Why not make grammar entry fairer?

[belladonna22]

My kids are still young so I have no direct experience with entry exams for grammar schools, but why is it that the exams seem to cover topics that children haven’t yet covered in most state schools?

If their (stated) purpose is to enable the best and brightest to attend, why do they make it more or less essential to obtain private tutoring, thus tilting the scales in favour of better resourced and informed families? If Labour were serious about improving access to education, wouldn’t one policy be for grammars to limit exams to topics most children will be familiar with at that point in their schooling?

Unfair that the government has not dealt with the crisis. Parents are having to do the best they can within the system at hand.

Nice dreams, what do they have to do with reality?

I guess it's OK for you to subject your own "little darlings" to physical assaults by children with serious behavioural/MH problems wherever they come from, council estates or not, but not everyone is so relaxed about their children's safety.

Well it's not OK for children of average or low intelligence to be subjected to physical assault either..

@cantkeepawayforever how would that work when only those children with exceptional academic ability who also have SEN could have EHCPs? Those who just displayed exceptional ability without SEN would not meet the legal threshold for an EHCP. Because exceptional ability on its own is not classed as a SEN.

@cantkeepawayforever In Bucks that’s absolutely not the case! In what way are they disadvantages? There are 6th forms, many DC in the higher achieving cohort going to university and some very good universities. There are definitely some dc who benefit from not being around the very bright dc and find their feet at a slightly slower pace. They are not disadvantaged. Like many dc where you live matters. That’s not unique to selective counties. In my LA, many secondaries do better than comps elsewhere. Lots of reasons for that but one is parental support and another is ethos of the schools. They want dc to do well and don’t label them as failures. As @CurlewKate says, overall selective areas do well and it’s because everyone tries hard to encourage dc to do well.

Only it won't. They freeze pensioners and starve disabled ppl, they couldn't care less about SEND crisis as there is no profit to be gained in all this chaos. War disasters are much more profitable.

The whole concept is unfair. It's a bit like saying 'let's democratise the Royal Family'.

I am sorry that happened to you.

Comprehensive schools should certainly be a lot better funded and better staffed.

I want to know what you think woukd be a fair outcom to the kids who are just 0.5% below whatever cutoff point is used to decide who goes to a good school. Who wants to learn and would definitely do better if in a school with brighter and more studious peers? Or with the bright but sightly later-blossomming child who doesn't quite "click" with maths at age 10y3m so does badly in the test but who could then then really start to thrive and start doing really well a year later? There is no way for a pass/fail binary system to be fair, to categorise one group of 10 year olds as worth educating properly, and the others as not worth the effort, only suitable for being warehoused out of the way till they can start being hopeless jobseekers. The existence of a grammar school dooms the "leftover" people to an education that is significantly worse than they would have got in a comprehensive system.

I never said it was. So? Given a choice, would you remove your children, irrespective of their intelligence, from disruptive children, or would you keep them locked in the same building?

Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

@RareGoalsVerge When we had the tripartite system parents actively chose the technical schools. Yes, others went to secondaries and some to the grammars but most dc were in the right school. These days the secondaries ARE good schools in the main. One near me is outstanding. The idea the secondaries are universally poor is ridiculous. Look at their results!

There is a big issue with Sen though. It does drain money and too many needs are not met. This is also due to not enough special schools. These are vital but expensive.

A fairer outcome for all would be diagnosing and treating the tiny minority of children who need special emotional and mental health support.

@GildedRage Not such a tiny minority now. Used to be, but not any longer. The industry of diagnosis of need is huge.

They're not a tiny minority anymore, it has changed dramatically after covid.

MH conditions are VERY difficult to treat unless it's something like ADHD where you have medication available. All other therapies and interventions are much more complex with no guaranteed results.

And we don't have enough qualified professionals to deal with this MH crisis so it's not just about funding. EdPsych and clinical psychologist need 7-8 years to qualify, and not many are keen to take this path as the jobs are extremely demanding but pay peanuts.

@TizerorFizz yes but not every SEND child is disruptive. Just like some disruptive children will be acting out due to home reasons not necessarily ND.

Government are responsible for funding training and how many seats can be offered in a variety of subjects. If they really wanted to help on a population level they could easily do so.

Statistically, the studies show that if you match Bucks with a similarly socio-economically advantaged county with a fully comprehensive system, there is no advantage to the grammar system. Overall, at a cohort level, the results are very similar (certainly not true that grammars ‘pull everyone up’).

Within that overall similar picture, there are subgroups that are slightly statistically advantaged (the subset of the most able who get into grammars) and subgroups that are slightly disadvantaged (the high, upper middle and middle ability students who do not get into grammars).

Of course, anecdotally there are individual excellent secondary modern schools, and individual grammar schools that add little value. But at a macro level - which is the level at which education policy should be operating - there is no overall benefit to a grammar system, and thus no overall disbenefit in not having any grammars.

I would never criticise a parent working within a grammar system for seeking out the grammar rather than secondary modern option.

However, national education policy should not be driven by ‘involved parents will try to get the best out of every system’, but instead by ‘how do we deliver the best possible education for all children from all backgrounds, regardless of their parents’.

And I would quite agree that part of that picture is ‘how can we reduce or eliminate disruption to learning in every set of every school’ - through meeting the needs of those who are or could be disruptive, often through a specialist setting on a temporary or permanent basis.

the crisis is the classroom disruption the lack of respect and lack of experts in the field (from psychiatrists to physics teachers). the crisis is not grammar schools.
and as for respect the approach to achieve that is not stricter regulations and frankly strange "rules". at the secondary level teachers need to have at least a BA/BS in their specialty then the teaching degree. The inverse to not having enough psychiatrists the number of people going into teaching with PE degrees needs to be capped or encouraged to top up their degree to the core english/math/physics/chem/bio/music etc. the special ed councilors need to be junior psychiatrists in training at this point.
i do think there is a crisis and focusing on grammar schools isn't the right approach (since there are relatively few same as private schools) and the schools attended by the majority of students needs to be revamped with an overall goal that all state schools be equal in 20 years time. the whole MAT system seems wrong.
however politicians think in 4 year cycles not long term planning.

The thing is, teaching needs to be an attractive - and attractively remunerated - profession, respected by the population and by governments. Teachers deserve a workplace where it is safe, and mentally and professionally rewarding to work.

Until then, there will not be enough teachers because anyone with other options - or broken - will have left.

Grammars are part of the problem insofar as they create secondary moderns, which are particularly poorly regarded by the public and where children with difficulties that affect their learning and behaviour are disproportionately congregated without the additional funding that is given to eg Special Schools.

I agree that grammars are not ‘the whole problem’ - but to say ‘oh, look over there, ignore our nice grammars’ is not right either. If you want grammars, you must also have full regard for, and plan for the full success of, the secondary moderns that in fact educate the majority of children.

@TizerorFizz yes a 3-layer (or preferably 4-layer).approach would be better than a binary model, but it still doesn't help with children whose potential isn't yet apparent at age 10-and-a-bit - better to have the layers all delivered within a flexible comprehensive model with much more opportunities for pupils to focus on strengths than a one-size-fits-all-until-you-decide-GCSE-options and plenty of flex to move between layers which wouldn't be possible if it was different schools.

All takes a lot more money than the pathetic half-a-new-teacher-per-school that was the election promise (overrulled of course by subsequent cuts)

Yes, be under no illusions about grammars, because they are basically Exam Factories. Pupils are drilled relentlessly to ace the exam. Massive emphasis on STEM subjects and the traditional professions.

DD1 excelled at English at her grammar and was very heavily encouraged to apply to RG universities to read English Literature. But when she decided she wanted to go to Art School instead, her teachers immediately lost interest and weren't involved with her university application at all.

DD2 was heavily encouraged to apply to Oxbridge to study Mathematics, but when she decided to study Economics at 'just' a RG university her teachers were openly annoyed.

We felt their grammar school was far more concerned about the academic prestige rather than what best suited the girls on an individual basis.

@RareGoalsVerge I have truly noticed that doesn’t matter. These dc may well not keep up in the grammars to begin with so develop at their pace. If they develop later they could go to a grammar for 6th form. This gives a wider choice of subjects, to be fair, and access to FM and a few heavier subjects. Many parents I know have done that but the majority stay with friends and the system they know and trust. They don’t feel second class and their results aren’t either.

I am also aware that the majority of parents are happy with the secondaries and I know teachers who haven’t appealed for a grammar place when dc might have been awarded one as a near miss. It’s really not all doom and gloom but parents attitudes and aspiration does make a difference in these circumstances. Nothing stops dc being the best they can be and my secondary modern educated Dc neighbours have gone to sought after RG for challenging subjects. Guess what? They’ve done better overall than some of the over tutored grammar dc - by a long long way!

There isn't a single grammar in my county. DD's lowest GCSE grade was an 8 and she couldn't even apply aged 10/11. DSis lives in Kingston. They have some amazing 'free' schools there It does seem unfair that DD will be applying for the same university places as those pupils later this year .