Labour advised to finish closing all grammars

[twistyizzy]

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

My DS goes to a super selective grammar, one of the highest performing in the country. It would be a travesty if it was turned into a comp. Kids like him (top 1% academically in the UK) deserve an education that meets their needs just like kids with SEN deserve an education that meets their needs. We are not all the same. Comprehensive educations let’s lots of people down.

https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-8-conclusions-data/

Grammar schools widen the attainment gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children substantially. In non-selective LAs the gap between FSM pupils and all others is 27.8 percentage points (based on those achieving more than 5 or more A star GCSEs) but in wholly selective areas that gap is 34.1 percentage points.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Grammar schools are not the only way to give a good education to the top academic 1pc.

@twistyizzy 16 pages in but isn’t the desire for grammar and independent education partially to avoid classroom disruption by antisocial and students with unmet sen needs?

I'm in a grammar school area all the state schools are excellent locally, I don't think it would make such a difference.

It would end the bogus tutoring that goes on at age 10/11 though

Being in the top 10% academically (in fact, mostly self-selected, tutored to get ahead of peers at the stage) do not need, and should not require, special treatment in an exclusive educational bubble.

I believe many comprehensive schools also nurture children with high academic potential while accommodating more students with SEN at the same time.

@CalamitiousJoan - that 2016 report:

“We also compared the attainment of high-performing pupils who attended a grammar school, with those who attended a top performing comprehensive school (these are schools in the top 25 per cent as measured by value-added progress).“

Err they only looked at the top comps?

I am sure most parents would choose a top comp 10 minutes walk away with great staff and a lovely mix of pupils and great but not too draconian behaviour management in a nice safe area (with a fantastic SEN department).
Sadly not enough comps fit that bill. Only a minority of children get to go to such a school and often parents have had to pay through their noses to get such a school via house prices/or rents.

@Araminta1003 That’s just one element of the report. Any comment on the rest?

So, does this also mean the 11-plus entrance exam is pretty much pointless?

Comprehensive schools often let them down. A one size fits all approach doesn’t work, very few (if any) comprehensives are truly comprehensive.

How?

I taught in a comprehensive for 25 years. The huge majority did really well.

There is a big difference between full grammar areas and those that have a few superselectives for the entire county. The latter don’t impact the local non-selective schools but they can offer the right level of education for exceptionally academic pupils. I have experienced the challenge of making sure that my DS doesn’t get bored at school. We are very lucky that we live within ten miles of a grammar that can meet his needs. And no, a standard top set at a comp wouldn’t be appropriate. I was in top sets at a high performing comp and he is far, far brighter than me. A completely different level.

There are clearly poor schools where dc don’t do as well as they should. Interestingly the higher value added in Bucks are the grammars. With quite a few secondaries doing well too.

Overall many parents are happy with the non grammars. A few snobs in my village caused their DCs all sorts of issues by over tutoring dc who then didn’t pass. However most like the local secondary and many in Bucks have better results than comps. Take a look at Waddesdon, John Colet, Great Marlow and The Misbourne. Often schools have 30% higher achievers and DC go off to uni - I think they would be comps elsewhere.

The grammars are faster paced and they definitely have the very bright dc - but at the margins, there’s not much difference in attainment. The secondaries don’t get any to Oxbridge and some don’t have a full range of A levels. Or A levels at all. However neither do lots of comps.

I would suggest Labour look at how to inorjne the worst comps - that would benefit most DC. Targeting a few LAs with a hugely expensive policy is just mean. I’m with @Araminta1003 newly elected Labour MPs would face uproar and what’s Bucks got to do with Sheffield “Momentum” types?

Many areas without grammar or super-selective schools (Cambridgeshire for example) still produce high-achieving students who go on to excel in top sixth form colleges and universities with high entry standards. I don’t believe these students lack academic challenges at all.

And the gap is not going to narrow if Grammars are closed, because parents who are able to tutor will do it but at the GCSE & A-levels stage.

@Dibblydoodahdah Why do you think that your child is more deserving:of a good education than mine, simply because you are in a different part of the country? You do realise that the top 1% you refer to are actually spread across the whole country? How would you feel about selective education if your child wasn't considered (in your view) to be one of the elite?

All of the grammar school parents value the special education that their little darlings receive, but this is at the expense of those in the local area who don't receive the same benefits. I wonder if they would be so in favour of selective education if their children had failed the 11+ and carried that label with them throughout their GCSEs and A levels. There are a lot of less academic children who also desperately want to do well at school.

Well firstly I think there should be more super selective grammar schools spread across the country. I grew up in the North in a full comprehensive area and was surprised about all the different options in the area I live now when I first moved here. I believe that there should be more choice for everyone, not less. Secondly, my DS’ education is not at the expense of others in the area. It’s not a full grammar area. There are lots of decent comprehensive schools (and others that are partially selective (e.g. places for music and sport ability) and state boarding options. And by the way, my younger DS didn’t even do the 11 plus because we knew he wouldn’t get into his brother’s grammar. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think it should exist. I passionately believe that a one size doesn’t fit all.

Cambridge has Hills Road. That’s pretty selective. And that leads me on to another issue, some areas that don’t have grammar schools do have very, very selective sixth forms. What’s the difference?! In fact, some pupils at my DS’ grammar travel out of London to his school up to year 11 and then go to the “super sixth forms” in London for A Levels….in the areas that got rid of grammars in the 60’s/70’s. But they now have grammars by another name.

Very different. By that age, students have matured and developed better decision-making skills, broader personal development, and a stronger self-motivation to seek out learning resources. While tutoring can still have an impact, exams or selections are more reflective of the student’s own abilities. This process offer is universal and country wide. Additionally, it makes much more sense for students to travel independently over longer distances at this stage, as it helps prepare them for the independence required at university.

I damned well hope they don't. At our local hustings the Labour candidate (who won) said that they wouldn't be changing anything.

I disagree. These “super sixth forms” are not countrywide and they are often in areas with very motivated parents (such as East London where the local demographics mean that the many pupils are from cultures that strongly value education) or where there are many pupils of highly skilled professional parents (such as Cambridge). They are not universally available in all areas, just the same as grammars.

@Dibblydoodahdah
for 6th form the CHILDREN are deciding what to study and where

• some go to agricultural college
• some go to technical college
• some go to vocational college
• some do A levels

TOTALLY different than kids who are barely 11 being stopped from having the chance to study all three sciences

There’s also the ever increasing suggestion by Labour that they will exempt SEN (details tbd), armed forces, state boarding, etc. frankly there’s only going to be about half the number who stay at the schools actually paying the VAT.

Why do people think the non grammar educated DC carry a label with them for life? I truly don’t believe they do. It’s worse for the ones tutored who cannot keep up at the grammars! The DC I know at secondaries are proud of their schools. Many here are very good with enviable results. Like many LAs there are schools which face greater challenges and dc can move at 6th form. Plenty don’t though. They enjoy where they are. I don’t see huge envy and chips on shoulders. I see dc getting good grades at GCSE and making intelligent choices for HE.

The secondaries mostly don’t have the wildly ambitious parents or over competitive dc who cannot “fail” and, as a result, match DC to curriculum speed resulting in most being satisfied. Some won’t be happy but that applies to the grammars too.