Grammar schools - why are they different to streaming in comprehensives?

[tootsietoo]

So the government has just announced that they will consider reintroducing grammar schools. Admittedly I don't know much about the education system but I don't understand why they are different or better than streaming in a comprehensive school. Would they be funded differently? Have different or better teachers? A narrower range of subjects? As far as I can see to stream in certain subjects in a comprehensive enables the stretching of the academically able children but would allow for movement of children between streams each year therefore avoiding "pigeon holing" children at 11. Explanations gratefully received!

Thank you, esp Bojorojo and DoctorDonna. That explains it a bit more. So it's really all about separating out the brighter more engaged ones and then the knock on effects of possibly attracting better teachers.

Pleasemothermay1, I think you've just given a great example of why comps are good - the fact that a child who may have had to go to a SM was able to move from bottom to top sets after a year, thereby possibly gaining an educational environment better suited to him that he wouldn't have been able to have if he was in an SM.

Sorry to be a pedant but can we be clear about the difference between setting and streaming?

Streaming is grouping children together for all subjects based on their ability in one. Universally considered a bad idea. except when it is done writ large to stream children into grammar or secondary modern based on the 11+

Setting is grouping children for each subject according to ability. Almost universally considered a good idea- although there is some academic research to show that it isn't for all groups.

academic children can and do get very good education in comprehensives. Where they don't it's the individual school letting them down, not the system and grammar schools are a lazy way of trying to sort out the issue for some children. All schools should aspire to high standards of education and behaviour.

Good comprehensives find the low achievers who could do much better and push them on.

If we had a grammar school here, would I have sent dd to it? probably, but only because I would have been worried about her peers being creamed off and her being the only high achiever in the SM. I would much rather not have the choice.

I didn't know that Bertrand - thanks

pleasemother - I've explained why it's social engineering in my earlier post. I don't think I need to type exactly the same words again.

I had a fantastic experience at my grammar school, but the research on this issue is pretty clear, and I do think we should focus on recreating the good elements of grammar schools in comprehensives (as happens already at many of the best mixed-ability schools) so bright kids can be pushed and kept engaged without kids who are less able at 11 being sent to inferior schools.

The BBC, the entire metropolitan elite and all their mates seem to be on TV non-stop trying to stop Theresa May's plans. All we seem to be hearing in the metropolitan media is "free schol meals" as if that determines the country's entire education policy.

Perhaps it isn't so much an issue with the children, but with engaged parents. You certainly do not have to be middle class to engage in your child's education, as a previous poster said. However, class aside, engaged parents tend to have children who are better behaved at school. Parents who lead by example
Me and respect school rules, uniform policy, turn up on time etc. They read with their kids and ensure homework is completed. These kids then do better academically at school and are more confident. They get into grammar schools with other similar children. It is the same in the independent sector. Hard working parents who aren't rich often make a lot of sacrifices to send their kids to a school where there are like minded parents interested in getting the best for their children. I dare say faith schools also tend to be under this umbrella as well.

As a non British school person, what it the difference between a secondary modern and a comprehensive?

Just throwing a spanner in the works to watch the fall out ... Once the academic and competitive kids leave for the grammar schools, surely that gives the tier of children below them and the slow starters the chance to be the clever kids at the top of the class, giving more confidence, etc. These kids will then get more teachers attention and excel, right? Surely once the clever clogs are out, the dynamics change. That is the whole bell curve theory.

If they insist in reintroducing grammar schools, they should pay teachers in the "secondary moderns" more money than the grammar school teachers. They are the ones who will work harder helping kids who need to be encouraged to learn and thinking up creative ways to help them. It would be interesting to see if the best teachers were with the lower set kids if the results would even out.

Notme- the argument is that it doesn't work for the "clever clogs" so why should it work for the next tier down?

m and grammar schools are a lazy way of trying to sort out the issue for some children. All schools should aspire to high standards of education and behaviour.
and we see from blazer gate that this is often not possible as the parents simply don't share those values hence I shudder to think what the bahviour and attauide of there children is to education I very much doubt there was any grammar schools were the police had to be called due to parents not wanting to follow somthing basic as the uniform

OhYouBadBadKitten It would be toattly your choice you keep your in a school were she would worse off in education terms but why should you get to decided that for my children to

If there bright they should attend grammar school end of we have this sytem in northen irland and it's working

U can easily tinker with the admission and make it ability and income linked However it's pretty much always comes down to this my child is getting a shit education in a local comp they wouldn't get into a grammar so everyone's child should suffer in the shit comp

If the education in these sink schools were so awsome one would think the grammars would remain empty

My sons comp was outstanding and really good but I still had to top up with a tutor due to class sizes and also the teachers still having to deal with nit wit parents and pupils who don't value education

The best predictor of how well a child will do is the parents they have

It really boils down to somthing no one wants to say the poorest children who struggle the most because of there home life often unless there family dynamic changes you often can't do anything for yes a fab teacher in the local comp may inspire one or two children dispite there background but in the main shit parents often mean your doomed to fail

So how wil my child not attending a grammar school help those children

I happen to think that all children are equal. Yes, some are more academic than others, some have better support, some are wealthier. I don't happen to think that my child is too good for comprehensive schools.

you are just writing them off forever pleasemothermayI. That's really sad.

pleasemothermayI - exactly. Sending your child to a grammar will make no difference to those whose parents won't send their kids to school in the right trousers!

"We've known for a long time that while the education system in Northern Ireland works well for many of our young people, for too long, significant numbers of pupils have struggled to fulfil their potential as a result of that same system" says the Equality Commission. Whether the NI system "works" is a matter of perspective, I guess. Ethnic minorities and people from poor working class families are served least well by the NI system.

I think grammars are stupid.

I think a good comprehensive teaches bright kids perfectly well.

Our local comp had four oxbridge this year, local private schools had none. They also have very good provision for the non academic.

That is the kind of school that should be getting the attention and funding.

Grammar schools exist so that people can get what they see as a free private education. IME they are highly pressured environments which find it almost impossible to turn out well rounded, grounded kids.

poster OhYouBadBadKitten Fri 09-Sep-16 10:46:14

It is sad but there is only so much you can do for children who's families won't support them and don't value education if we're honest children will only achieve so much with out support and guidance from parents

Also if your saying we're writing them off because bright children go off to grammar then to me your admitting comps are not fit for purpose

To me it's like saying my daughter shouldn't attend Oxford because your daughters nit bright enough to go with pretty much means no one gets a good education

I do feel sorry for the high schools but just as we see with jacket gate some children just don't stand a change there parents actively working agasit the school that won't be sopped by not allowing a bright child to go to a grammar

I had a fantastic experience at my grammar school, but the research on this issue is pretty clear, and I do think we should focus on recreating the good elements of grammar schools in comprehensives (as happens already at many of the best mixed-ability schools) so bright kids can be pushed and kept engaged without kids who are less able at 11 being sent to inferior schools.

yes irenethequaint

poster Theask Fri 09-Sep-16 10:54:52
And local parents will see the results and vote with there feet

Like when free schools were brought people moaned parents won't send there children to shit schools well some people won't

If the local grammar is not getting the results then people won't have there children sit the test

If the school is what you say it will mratully be a draw to middle class parents and brighter pupils

But if the 'bright' children go to grammar school the non-grammar schools are not comprehensive; they are what used to be called secondary modern. Grammar schools just pander to the conservative belief in inherent elitism - you can be a moneyed elite or an intellectual elite, but sheep and goats should be separated. My husband is a working class grammar school success story. My son is a top set August born boy. They are both statistical anomalies.

Why will they be sent to infor schools

You are trying to make the case that we don't need grammars because the schools are educating all children well then I'm the same breath saying if the bright leave then the children will be left in sink schools can't have it both ways if the

Schools are sink schools them we really go need grammars if the comps are doing well then it won't matter that brighter children leave

poster Ontopofthesunset Fri 09-Sep-16 11:02:01

Because the left want it that way

There are plenty of children who are brigh enough to attended Oxford and Cambridge however the high schools don't even get them to apply

That why many engaged parents want grammars comps promote underachievement dispite my sons friend getting a* at a level his awful comp have encouraged him to apply to the local piss poor uni has has the fucking grades for Cambridge mh husband was shocked his nephew has worse gades and is at Cambridge for a similar course however he is from northen irland went to a grammar that encourages high achievement including uni

Grammars have become the home to either bright academic children or children whose parents can afford and also choose to have the tutored.

I chose not to have my children tutored as I don't believe in pressurising their lives anymore than they already are.
I've heard ridiculous conversations at the nursery gates about tutoring starting at age 5.
Grammars are divisive.

I agree that engaged parents who are positive role models for their children are one of the most important factors in how children do at school. Other than that I think all schools should provide an excellent education for all children.