Nikki out, Justine in

[bojorojo]

Will the new Government be more supportive of new grammar schools and change the law to allow new stand-alone ones? Theresa May wants one in her constituency and all the anti grammar school brigade have gone: Gove, Morgan, Cameron and Osborne. The BBC is reporting this could be on the agenda.

[OhTheRoses]

Perfectly happy to pay more tax if it is spent well to improve public services although I feel we pay rather a lot already

However, that extra money should be channelled into term time activities. Local authorities and parents should be and remain responsible for happens in the holidays.

[Badbadbunny]

Why do people keep harping on about the problems of the old sec-mods? I don't think anyone advocating more grammars is suggesting a return to the old style sec-mods as the alternative.

Also, why do people keep harping on about super-selective grammars? Yes, to get into one of those, you do need to be tutored to within an inch of your life. But it doesn't have to be like that. It's only so bad because of massive demand for places which has put up the entry criteria to marks in excess of 90/95%.

In lots of other areas of the country, it's still possible to get into a grammar without tutoring and by gaining more "normal" marks of around 70%. Increase the number of grammar places and inevitably the entry requirements will reduce - simple supply & demand - meaning tutoring won't be needed anymore.

At the end of the day, the old system was flawed because of the poor sec-mods, not because of the grammar schools. The politicians could have chosen to improve the sec-mods to resolve their inadequacies, but instead, chose to scrap the whole system, including the good bits, i.e. the grammars. Part of the problem of the old system was that the teachers in the sec-mod were the ones who had very low expectations of their pupils!

[OhTheRoses]

I agree badbunny. Some dc had the benefit and privilege of a good grammar school education. The solution therefore was to take it away. I had Kent friends who argued against the grammar system because they went to secondary moderns and resented it. Guess where their children have been sent

[Peregrina]

No, the system was flawed because of the idea that you could sort children out at age 10/11. Not all grammars were good - mine was mediocre and I know many others who said theirs was the same. By the same token, there were some good Secondary Moderns.

Believe it or not Badbadbunny up and down the country there are some extremely good comprehensives. We need to be looking to them to see what they are doing, not turning the clock back 60 years to a system which didn't work. Some commentators are of the opinion that the system helped to lose the Tories the 1964 election. You also have to remember that as Sec of State for Education, Maggie Thatcher approved more Comprehensives than Labour did.There must have been a good political reason why.

BTW most of us don't live in London, so 'super-selectives' are something which don't exist for us.

[Stickerrocks]

There are only 164 grammar schools left in the country. The majority of us manage perfectly well without them in state run comprehensive schools. No need for tutoring 10 year olds, no destroying self-esteem at the age of 11. Strangely, our children still manage to get into elite universities and get good exam results, they are not just the preserve of grammar schools and private schools.

[Peregrina]

Strangely, our children still manage to get into elite universities and get good exam results,

Absolutely agree, but you would never know it from MN!

Locally what seems to be desired is not, 'bring back the grammars (oh and BTW risk my child going to the Sec Mod), but making sure that all the local comprehensives are good.

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

' minifingerz Fri 15-Jul-16 06:00:09

By the way, my ds's comp offers separate sciences and for languages, Italian, German, Spanish, French, Latin and Ancient Greek. If they can do this why shouldn't others? Why do you need to separate children into separate buildings?'

Bloody hell Minifingerz, where do you live? We were looking at no languages other than Spanish at GCSE in the school in our old area. (We moved.)

The reason why most schools won't offer such an amazing range is because in a typical comprehensive the take-up won't be great enough to make it worth it.
I think only offering Spanish was appalling but I can't really blame schools for only offering the normal range of 3 or so modern languages and no ancient ones, much as I love Latin.
A grammar school can give a critical mass of enough academic kids to make it worth offering more subjects. I don't think grammars are without their problems but that is one very clear advantage and I am sad my kids won't have that option.

[Stickerrocks]

95% of state run secondary schools in England are not grammar schools. There seems to be a warped idea on MN that whole country suffers the grammar school system.

[KittyOShea]

In N Ireland we still have a full selective system.

Despite the fact that the 11+ was removed by government the grammars continue to administer their own tests.

The school I teach in is a 'secondary modern'. Over 50% of our pupils are on FSM. The grammar closest to us- 10 mins walk away- has less than 4% FSM. All grammars do is further entrench the status quo. They are no longer a leg up to bright, working class children.

I would also like to address the notion that secondary moderns have low aspirations for their pupils. We have extremely high aspirations for ours however our results are inevitably lower than the grammar because as well as having the top 30% creamed off by the grammar, we also have to deal with many social problems that the grammar has a lot less of. This impacts on our pupils hugely.

Despite this we have had many pupils from the grammars choose our 6th form and some moving to us at earlier times in their schooling. They always comment positively on the quality of teaching and pastoral support they receive in our school I comparison to their previous experience.

Secondary moderns can be good schools however there is no disputing the fact that pupils are hindered by confidence (not good enough to get into the grammar they think) social issues, and lower funding levels.

I would love the system to change here to fully comprehensive to benefit all our pupils not just those who already have many advantages. Hopefully the new Education Minister both here in NI and in England is aware of the facts.

[minifingerz]

Countess, I live in London and my dc's school is MASSIVE. :-)

There are no selective state schools in the borough where my dc's school is either, so there is a critical mass of bright children at the school - enough to justify the provision of a wide range of languages.

[minifingerz]

There's evidence from the US that integrating children from across the social and ability spectrum raises overall attainment for the majority of children and significantly reduces drop-out rates.

If that's the case then shouldn't we be promoting it here?

[Badbadbunny]

The comp system only works if there is NO segregation. The main flaw in the abolition of the grammar system was that they allowed the continuation of faith schools to select. That's every bit as bad as selection by academic ability. If we want comps to be the answer, then all forms of selection have to be scrapped.

In our town, the non-selective comps are all failing. That's not helped by the "parents who care" turning religious to get their kids into the 2 "outstanding" faith schools in the next town which are both huge. Parents just turn up at church enough times to get a few points and hey-presto, they're in a good school! Yes, there is also a grammar in that town, but their intake is tiny compared with the two faith schools. The remaining comps in our town don't stand a chance, so it's a vicious circle!

Considering that religion generally is declining, it shows the education system is a mess when the two faith schools have grown massively over the past few decades - both were small and unpopular in the 60s and each now has 2,000 or more pupils - you can't tell me that their intake are genuinely religious!

It was a pretty stupid thing to do to allow faith schools to continue to be selective when they scrapped grammars and brought in comps. It's just allowing "selection" by a different criteria and when that's happening the normal "comps" don't stand a chance.

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

'The main flaw in the abolition of the grammar system was that they allowed the continuation of faith schools to select. That's every bit as bad as selection by academic ability.'

That and the continued existence of private schools, including some of the old grammars that went private and continued to hoover up large numbers of their old intake, because while many parents of bright children can't afford to pay, there a quite a few who can.

[MangoMoon]

I went to a Grammar in the 80s (11+ area) for first 3 years of secondary (we moved to different part of country so changed to Comp at that point).
The Grammar gave me a great grounding academically, but I actually much preferred the comp as it had more variety.

My kids now go to a local comp - it's great.
Good variety of subjects, paired with local technical college for pupils that aren't super academic, an 'extra period' is also added on to the normal school day for those that want to do an extra GCSE (for eg my son is doing drama as an extra).

I hope Nikki Greening doesn't piss about getting distracted with Grammars & instead gets stuck into getting all schools into good shape.

[TaIkinPeace]

Average spend state sector: 6.5k rising to 8.3K in some parts of inner London?

Yup in Hampshire, schools get £4000 per pupil

no wonder London schools get higher results - they get double the money

what needs sorting is the funding formula for ALL schools

what needs sorting is a MASSIVE programme of increasing te LEA places where they are needed

what needs sorting is the utter disaster of Teach First for actually filling staffing rolls

not twiddling with a bit of the system that is not broken

[esornep]

I am hoping that the incoming government can see that the academy/free school programme is not helping, and that many parents are unhappy with the rapid and chaotic changes to SATS/GCSEs/A levels.

It's pretty obvious to most parents that the real problems in education are the ones listed by Talkinpeace. I really doubt that grammar schools are going to be a massive vote winner in marginals, but trying to solve some of these problems could well retain the marginals in the next election.

[Peregrina]

what needs sorting is the funding formula for ALL schools

Yes, and this means bringing the spending level up of the poorly funded ones to those which get the most. If TM is serious about her statements about life chances then the money needs to be found.

Don't say we can't afford it - it would be a sound investment for the future.

[WalrusGumboot]

My worry for my dc is that they'll have to share classrooms with disruptive pupils who won't engage for one reason or another. I'd like to see this problem resolved (not sure how though!)

[esornep]

But in an economy which is dealing with the Brexit fallout we probably can't afford increased school spending without significant tax rises.

(I wonder how much the Brexit ministry is going to cost.)

[Peregrina]

I suspect we afford it, if we bothered to chase after some of the tax dodging companies.

[HPFA]

The idea that selective education either increases academic attainment or promotes social mobility has been completely disproven. There's loads of reports around but this is probably the best blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/. If you find the graphs confusing (I certainly did) then this is a good article summarising the research www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/06/selection-results-in-lower-grades.
I know we're all supposed to know better than the experts these days but can't we agree that someone working as a data expert for the Financial Times might know what they're talking about?

[HPFA]

My worry for my dc is that they'll have to share classrooms with disruptive pupils who won't engage for one reason or another. I'd like to see this problem resolved (not sure how though!)

No-one wants this but secondary moderns are certainly no less likely to have disruptive children and quite possibly they would be more likely.

[Peregrina]

The thing I never get with the Grammar School argument is that why should only the academic children not have to put up with disruption? Why shouldn't the conscientious child of so-so academic ability have the chance to achieve their best in an orderly classroom? (Not that Grammar School kids are necessarily not disruptive, though, but at least can't be said to be switched off from education because they don't see its relevance.)

[WalrusGumboot]

I suppose it's more that I'd like the teachers to be able to effectively address disruptive behaviour in the classroom, whichever school they are in. It seems they have neither the tools nor confidence to do this and I'd like to see that change (again, not sure how!)

[TaIkinPeace]

What disrupts education more than anything else is a lack of funding

• no money for school trips
  
• no money for enrichment
  
• no money for happy qualified staff
  
• no money for support staff
  
• no money for decent meals
  

I'm not asking for much, just that every school place is funded fairly

and that LEAs are given back the power to provide places where there is a need that free schools and academies cannot meet.

I went to selective private schools. We were horribly disruptive.

Selection and segregation are not the solution to disruption.
Proper resourcing and support for disrupted kids is the solution there.