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!

And that a good goal to am for but they don't so now what
The question is

Should bright children be left to fester in a broken education system

We can't help eveyone so shall we help the ones we can on allow eveyone the bargain basement education

You don't like grammars for your children that's fine why can't mine have a grammar education if you truly believe that comps are good and most people agree with you then then won't be much call for then and they will be empty and closed with in a year so no harm done

Excellent speech by May. She says "for too long policy has been skewed by the free school meals measure". Exactly right. She is dismantling the metropolitan elite's entire rationale and spin in order to deliver change. The BBC will be spitting feathers at this.

Comprehensive schools are, broadly, educating bright children well. National statistics show that wholly comprehensive areas have better outcomes for children than grammar areas.

If you remove some children from a school, it is no longer a comprehensive school. That doesn't make it a sink school but it is a school without a 'top set'. Of course it has a top set but that set would be possibly a 3rd or 4th set in the grammar school.

It means that children who haven't passed the 11+ have a ceiling put on them. They can't move into a true top set because it isn't there. The school that takes the 'failures' is designed for less academic children. So it means, for example, in many secondary moderns that children can only take double science, not triple. It means they can only take one language at GCSE. Perhaps Further Maths isn't offered because there aren't enough takers.

So the academic late developer, or the kid who was feeling really rough on 11+ day, is denied lots of chances that he or she would get in a true comprehensive school that catered for the whole ability range.

Many countries that are often quoted as educationally excellent, like the Scandinavian countries, are entirely comprehensive.

Ontopofthesunset - won't most of the second tier children and late bloomers who are now the top of the class gain the confidence and the attention needed to succeed academically now that those awful, competitive clever twats that have held them back for so long are gone?

Some folk say grammars are great because they remove the top tier & let the 2nd tier (who go to comps) gain confidence without the oppressive presence of the super swots.

Some folk say the high standard of fellow pupils at grammars makes kids at the grammars more likely to try to excel, they are encouraged by the competition.

(so which is it, being around excellence and high achievers makes kids achieve more, or it makes them underachieve?)

If you believe a comprehensive school can give an academic child a brilliant education then you probably live in an area where there is very little wealth selection.

I live in an area that has no grammars but a lot of wealth selection and so in name only the schools are comprehensives. My DCs closest schools where a religious one, an excellent one and an awful one. This is almost the same as having a grammar system but the difference is I couldn't afford to buy a house half a mile to the west so had ZERO chance of getting in the good school, ZERO chance of getting into the Catholic and my DC faced the prospect of being 'written' off at 11.

Had I lived in a grammar system area my DC would at least had a chance of getting a brilliant education, instead of ZERO chance under the current wealth selection system.

Hey ho, played the game of musical houses to get into an average comprehensive. So DC isn't written off but certainly doesn't get a brilliant education. Its not the comps fault but it hasn't the resources to provide more academic subjects, its not the teachers fault that the top sets don't stretch bright children because their just isn't enough very academic children to fill a class. Its not the schools fault that there is so many disruptive pupils destroying so many lessons that at least one lesson a day is written off with no learning done. But the school also cant provide more vocational subjects because it just isn't viable in a medium sized comp of mixed ability.

A grammar school in my area would be good for ALL. It does not mean all the other academies, church schools, free schools, UTCs, council schools etc somehow become bad schools.

I think its broadly a myth that bright children fester in comprehensive schools. Based on my tiny range of experience, parents that bang on about their children being held back turn out to actually have averagely bright children.

Our local comprehensive is absolutely excellent. It is in an area chock full of independent schools - there are 6 within 10 minutes of my house.

It is next door to one of the most deprived pockets in our county (i know this as I had to apply for grant funding for a project nearby).

It is a bloody brilliant school. I'd be devastated if a grammar opened nearby as people near me are obsessed with getting a 'cheap private education' so they'd all go there. the whole 11+ angst brings the worst out in parents as well.

So it still all comes down to wealth?

Wealth to pay for tutoring.
Or
Wealth to buy near a good comprehensive.

Some comprehensives do not offer a good education, but we should be tackling the reasons for that, not removing the brightest from them and leaving the rest to suffer.

Trout it is both. In a competitive environment, competitive kids will excel. However, bright kids who don't join into that bun fight will not. However, the latter may excel without so many competitive kids around.

I live in a comprehensive area, schools are on the whole pretty decent. My DD's school slumped into special measures in her final year (poor leadership)..It was getting about 50% 5 As to Cs. There was still a top group of 30 or so kids who got pretty much all As and As. Engaged motivated kids will thrive anywhere; it's the others who struggle most. I would say my DD got less As than she should have though, due to lack of teaching staff.

I think they should be putting more resources into

So it still all comes down to wealth?

But for parents who care it is possible to prepare and practice for the 11+ for free, all the material is available online. For the genuinely academic this is not difficult.
The current selection by house price means it is IMPOSSIBLE for some academically gifted children to get a good education.

It might be 'unfair' that wealth brings tutoring but it isn't terrible to increase the education of thick rich kids children at no cost to the tax payer.

independent schools don't take away from state education

grammar schools would take away funding and aspiration from state comprehensives

It isn't actually mathsmum - very little free material is available online.

And if you think that 'selection by house price' doesn't happen in grammar school areas, you're wrong. We still have catchment areas and primaries places at schools which get good 11+ results are massively oversubscribed.

Even parents 'who care' and access material online, or anywhere are up against, in competition with, parents who can afford years of tutoring.

yeOldeTrout Thu 08-Sep-16 14:45:53

But what is wrong with a school that has less subjects, less funding and concentrates on academic dc?

What is wrong with the other school having more choice, more funding and more wider choices for those less academic?

You simply cannot look at the current system because its in limbo. Ie - primary schools rely on parents to get their dc ready for the 11+ - to even know about it.

So of course - its dc with invested parents who are getting their dc into grammars? How on earth is a child on FSM, with parents who are not interested - get their dc in? What is that child supposed to do? Its not the few grammars we have that are letting these dc down, its the whole system.

I have one dc who is a bright all rounder ie strong in Maths and English, my heart sinks at the schools on offer to her. My other DC may not be the same and I want her to have an equally good education for her abilites which may be catering or hair dressing or something more creative.

Over all - we need a consistent balanced system, not pockets here and there with dodgy primary school support.

ffon not really not if the parent also starts years in advance

Theask Fri 09-Sep-16 12:45:21

how odd, but in an area with no grammars but many indes you could argue that the people who can pay for their bright dc with parents who support education are sucked out of the system leaving the rest?

Some comprehensives do not offer a good education, but we should be tackling the reasons for that, not removing the brightest from them and leaving the rest to suffer.

as i said on the other thread our comps have been crap for nigh on 30 years.

they are failing all their pupils, bright not bright poor and rich.

I think its time to draw a line under them and call them a failed experiment.

we cant throw more dc under the ideological bus - waiting for something to turn these schools round, its been decades.

Competitive twats? ?

Humidseptember yes parents who can pay are still at an advantage.
A less well off parent may, for example have to work long hours for low pay leaving them with not only no money for tutors but very little time and energy for those hours and weeks and years of investigation, preparation and teaching of their children.
A less well off parent would have to show extreme parental devotion and possibly be educating themselves to be able to tutor their children at the same time. A wealthy parent simply makes a phone call and the payments.
I simply do not agree that it's equally accessible.

*as i said on the other thread our comps have been crap for nigh on 30 years.

they are failing all their pupils, bright not bright poor and rich*

Nope - some comprehensives have been failing some pupils.

Which specific aspects of grammar schools do you think are going to fix which specific failings of comprehensive schools? Most teachers could give you a list of lots of things that would actually improve secondary education. Bringing back grammar schools wouldn't usually be high on those lists.

I live in an all Comprehensive area, some Comps get 70-80% of pupils 5 GCSEs A* to C. (One gets 90% but that is a special case.) Most get at least 50%. Lots of pupils get to Oxbridge etc.
I don't think anyone here or in the County to the West want Grammar schools (except maybe some private parents, who might save money).
Personally I like that even academic children get the chance to do vocational subjects etc.

there is a lot of criticism on this thread of elitism. I believe in elitism. I believe children should be exposed to the best in art, literature, music and scientific thought. However I am not mad enough to think that only a small proportion of the population selected on the basis of one day's exam performance are in a position to benefit from this. On any objective view, the 11+ system is insane. it only ever made sense in the class bound place this country was in the 1940s.