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.

I don't really understand why people feel that children need to be sent to different sites to get different educations or why there is such an idea of segregation between 'academic' and 'vocational' children.

My dd is academically gifted and a great cook. She is currently thinking about signing up for a chef qualification alongside her academic and creative courses, because then she will be able to work her way through university (she wants to be a professor at the moment so will be in education for a log time).

We live in Canada now, emigrating partly for educational reasons. We only have comprehensives in our town (there are two religious schools but you really do have to be very religious to go there, they are not mainstream choices at all) and they all offer core academic courses, stretch academic courses and trades type courses. All children have to take a mix up of each as they have more of a general graduation approach (ie you have to take English to 12, Math, a science and a humanities to 11 plus a certain amount of credits to graduate school).

I work for the local university and it has a trades school as well as academic courses up to PhD. You can ladder form vocational to more academic - ie you can take trades certificates and ladder into engineering. People are motivated to do different things at different ages.

Oh and sometimes my children get bored at school. I went to a very expensive and academically selective public school in the UK. I too was bored at times, and boy were there some disruptive children there!

cricketballs I have experience of very academic children and how they are let down by both the primary and secondary comprehensives. I am not talking about the average DC who works their socks off to get into Oxbridge. I am talking about the ones like Lurkedforever1 who sit in class bored to death by how simple lessons were and dreaming of the promised land when it will be better next year. But it rarely is and they give up trying.

nooka I am only suggesting academically selective schools because it is the only way I can see of providing for very bright children under the current system. If comprehensives had the money to provide this then I would be happy as well. But they dont so I dont see any alternative. Ironic that you moved to Canada to get this!

My children's school doesn't have any particular provision for super bright children, although super applied kids can be advanced grades at primary and if they study at home at secondary they can get through courses quicker and so be in classes with older children at school. ds is starting some university courses next year to run alongside his final year of school which is cool but I don't think that there is so much emphasis on giftedness here. He got some extension stuff at primary (school district/ university organised) but as there are very few exams here perhaps it's easier to give more advanced children extension work.

There is no streaming and very little setting except through choice (you can take a more practical math course designed to support trades courses, or a more practical English course if you really don't like books).

However I don't know that I'd call either of my children super bright/ academic. They are both generally top of class, but I don't know if they will be at university (ds is aiming to get into the best university in the province and is on track to do so).

"how do you justify comprehensives with the average large intake that only offer the minimum of academic GCSE's" I have no idea why schools do this, do you? I should imagine it's got something to do with funding and something to do with finding and keeping staff. Obviously it's not something to defend! I'm sure it's not because of sheer bloody minded ideological reasons - I doubt heads set out to put ambitious families off joining their schools.

" I am only suggesting academically selective schools because it is the only way I can see of providing for very bright children under the current system"

But it's not!

Extremely clever children do thrive at some comprehensives, if there is good teaching and they have a reasonably bright cohort. My friends son has just left Cambridge with a first - did both GCSE's and A-levels at a London comp with a broad intake. It does happen!

DH used to be a parent governor, and I can't ever remember there being any discussion whatever about grammar schools. Most parents want their child to have the best possible education at the school they attend. We don't have Grammar Schools where we live, but do have a number of Independent schools, of mixed reputations.

I can't help thinking that this whole debate is a bit like the Tory Eurosceptics 'banging on about Europe' but 'banging on about Grammar Schools'. Those of you who aren't old enough to remember the system before comprehensives just don't remember how deeply unpopular the Sec Mod system was. Today, with a GS/SM system in Kent/Bucks, I can't ever recall parents in either County calling for more Sec Mods.

I agree with PP (and others) - this whole debate is a non-starter. Justine Greening, Theresa May or whoever is never going to bring back the binary selective system across the country. It's just not going to happen.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the system (more, IMO, of the latter), it's not a vote winner. No system in which 80% 'lose' is going to be popular. That alone means that nobody is going to bring it back.

It's also not particularly appealing intellectually to many Conservatives, who emphasise choice. A system in which 20% have a choice of two schools and 80% have no choice is certainly not that (I know it's a bit more complicated than that).

If I were education secretary for the day, I'd get rid of faith admissions as my priority, but that's another issue.

If I were education secretary for the day, I'd get rid of faith admissions as my priority, but that's another issue.

I'd get rid of ALL forms of selection for state funded schools. The only way in which a comp system will work is if parents have to send their kids to a choice of 2/3 of the closest schools. Otherwise, you have selection by the back door, due to people moving or putting down false addresses, etc.

The faith schools have a far bigger impact of sucking away average/high achievers leaving everyone else in sink schools, than grammars or private schools, simply due to the far higher numbers of faith school pupils as opposed to private/grammar numbers.

In our city, there are two huge faith schools, each with 1,500-2,000 pupils, despite empty churches (lots of people lie to get their kids in them!). The comps don't stand a chance, we have three and they're all failing, none are bigger than 1,000 - we used to have four but the worse one got closed down and the kids are now bussed over the county border to a "good" comp.

If I were education secretary for the day, I'd get rid of faith admissions as my priority, but that's another issue.

Even that isn't just as straightforward as might be thought. Up and down the country a lot of village primary schools are Church schools, (mostly CofE, but RC in some parts) which cater to the children in the village, and attendance at Church doesn't really come into it.

Greening is a Comp girl.
Hopefully she will bring some sense

Depends on her experience. I went to a comp and wouldn't wish my experience on my worst enemy!

So it's Faith Secondary schools which are the big problem. We have one RC secondary school within 8 miles of us, but that is the only Faith school I can think of, and I think it comes into the "it's OK category" rather than being hugely oversubscribed.

Even that isn't just as straightforward as might be thought. Up and down the country a lot of village primary schools are Church schools, (mostly CofE, but RC in some parts) which cater to the children in the village, and attendance at Church doesn't really come into it.

Indeed, but for most faith secondaries, you need to accumulate points to get a place which usually means needing a form signed by the local vicar to confirm church attendance - the more you attend, the more points you get! Without church attendance, you're unlikely to have enough points to secure a place. That's why churches are usually a lot busier with families etc in the Autumn and those same people disappear again once the vicar has signed the forms!!

For the real paranoid parents, you'll find they put themselves on the church cleaning rota, the flower rota or the tea/biscuit rota, sometimes for a year or two. They then get so many points for regular attendance over a couple of years, they're guaranteed a place. Then you never see them again, and a new group of paranoid parents take their places.

And you thought 11+ tuition was crazy!

nooka
super applied kids can be advanced grades... be in classes with older children at school...university courses next year to run alongside...

None of that is possible in England.

minifingerz
I am not saying all comprehensives comps can't provide for extremely bright children. But outside of London its rare to find a large enough extremely bright cohort for it to be possible to provide such.

mini no, it's to do with low aspirations for their pupils. Ignoring the badly run one, the 'good for everyone average and below' comp near by does have the staff. From talking to teachers at the open evening and parents of dc there, the science teachers are generally good, and in favour of offering seperate too. And at least two language teachers are more than capable of teaching a second mfl. One maths teacher has in the past let able dc do the stats gcse alongside. But because they aren't given time, it really was a case of those dc bright enough to be handed the textbook and work through in normal maths lessons. So only advisable for dc who will get an a effortlessly, not those who with normal lessons could get a in both. And top sets rarely get her. As per usual the most able dc are always bottom of the list for the best teachers, the ones able to differentiate across the ability range. It's the leadership that are choosing to ignore the needs of able dc.

As for the shit school, again it's leadership that are responsible for the lack of decent teachers. They drive them off.

In theory the top 1% or so shouldn't need to be educated seperately. But practically it would be the cheaper and easier option. I don't think it would even need to be in different schools entirely, it could be done as a group effort between several schools to get a decent size cohort for any subject. That way kids with spiky profiles could be accomodated too, rather than a future Einstein missing out.

I am NOT suggesting we should bring back the binary GS/SM system. A lot of MN posters seem to use the idea of Grammar to mean middle class privilege of a good school with well behaved children and good results etc. I am suggesting a small number of free schools be set up almost like special needs schools for children that are so bright no school within the local city/area can provide for them.

Oh I agree Badbunny with getting rid of all forms of selection in state schools, faith admissions are just the one that I'd sort out first (I'm only education sec for a day so I have to be quick). They definitely have the most egregious effect.

My kids all went to nearest (requires improvement) primary, but have to confess that eldest has now gone to private secondary so I know we're part of the problem and are stinking hypocrites. But where we are in central London if you're not religious or musical or able to get into super-dooper selective (and willing for your child to travel 2 hours a day) or rent next door to Camden Girls, then you are left with the schools that have almost all the motivated children stripped out and huge problems with transience, deprivation etc.

I really want my children to be in properly representative comprehensive state schools, however where you have selection of any sort you end up with default secondary moderns. Why anyone would argue to create secondary moderns formally is beyond me.

Faith schools definitely cause problems. Its the lying to get into them that seems so grubby.

If you banned all selection then watch house inflation skyrocket beside schools for the middle class. Selection by house price will take over big time.

Partial selection by sporting, acting, musical, artistic, mathematics etc should be a good thing because it allows enough of a level of excellence to cluster that a full comp usually just doesn't have. And there is no lying involved.

I dont see why you have to bring back secondary moderns back.

Yy badbunny. It only needs faith criteria crossing off admissions. You don't even need the complexity of church owned property etc. Just 30 seconds of delete.

Whilst I recognise your flower arranging parents, it always amused me that the oh so religious never clamoured for Dd's church primary, which had no faith criteria and an undeserved bad reputation. Instead they always had space whilst those who couldn't get into the naice church primaries which were feeders for good secondaries, suddenly decided religion was private and they wanted the non denominational outstandings.

As per usual the most able dc are always bottom of the list for the best teachers.

Indeed at my DS's school the "top" set for English are going to have probably the worst English teacher they have, no doubt on the assumption that those kids will do well regardless of the teaching quality. The best teachers get the middle groups. The second worst teacher gets the bottom group as they're pretty much written off anyway.

We should be clear about Mrs May's position regarding the establishment of a satellite grammar school in Maidenhead. Her reply to a letter that I sent her can be summed up as saying that if the local people want a satellite grammar school, she would respect their wishes, so that parents have the choice of which type of school they send their children to.
This sentiment is consistent with her approach to other matters, especially Brexit. I wonder what her position would be if popular sentiment could be demonstrated as demanding re nationalisation of the railways, for example.
Of course, it is not so consistent of her to equate the provision of a grammar school with increased choice for parents. For most parents, it would represent a decrease in choice as the courses available at comprehensives and the opportunity for students to improve their academic performance, reduced to the role of secondary modern schools, would be compromised.

The grammar school debate is fairly simple. Those of us who live in areas with great comprehensives that really do cater for all abilities, wonder why people would want to bring back grammar schools. Those people who live in grammar school areas or places where the schools aren't so good see them as a panacea for stretching bright children. We should be campaigning for great schools for all that really do cater for everyone, however to do this Ofsted needs a reform and instead of focussing on data which encourages gaming of the system, it should be looking at the curricuum on offer and how it suits the needs of the different learners. (And the government needs to fund schools to do it so they can run the smaller options.)

The schools round my way formed a consortium for vocational learning at 14, so everyone could access hairdressing, catering, construction and horticulture. (It has now pretty much folded thanks to the ebacc, but was a great way of offering great vocational education.) Schools should be working together like this for all abilities so subjects like Latin (and increasingly the arts) can be open to all.

The comprehensives in my area have a sixth form consortium, which is the same idea. It would be good if they could bring this down to the GCSE level - as long as it wasn't one school offering all the languages, and another offering the Child Care and Hairdressing diplomas. I am not sure of the logistics of it. Two schools are within walking distance, so it could work, the third school is further away, so I imagine it would require either careful timetabling or bussing. The sixth form arraingement has been in place for at least 20 years, and I doubt whether it would have got off the ground in the current educational climate.

I don't think it would even need to be in different schools entirely, it could be done as a group effort between several schools to get a decent size cohort for any subject. That way kids with spiky profiles could be accomodated too, rather than a future Einstein missing out.

Lurked, I think ironically the endless debate on grammar schools has probably hindered sensible suggestions like this one. There are three small schools in my town so it should be reasonably easy to run say a Maths superset if there were enough exceptional high-flyers to justify it. But schemes like this would probably just have the pro-grammars saying "It just shows we actually need grammars"

Hi Peter.

In Maidenhead, the bright children already get into Sir William Borlase's Grammar School in nearby Marlow. It would make more difference to other Berkshire comprehensive schools whose pupils would then become "in catchment" for the new SWB satellite grammar school in Maidenhead. More comprehensive schools in Berkshire would suffer a loss of their brightest pupils who, at the moent,do notg eant to travel to Marlow. Nearby Slough has grammar schools as well, so Maidenhead has lots of grammars nearby. It is a similar situation in Milton Keynes where children go "out of county" to grammars in Aylesbury and Buckingham. Some of the comprehensives in MK are not truly comprehensive and their results suffer.

I do not think the reintroduction of grammar schools where they do not exist is a good idea, but I hear this morning that there is more governmental "chat" about it, no doubt feulled by the fact that Theresa May is not against them.

Collaborative working is great in areas where there are lots of schools. Where there are 5/15 miles between schools, in rural areas, this is far more difficult to achieve because travelling time means it is prohibitive. Even in cities, collaborative working is difficult. My niece can go to a linked school for 6th form. Except she has to walk 25 minutes to her original school to get the 6th form bus that leaves at 8. 00 am. This is in a large city!