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!

Not true that independent schools don't take away from state education. They take whole tranches of the able kids with committed parents.
Not all of course because some can't afford it but, say, more than half the top table in dd's primary class (and we moved house and another parent wangled a place at a distant church school) - what was left was definitely not comprehensive in any meaningful way.

Stealthpolarbear - you win the prize!. I have been waiting for hours for someone to move off topic and onto pedantics! I deliberately put that there to see how long it would take to offend and derail the topic.

Two words and a question mark - and that's derailing?
But if that's how we're talking about children these days then go right ahead.

Notme-I am sure plenty of people noticed- but just made a faint frown of disgust and moved on. It's usually best to ignore such things.

My kids comprehensive school has failed my 3 eldest so badly it's got them go to Oxbridge . And the next one had 10 A*s this year. Damn comprehensives, they are all rubbish and full of horrible children.

A comprehensive would have to be enormous to be able to offer setting to ensure that the levels in classrooms are similar. In comprehensives the 'top' set covers a very wide range. I work in many schools and see this all the time.
If you have a school where the top 50% of a wider catchment is placed, you have a much better chance of the children in the sets being of similar ability/working at the same pace.
Which also benefits the bottom 50% for the same reason.
From this year anyway the old 'A-C' measure it irrelevant - masked the DC who should have got an A*, but got a B or C due to poor teaching/disruption/schools focussing on D/C margins.
Now schools will marked against the progress, so will identify those schools which were gaming the system to the disadvantage of the A* DC.

I don't understand why they are different or better than streaming in a comprehensive school.

To answer your question OP, the first point to make is that not all comprehensive schools set, and some don't set for all 'academic' subjects. I'm not aware of any data more recent that 7 years ago, and that is based on Ofsted visits, so could be skewed. However, Ofsted reported then:

Of about 18,400 classroom observations conducted by Ofsted inspectors in secondary schools last year (2008/09), roughly only four in ten represented set lessons:... at secondary, this data suggests that around 53%, 70% and 60% of lessons are set for English, mathematics and science respectively.

So that was a fair proportion of 'academic' lessons that weren't being set. I don't know if that picture has changed, but I can tell you that it hasn't changed in my local comp. (My interest in this issue comes from the fact that my local school doesn't set at all, except for maths, even for years 10 and 11, and my daughter's education has suffered from this.) There is also a problem with smaller schools not having enough top set children to fill a top set.

Personally, I think that if all comprehensives set effectively, and were prepared to seriously crack down on disruptive behaviour, including "low-level" disruptive behaviour, there would be far fewer people calling for grammar schools. But I know from reading many teacher blogs etc over a number of years that a lot of schools have senior management who simply refuse to deal with the behaviour issue, for whatever reason. Although that is also partly the government's fault, for effectively preventing schools from using permanent exclusion as a last resort, and not funding the PRUs and other alternative provision that would be needed if more pupils were to be excluded. While I'm sure grammar schools have some behaviour issues, they are very unlikely to have the same degree of problems typically caused by the most disruptive children in comprehensives.

I'm on the fence with regard to the grammars issue - I believe they shouldn't be necessary in theory, but I do despair in practice of ever getting all comprehensives to be good with current policies on behaviour and setting in particular.

I hope it's not s leafy comp mumsneedwine. That doesn't count on mumsnet bingo!

It's a comp with trees Welly. And lots of rich kids and lots of poor (& loads in the middle !). Kids in care and with SEN. And lots who are pretty bright. And lots who don't like school and lots who do. It's a comprehensive and that's what they are like. Full of different kids. One of my DDs best mates got 5Cs, which for her is awesome as her mum is an alcoholic & she helps bring up her 4 younger siblings. She gets angry at times and can be a bit of a pain, but so would you with her life. And my DD would never have met her if she'd gone to Grammar as they wouldn't have let her in. But she is truly awesome. And probably one of those kids a lot of you don't want your children associating with.

Personally, I think that if all comprehensives set effectively, and were prepared to seriously crack down on disruptive behaviour, including "low-level" disruptive behaviour, there would be far fewer people calling for grammar schools. But I know from reading many teacher blogs etc over a number of years that a lot of schools have senior management who simply refuse to deal with the behaviour issue, for whatever reason. Although that is also partly the government's fault, for effectively preventing schools from using permanent exclusion as a last resort, and not funding the PRUs and other alternative provision that would be needed if more pupils were to be excluded. While I'm sure grammar schools have some behaviour issues, they are very unlikely to have the same degree of problems typically caused by the most disruptive children in comprehensives.

this again I say I very much doubt there were any grammar school that had to have the police called because parents were trying to send children in with Nike air max on or no blazer

Also I would like to point out NI have a grammar school system with out children being left to fester.

Grammer schools will just allow wealthier parents to play the system more than they already do to ensure their child gets a place. They can afford private tuition and hothouse for the 11+

Hardly promoting social mobility.

Statistics prove schools in the surrounding area do worse, so that's promoting elitism.

Your school sounds like the kind of school most would want to send their DC to mumsneedwine. Doing well by all its DC.

And I agree with mothermayI too. I think that it's fear of the disruptive element that makes parents want to segregate their DC be it grammar schools, independent schools or moving to a leafy MC area for an outstanding comp.

Many years ago I heard an interview on Radio 4 with a Baroness, Warwick (?) who had been one of the architects behind including the troublesome, disruptive DC in mainstream school because in theory they would learn from their well-behaved peers. In the interview she admitted that actually in practice the opposite had happened and a lot of DC had had their education damaged by disruption in the classroom and the teacher's efforts being focused on the few. But of course now inclusion is a sacred cow and we couldn't be seen to build more 'special schools' for DC who have been excluded from more than 2 schools. Playing devils advocate, maybe we should think about that. Instead of 'creaming off' the top, remove those unwilling to learn to a different place so that they don't wreck the educational chances for everyone else.

It was Warnock, not Warwick!

I teach in an area with grammar schools. My school is a 'secondary modern' and I am incensed by the idea that kids who don't get into grammars are 'on the scrap heap'. My school is an amazing place. Teachers have high expectations of their students and we are set extremely challenging targets for them. Work is challenging, staff are motivated and we expect nothing but the best from our kids and they expect the same from us. Behaviour is excellent. The students make excellent progress and benefit from a range of extra-curricular activities. SEND students do particularly well and our high ability students are stretched to achieve their very best. We often get kids who have passed the 11+ coming to us instead of a grammar school because of what we offer.

As for a previous poster who stated,'We all know that the best teachers will teach in the grammars' or words to that effect - I'm a fucking ace teacher. I choose to teach in my school and I'm proud to work there.

Armi . Can we clone you

It's like that epasoide in the Simpsons

Where skinner show Marge and homer bbarts grade in a diagram and says that any children who sit next to him grades suffer

Totally agree with welly

You either remove the disruptive children or the engaged children remove theselfs

Add message | Report | Message poster Armi Fri 09-Sep-16 19:52:37

Sadly many parents don't value teachers like you

Will run to the daily mail if little jhon it's told to do anything that put him out

I personally think studio schools are the answer what do you think of those armi

And I chose to work in a failing school and I'm pretty good too (OFSTEd think I'm outstanding but I don't like them). And a science teacher so I'm a bit of a rarity these days. What we aim to do is work out why kids are disruptive, and put measures in place to help. Yes, some kids just hate school, so we provide college and work placements from year 10. Some kids are angry and can't contain it, so they have exit passes so they can leave any class and go to the counsellor when it all gets too much. And we try and find the key to help students learn, not just write them off because they are naughty. Look behind the behaviour to solve it. Do not blame the child straight off - there will be a reason. And I think most schools have fab teachers - because there are only the committee ones left in the profession.

Committed !!! Teachers hate committees

poster mumsneedwine Fri 0

but in the meantime while you find out why they hate school what happens the other students education

They sit and watch while Bob swears , disrupts and abuses the teachers

Of your not school ready then you need to be somwere other than a school that can support you

Mums need

Btw I don't blame the school often sadly it's the parents working actively against the school or just not having the kills the child's need to raise them

I'm coming from it from the angle of having done a placement in a special primary school for DC with behavioural issues.

It was a fab school, very structured and with an Outstanding OFSTED (sorry if that's a swear word). When one of the DC kicked off a couple of TAs would deal with it ( very high adult to pupil ratio). The other DC didn't bat an eyelid as it was nothing worse than they did themselves and the lesson continued. Unlike in the mainstream schools where the whole lesson could be disrupted.

Oh dear. No we do let the other students be disrupted. We remove the student and ensure the others can learn. Hence why we achieved over 70% A-Cs this year with Eng & Maths and got 3 students to Oxbridge and many more to great Unis. We also got lots to do apprenticeships and some to set off to explore the world. In a school with over 40% FSM and a high SEN we think this is pretty good. We ensure the disruption is kept to a minimum and everyone has a chance and no one is told they are useless or a pain. But despite all this some we lost some and they got no exams and became angrier as they grew older. And these students were educated separately sitting school or sent to the PRU.
Can I just point out that all schools will have some naughty behaviour because they are populated by teenagers. Who are cheeky, funny and gobby things.

Totally agree however some children mostly because of there shit up bringing are not ready to learn they family dynamic is just of chaotic and the family's have issues with anyone in athorite

You school sounds lovey a lot my ds school but you have to admit your school is in the minority one would imagine your school wouldn't be to worried about a grammars in my view is usually the piss poor schools that get scared there school is deserted as soon as parents get a wif of a decent school

My sons school was awsome if a grammar moved in the area yes we would of tried for it but I would not have been to worried if he didn't get in because his school was fab however

We have since moved the schools round here are awful and I will have to tutor my dd with in a inch of there life's to just brake even

I hate the idea of Grammars because I have worked in many many schools like mine. And I say this as a mum who has 3 at Oxbridge, a potential medic and one who thinks maths is like chocolate. I hate the idea of kids being told at 11 that they aren't good enough. That pushy parents who have cash can pay for tutoring but kids who don't can't. I hate the idea that we separate kids at 11 because they are doing well at 11. Many kids (especially boys) mature later and are very different people at 15. If we want life chances for all then we need to have schools that provide it and this should be where the cash goes. Not in building new Grammars which will only help the few.