as a name and 2 ‘Grammar’. We also had one secondary modern with a ‘grammar stream’ and one village college just outside the city boundary that also had a grammar stream. After the schools went comprehensive, the 2 ‘County High’ schools became sixth form colleges. The boys grammar combined with the secondary modern across the road, became co ed and retained a sixth form. No other comp had a sixth form.

Pupil numbers at this time were very high. I went to the former secondary modern that had a grammar stream there were about 12 forms of 30 pupils. Those pupils who were at the schools that turned into sixth form colleges stayed in the same school. It must have been a bit lonely for the last cohort, in their uniforms surrounded by teenagers in flares smoking. Yup we were allowed to smoke in the sixth form common room, although I never did.

I think it was generally well managed, but was a big change as many schools had not been co ed prior to the switch. I didn’t realise at the time that the Upper and Lower schools had been boys and girls respectively. Although, sewing and cooking were in the lower school and woodwork in the upper school so I praps ought to have done

So maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing everyone agrees kids are not equal academically. So do comps separate by ability? Or put everyone in the same class eg disruptive kids with kids who want to concentrate, this would be my issue.

Also, you might need tutoring but it's pennies vs private. I came from a very poor working class immigrant family but still got tutored.

I dont think they are special. I dont care either way. I am just surprised at the level of ignorance in posts about them,

So you are disputing the table I posted that shows that they don't represent their local population? Have you got a different table?

I'm not really sure what we're disagreeing about. We've agreed my main point, that the pledge says nothing about overall school funding. I suppose my further contention is that, in absence of a pre-specified counterfactual, i.e., the education budget that Labour would have produced without the VAT revenue, we can't know that they're actually going to use the revenue for education. But I don't think you disagree with that. Do you?

Including your own - grammars don't reflect the local population.

Yes, they will have sets for some subjects even before GCSE

I find it like another world reading about grammar schools. I’m 60 and we did not have them where I grew up.

No one said that the pledge said anything about overall school funding?

I don't think Labour could make any particular promises about the general funding of public services without being able to see exactly how disastrous things were first. And I suspect that they are even worse than feared.

Thank you - is your complaint that white people are under-represented? Or people with SEN? As far as those eligible for free school meals and those who don't speak English as a first language, there's so much within that data that would need to be examined before any sort of conclusion could be drawn. Indeed, even within SEN it would need some investigation - many people with SEN are certainly extremely intelligent and should be eligible, though it's such a wide-ranging 'label' that without closer inspection it's impossible to ascertain the discrepancy. A grammar school is for those who are academically inclined, and would be dreadful fit for those who are not - those 'SEN' children who are very clever but ND would be suitable, those with severe learning difficulties would not - and it would be very cruel to shove them in to make some sort of point about representation! As for the lack of white pupils, I believe it is to do with the preponderance of grammars a few decades ago, though I can't quite remember the argument.

The implicit assumptions on this thread about the kids who don’t pass the 11+ are depressing. As are the comments about children with SEN.

If my comprehensive education means I’m less judgemental then great.

If they didn't say it explicitly, they very much implied that they would increase school funding by the amount of the VAT revenue. And I think most people assumed, perhaps wrongly, that they meant increase from current levels.

What research is this? Sounds like balls to me.

I went to a grammar and a comp. A top 400 church comprehensive and a 200 grammar and I can tell you there is a world of difference.

Frankly this is a shit decision and there should be far more grammar schools.

I saw numerous kids at the comp I attended have much worse life outcomes than similar children at the grammar (some of whom were even related to each other).

Thank you @Summertimer

I went to grammar (there are many in my area) so struggle to understand what it's like in comps 😆

The ones I know do

In our area the local population is around 80% white British. The grammar school kids are 20 - 30% white British.

I find it interesting that the white grammar parents are very embarrassed to even mention tutoring, critical of others that do, and then insist their child is naturally gifted, with a keen interest in maths and science since age 2 (sometimes when the mother actually works at the school itself but they are not pushy at all, no😂). A lot of the other local white parents think bollocks to that, mine is just a normal kid with a regular IQ let’s not bother.

However you chat to the asian or black parents, and now lots of Eastern European parents and they are all quite open about it all. They are honest about making their kids work hard, and share details of various tutors and ways in which they’ve added ‘extra’ and pushed to get their kid ahead and in the right school. Some even help out for other in their communities if they can’t afford the tutor themselves. The openness is really refreshing whether you agree with what they are doing or not.

Of course, I’m generalising here, and there are other issues, but it’s a prevalent theme. I just really hate the people who say tutoring is evil, the ‘naturally’ clever, like my child, will rise to the top. They are actively and insidiously trying to get others to ‘stay in their lane’. Your child wouldn’t cope with a grammar. It would be detrimental to their mental health to try. Bollocks to that. They wouldn’t say it to someone of colour or born in another country. It’s class war in action, and that’s more damaging than grammar schools.

He went to a voluntary aided grammar - depending on LEA at the time that may or may not mean it was a private school.

Where I grew up in Cambridge there were 4 state grammar schools plus 2 private schools at secondary level that skimmed the best 11plus kids off the top and gave them free places alongside the fee paying pupils. Voluntary aided places. They still exist as private schools with senior school intake at year 7 rather than year 9 public school model.

Actually, while I believe there is a relationship between time and money, so make no distinction between informed parental 'tutoring' and paid external tutoring, because I believe that how much time a child spends preparing is more important than who is helping them prepare, I suspect that many or most people disagree with me. Many people who decry paying a professional tutor to help their children in their studies see it as their parental duty to do so themselves.

Most of the comprehensive schools that I have worked in have a grammar stream (not what it is officially called but that is what it is). There is also a lot of tutoring going on. You just can’t stop some people trying to improve their children’s educational outcomes.

It’s mostly now academy trusts and similar but with pupils of all abilities

I attended an ex-grammar which had been comprehensive for 8 years. The head who left just after I started had made very few changes, and the reputation of the school was that it wasn't the best choice for non-academic kids, and high-flyers would find themselves in a streamed class full of similarly bright kids - so it still had a huge skew to the top end.

A church school did start to get similar/better results, but I think that was still quite a few years further on. Now, it looks as if those two have fairly similar results, but the ex-grammar still substantially outperforms what had been the neighbouring secondary modern.

It can take a long time to change the perception of a school, and the pupils it attracts are crucial in how it performs.

I don't think that necessarily means that change shouldn't happen; we should just accept that the evolution may be quite slow.