Labour advised to finish closing all grammars

[twistyizzy]

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

I’m not suggesting that all those that get 100% in SATS should be in a grammar school. The SATS are far easier than the 11 plus that my DC did.

My point is that the students admitted to superselective grammar schools are not necessarily brighter than those in comprehensive schools. We can define ‘bright’ by academic achievement, GCSE top grade results show a significant overlap between superselective grammar and comprehensive schools students. Many parents of bright children do not naturally choose superselective schools, although some actively pursue this option, but not a majority.

It was you who brought up your son getting full marks in SATs!

So many children did.

Some kids really are just that bright. When I taught at a super selective grammar, I had an infuriating pupil who put in zero effort to class work, homework etc and frequently fell asleep in lessons in pretty much every subject. I think he must have perfected learning by osmosis, though, as he still got the very top A* across his subjects.

There are some present everywhere, but they are not predominant in superselective grammar. Based on what you described, the pupil got bored with super-selective grammar, and it does not suit his special needs.

I also said that he got 141 in his CAT tests and that he got full marks in SATs despite no prep and hardly any school for weeks. I did this because I was accused of “self-perceiving” his academic performance. I can give loads of other evidence if you like, but no doubt I will be accused of lying again.

Choice is good which is why some areas of the country like London have a lot of choice - many different private schools, comprehensives, grammars in some areas, the "strictest school in the country" in Wembley - state secondary and all the various religious schools as well as right to home school. Other areas have less choice. What is unfair is that some areas of the country have had grammar schools since they came out and NE England stopped having any in about 1970. It should not be a local political issue within a common country of England but something that is the same across England. eg my father's old school in Bishop Auckland is now comprehensive. I am not sure it is doing better now than it did in his day .

Many of them don’t have the option, that’s the point I am making. Which you keep ignoring. Maybe some parents would like that option but people like you want to stop all parents having the option. Why? They are not harming comps or children educated in comps, so leave them alone and put your energy into improving schools that need help.

No, he was just an arrogant teenager 🤣

Superselective grammar, in theory, is an option for everyone. Some parents pursue it and move house once their child gets in. However, I would argue that many do not see the value of it and choose to opt out. I don't see the value of it either. I agree, a big if, it didn't harm local education resource, it probably less an issue. Attack it will harm the tutoring industry.

I fully support abolishing grammars. You can have different streams for subjects in every comprehensive school.

No it isn’t because many parents don’t have the option of moving house. Many parents don’t even know they exist. Up North, grammar means private school to many. The only parents that I know who actually live in an area that has a superselective and have opted out are those that can afford private school and, even then, there’s another reason such as their child being involved in sports at an elite level with the private school supporting that better.

think the main disagreement is whether superselective grammar are a natural choice for parents with perceived bright kids.

Moving house is an option, but different parents weigh it differently, given the scarcity of superselective grammar, most who get in have to move or travel long distances. Some parents think it is worth uprooting or moving house for superselective grammar, while many others consider their children’s development, well-being, and belief in local comprehensive schools and choose to opt out. High tutoring costs are also a significant constraint. I didn’t say that no high-intelligence kids opt for private schools, but the statistics I mentioned for GCSE distribution, etc., are limited to the state sector.

In what ways can a grammar school benefit a teenager who "frequently falls asleep in nearly every class" but still achieves the highest grades?

Clearly, in his case it didn’t! Fortunately, he was the exception to the rule though. In general, the boys were a lot more stretched there than they would have been in a comp and had far more interesting teaching because it wasn’t teaching to the test like it has been in every comp I’ve worked in, especially in the last 10 years or so.

No moving house isn’t an option for many parents because they can’t afford to buy in a grammar area or they live in social housing and cannot get a transfer. You are deluded if you think that all people can just upsticks from somewhere in the North East and move to London or Essex, for example. Nothing to do with their belief or lack of belief in the comprehensive system. You must live in
a little bubble where everyone has the means to move to a different area. It really isn’t that simple for a lot of people.

On the contrary, I don't think comprehensive teaching is focused on teaching to the test. Many children are challenged academically and in other areas at school.

My son is a talker. His primary school teachers used to say that they were suprised that he scored so highly in tests because they didn’t think he was listening! He’s been better at grammar, presumably because he finds the work more challenging.

With access barriers such as high tutoring costs and high moving costs, I think it uses state funding to create a bubble that benefits a certain social class, thereby fueling inequality.

People wouldn’t need to move if they were spread across the country would they? They could be like my DC’s school friend who lives in a council house and has parents that barely speak English. I very much doubt he had tutoring because it’s unlikely they would have had the means for that. He was lucky enough to go to a primary that has an excellent record of getting their brightest pupils into the nearest grammar despite being in the middle of council estate. Level up, not down.

Moving house is an option, but different parents weigh it differently, given the scarcity of superselective grammar, most who get in have to move or travel long distances.

You must be joking, surely. So a family with a bright child who lives on a farm (ie not a portable job) on the Isle of Wight should move to an area with super selective grammar schools, regardless of the needs of any others in the family?

Like most of those outside of these strange little elite locations, I had never heard of such schools. They could never open in areas like Cornwall or the IoW or North Wales because they are not economically viable or logistically feasible.

Our exceptionally bright children perform equally well as those hot housed and haven't been wrapped up in cotton wool in case they catch the ick from those who are less academic. Non-selective schools differentiate - my daughter didn't do the same work as those in her class aiming for 2s or 3s but they worked alongside each other well.

There are disruptive children in every school. Simply being entered for and passing an exam when you are 10 or 11 doesn't reduce the risk of doing drugs, having MH problems etc.

Why do you assume that ability settings means that the top tiers won't have disruptive behaviour? Are 'clever' children never disruptive or have poor behaviour?

What about those who aren't in the top sets but who,still want to learn and reach their potential? Why do they have to put up with the disruption?

Round here tutoring is £20+ hour - not many people on very low incomes can afford that regularly ime.

Teaching to the test doesn’t mean they aren’t challenged - it’s just deadly dull. Obviously, my experience is only in one subject, though (or two, if you count the fact that I was drafted into a completely different subject when there was a staff shortage 🙄)

In every comp? I don’t think so. And why are you such an expert and denying what a teacher with actual experience of comp and super selective grammar is saying?

My indirect experience comes from a friend who frequently works as a supply teacher at a superselective grammar. There, the students don’t care who is teaching because their parents hire tutors to ensure they get good grades in exams anyway.