New grammars by 2020 which will exclude 90% of local kids

[noblegiraffe]

What an excellent use of scarce public funding, to build schools that most kids can't access instead of using it to build good comprehensives to improve the life-chances of everyone.

Word from the government (who appear to be ploughing ahead with the proposals before they've even published the consultation results) is that new grammars will only take the top 10% rather than the top 25% of kids. God knows where they've got the evidence that the top 10% of kids require a different school but they're certainly not sharing it with us.

It is also beyond me how making grammar schools even more elite will help with the promised social mobility agenda, when previous discussions were about how the pass grade would be needed to be lowered to increase the number of disadvantaged kids gaining access.

And if you were in favour of a grammar school opening in your area because you thought your kid would get in, how sure are you now? How much less tempting is a grammar school opening up if your kid is more likely to be sent to the other school?

In addition, expect to see furious threads in the near future from parents whose local school of choice has converted to a grammar and their kid is now being bussed to another school in the MAT that they wouldn't have chosen for them.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38906594

I don't see what age or maturity has got to do with it?

Ifailed trying to sort kids into 'academic high attainers' and 'non-academic' aged 11 usually has the same outcome as sorting kids into 'middle class children of educated parents' and 'disadvantaged kids and recent immigrants'.

It's not a test of ability.

noblegiraffe
As I said up thread, I don't agree with selection at 11, and don't agree with it at 18 either. The quality of education - the teaching, facilities, funding etc should be the best we can afford at all schools, colleges etc. I am merely pointing out that at undergraduate level this is clearly not the case, but people don't seem to worry about it.

Mum. But it is a Grammar intake for Stoke !

The more relevant point is that the majority of the 'Comprehensive' schools in Stoke are providing a 'Modern' school education for their pupils.

This is what they perceive to be a 'Modern' school education, no triple science a school that sends less than 20% to Higher education no one to Oxbridge in its history et.al.

This is the school where my sister teaches in Stoke. This is a Comprehensive school that effectively offers a non academic education. It has also been pointed out by many there are 'Modern' schools that are among the best schools in the country getting 70% of pupils in to higher education and in to Oxbridge !

There needs to be choice , or at least the option in every town of an academic school. Selection is more important in towns like Stoke than Winchester .

It is as if people are 'glad' that towns like Stoke offer no escape via education , because they are not prepared to offer a lifeline !

Were alright jack ! with our high achieving 'Community' high school in deepest Hants , sod the poor sods in North Staffordshire....

don't agree with it at 18 either.

so what do you want? Any child who wants to being offered a place to study maths at Oxford regardless of whether they could cope?

The Stoke issue of not having a sufficient amount of high attainers for a 'proper' grammar is interesting.

The government cannot possibly open any of these new grammars which will take the top 10% as advertised, in areas where there aren't enough children to attend. Areas where there aren't enough children to fill a grammar school are most likely to be the 'opportunity areas' where they want to prioritise grammars!

Have they actually looked into the viability of their top 10% solution? I rather suspect not.

The problem might be that Stoke doesn't have enough Catholic high achievers within a 10/20 mile radius. Stoke is not a remote coastal town.

I am merely pointing out that at undergraduate level this is clearly not the case, but people don't seem to worry about it.

Because there isn't evidence that this is the case.

It doesn't make sense to directly compare an Oxford maths degree with a vocational degree from a former polytechnic but there is very good evidence that some of the latter degrees have fantastic teaching and resources. They aren't "worse" than degrees from very academic universities - they are different.

Some countries in Europe allow very limited selection at 18 e.g. all kids with the equivalent of 3Cs at A level can start any degree. It's a disaster - kids with low grades on academic challenging degrees drop out in large numbers.

noblegiraffe

I would want any child who wanted to study Maths at any university to get the same level of education, not the current situation where one college is deemed better than another. I would also like to see a return of the CNAA to ensure all degree courses were set at the same level, of course the grades would remain to distinguish achievement.

I would want any child who wanted to study Maths at any university to get the same level of education

But that's silly. Either you're going to have students who want to become professional mathematicians receiving a dumbed-down degree and having to stretch their study out over even more years, or students who want to work in banking or become a maths teacher or whatever dropping out and doing no further maths study.

noblegiraffe
I doubt if any professional mathematician will be merely educated to graduate level, I would expect them to have a masters at least. The higher degree system would cater for the more academic scholar.
Of course, this should also be implemented with the removal of fees and the return of grants. If we can afford to spend £ billions doing up the houses of parliament we can afford to run a high class education system, from nursery to Phd.

I would want any child who wanted to study Maths at any university to get the same level of education.

But this is completely unrealistic, and not what any country in the world does. As Noble says, you would have to dumb down the curricula at the top places so that the bottom places could cope - and in so doing completely destroy our top universities, crashing them out of world rankings.

And if you insist on grading everyone on the same scale those at the bottom end are all going to get Thirds/Fails while those at the top places are all going to get Firsts.

The current system is not broken - employers look at A level scores, university and university transcript and get a pretty fair idea of students' achievements.

You can't dumb down the undergraduate curriculum and make up for it at Masters/PhD.

One of the main reasons our top universities/academics are so strong in the world is that we teach undergraduate material at a very high level.

I think St Joseph's cohort is representative of the level of high ability students in the area . The school has the same type of cohort of a non academic Private school. As a matter of reference the schools C+ average at A level is only two sub grades below the private school my Niece and Nephew go to. Newcastle Under-Lyme School the most prestigious school in the area only achieves a B average.

The whole of Staffs Average grade at A level is C .

The admissions procedure in the Stoke grammar is that you sit the entrance test and then submit proof of religion if you have a high enough score. So if there aren't enough Catholic applicants then children of other faiths or none will take the places. And presumably, as with other high performing Church schools, plenty of people will be prepared to fake it.

user7214743615
The comprehensive system seems to deal with a wide range of abilities at secondary level education. Added to the fact that most 18 year olds don't go to university (31% do) I don't see the problem. Polytechnics managed to award high-quality degrees in many subjects not offered by traditional universities.

I doubt if any professional mathematician will be merely educated to graduate level

No, of course not, but why waste their time on the less difficult content? We don't make all kids sit Foundation maths GCSE before they are allowed to sit Higher.

Someone who wants to be a professional mathematician will also have very different module requirements to someone who wants to be a banker or engineer or even just have a generic maths degree.

And then you have the even more important issue of who will be teaching them. Lecturing is only part of the job, research forms the main part of the work of a university professor. They will want to congregate in particular institutions so that they can work together. You can't spread them out fairly so that Oxford gets Hardy, Newcastle gets Littlewood and Essex gets Ramanujan.

Like I said, people don't seem to like selection at 11, but are happy for it to happen at 18!

Are you being disingenuous, Ifailed?

Because, Ifailed at 18 there is a need for selection. Students are heavily specialising in different areas.

There isn't at 11.

BertrandRussell , not at all. I genuinely think the higher education system needs reform, and, like many other parts of education, is generally geared to help the middle-class and children with informed/pushy parents. That is why I believe strongly in the comprehensive system, all children get an opportunity regardless of background.

I Failed have you thought of offering your no 'selection' education policy to Angela and Jeremy, i am sure they would give it some consideration as a policy !

In terms of Achievement for the most able Stoke doesn't do too badly - the average Attainment 8 score for High achievers is 62.5 against a National Average of 64.4. Not bad considering Stoke is a deprived area, for comparison wealthy Surrey is 66.3.

Added to the fact that most 18 year olds don't go to university (31% do) I don't see the problem.

Do you genuinely believe that all 31% can actually be taught the same material - i.e. intrinsic ability plays no role and all can learn the same material if taught well enough?

And do you genuinely believe that it is in best interests of the country and the economy to dumb down top degrees so they lose international respect?

"Do you genuinely believe that all 31% can actually be taught the same material"

I wouldn't have thought so, no.