Petition against grammar school expansion

[JaneJefferson]

Sign the petition if you disagree with the roll out of new grammar schools and the poorer education that will be forced onto the majority who do not pass to get into them.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/164270

I am in favour of grammars. We are in a non grammar area, but there are a very good independant which select students by family income, and alos an outstanding comprehensive which the catchment houses' price are not reachable for the normal family. Unless these sort of selective by income are stopped, I think it is unfair for bright students from poor family.

If they realise that Grammar schools are vote losers rather than the vote winners they hope for, they would scrap the policy

The problem with that theory is that the evidence is against you. The majority of the public support the reintroduction of grammar schools. Only 20% are against. That may change over time but right now it does not look like a vote loser.

It depends on what polls you look at, and the questions that are asked.

If you look at 'do you want to introduce new grammars?' against maintaining the status quo or abolishing them, then I don't think the data supports them.

And I seem to recall reading that only 30% of parents of school-aged kids are in favour of new grammars. Should a policy like this overlook their views in favour of those whose kids aren't in the system?

Why is there a petition? Isn't the Green Paper currently open for consultation? Isn't that the opportunity to have a say?

The petition came out before the Green Paper.

In favour of grammars. They do have downsides but comprehensives aren't doing what they're supposed to.
Better to have the option of a good academic education available to 20% than to nobody, as at present in some areas.

I don't know how you cans say that the majority of the public support grammars - I can't recall there being any consultation in my own area. I don't think there is all that much support from parents for a grammar in Theresa May's constituency of Maidenhead either.

It's one of those things though - when people are asked questions like, 'Do you support grammar schools' or even worse, ' do you support good schools' they may well say yes. 'Would you support grammar schools if your own child didn't/couldn't gain access' and the answer is much less likely to be yes.

So phrase the question as 'do you want Secondary Moderns' instead and see what the response is. This doesn't alter the fact that in the past there were some good secondary moderns, which people have good memories of and felt that they got a good education from.

Why is it better to wash your hands of 80% of kids than attempt improvement for all, as happened in London?

Better to have the option of a good academic education available to 20% than to nobody, as at present in some areas.

Or in the areas where comprehensives are working, better to say, scrap that, can't have 100% having a good education?

It would be far better to attempt improvement for all NobleGiraffe but I don't believe it's going to happen.
The divide between London and the rest of the country is getting wider and wider, ever less money is getting spent in the north. It seems to me to be vanishingly unlikely that they'll suddenly decide to pour a load of money into our schools.

This document here for 2014-5 is a shocker: per pupil funding by area

So phrase the question as 'do you want Secondary Moderns' instead and see what the response is.

That's not part of the proposal though, is it?

Under the proposals, Non-selective schools will still offer all the same opportunities for pupils, they won't restrict access to examinations or grades like the Secondary Moderns did. In fact, if I've scan read correctly, the proposals will ensure that high achieving students in the non-selective schools have access to resources and opportunities offered by the selective schools.

So you're convinced that A star students in the non-selective schools won't be affected at all by being in classes with mostly B grade and lower students? And that the proposals will be effective at making sure that these students are taught the A/A star parts of the syllabi, offered triple science, further maths etc, even though currently this doesn't happen in lower achieving schools?

If this is all so easy, how come many high ability students in the current lower achieving schools don't do well?

Based on what is being proposed, I can see the benefits - higher achieving students in non-selective schools accessing things like "further maths" through the partner grammar which they otherwise wouldn't be able to do, for instance.

There is little value in objections based on disbelief. The "well, I object to this because I don't think it's actually going to be implemented the way they say it will".

Quite rightly, those objections will be ignored because every government intends to implement their proposals effectively - even in the face of scepticism.

This consultation is seeking opinions about the content of the proposals, not assessing confidence in the Governments ability to implement them.

If you look at 'do you want to introduce new grammars?' against maintaining the status quo or abolishing them, then I don't think the data supports them

A recent poll asked, "Would you support or oppose re-introducing grammar schools across the whole of Great Britain". This found over 50% in favour with 20% against. The rest were don't knows. Supporters outnumbered opponents in every political and demographic group.

An alternative question, "Would you support or oppose re-introducing the selective education system across the whole of Great Britain, where children take an exam at 11, with the top quarter of children going to grammar schools and the other three-quarters going to secondary modern schools", comes up with a narrower margin but those expressing an opinion still break heavily in favour of grammar schools with roughly 4 in favour for every 3 against.

And I seem to recall reading that only 30% of parents of school-aged kids are in favour of new grammars

I have not seen a poll showing support anywhere near that low. Polls I have seen suggest that around two thirds of parents would get their children to sit the entrance exam and would send them to grammar school if they passed.

YouGov recently did an analysis by local authority area and produced a map of England showing levels of support. This again showed that parents in most LAs are in favour of grammar schools.

I am not personally in favour of grammar schools as they were when I went to school. I want to see how these proposals differ before I make any judgements. But all the evidence is that the policy is popular with voters. That may change, of course, but right now the policy does not appear to be a vote loser.

But there is evidence that small numbers of high achievers isolated amongst middle and low achievers do not achieve their potential.

There is evidence that current methods of testing for grammars (including CEM) are unreliable at selecting the top percentage in terms of ability and potential - the tests are strongly affected by environment and tutoring.

There is evidence from all around the world that the non-selective schools containing lower ability children find it much harder to recruit and retain staff.

This is not about belief or opinions but about evidence that the proposals cannot be implemented effectively - the children left behind in the non-selective schools do worse than they would have done in a school with all abilities.

But there is evidence that small numbers of high achievers isolated amongst middle and low achievers do not achieve their potential.

But there is no evidence as to the impact of giving those high achievers access to resources and support of grammars does.

There is evidence that current methods of testing for grammars (including CEM) are unreliable at selecting the top percentage in terms of ability and potential - the tests are strongly affected by environment and tutoring.

There is nothing to suggest that the new selection system will use the current methods.

the children left behind in the non-selective schools do worse than they would have done in a school with all abilities.

There is no evidence to assess what added value partnerships with grammar schools would bring. There have been successful partnerships between private schools and non selective schools which have increased standards in the non selective school.

There is nothing to suggest that the new selection system will use the current methods.

But there is no available group test at 10/11 in any country in the world which doesn't test environment/background in addition to ability/potential.

But there is no evidence as to the impact of giving those high achievers access to resources and support of grammars does.

This is not true. There have been many schemes for "beacon schools" (some of which were grammars) to support kids in neighbouring under-achieving schools over the years. Look at the Poole/Bournemouth area and other areas where grammars co-exist with non-selective schools and find out how little these schemes succeeded.

Here's a recent poll that has status quo or close grammars ahead of opening new ones.

I have seen suggest that around two thirds of parents would get their children to sit the entrance exam and would send them to grammar school if they passed.

That's not the same thing as being in favour of opening new grammars. Clearly it's not. I would get my child to sit an entrance exam and send them to a grammar if I lived in Kent, and I would see them all closed down in a heartbeat.

No thanks.
Yes, the 11 plus is a faulty sieve that lets lots of clever kids not get in whether they fail by a little bit or do not live in the catchment, but that doesn't stop the fact that for those that get it, the grammar school great. People are saying that there's no point of putting the more academic people in a different school but there are lots. First off, as some one who knows lots of teachers, grammar schools are the dream place to work, with able kids that, if parents care enough to send them there, mostly care about not getting in trouble, so the teachers are great. There is also that they can move much faster, not having to wait for kids that don't confidently know their timetables etc. And, if the kids worked hard enough to get in, then they are going to care about they're education, which makes group work go a lot smoother.
I'm not saying kids that don't go to grammar schools can't posses these qualities, it's just the fact that most kids in grammars, DO. This was a bit of a rant, but this petition is a bit ridiculous. Yes there are faults in the grammar system, but it's mostly great for those who get in. If you think it's unfair for those who fail, that's life, and also, if you built up to the exam correctly, they should still gain something from the experience, and they will get over it if you parent them through they're dissapointment, like you are supposed to.
Again this was a bit of a nonsensical rant, but it's frustrating seeing all this complaining of the grammar system and I wanted to answer them.

Some people want better than a system that's great for a minority but worse for the vast majority.

"Socialists want to deny that some children and people are more intelligent than others."

No they don't. Why would anyone say anything so stupid? And I think you will also find that a lot of non socialists are opposed to grammar schools too!

I went to a grammar school in the 70s. A friend recently found the publication of our O level results and put it on FB, it was the first time I had seen these results from 40 years ago. They were piss poor- many of us achieved fewer than 5 C grades and some achieved only 1. I have always thought that the school was crap and now I can see in black and white what I always thought- it genuinely was dreadful in terms of results and as they gave us no social or personal education either, it cannot have claimed to have made up for lack of exam success by a well rounded curriculum in other areas. This was the reality of the grammar school system for hundreds of children- the schools rested on their laurels with the best students from the town and still managed to fuck it up.

"Non-selective schools will still offer all the same opportunities for pupils, they won't restrict access to examinations or grades like the Secondary Moderns did. In fact, if I've scan read correctly, the proposals will ensure that high achieving students in the non-selective schools have access to resources and opportunities offered by the selective schools."

So what's the point of having grammar schools then?