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

We have them in the area here. It's is dominated by prep school children. A simple solution would exclude Children educated privately or a quota of say 10% only from private school and the remainder from state and tested in the schools. This would sort out social mobility. I have to say we have the best comprehensive school locally too so everyone gets a good education.

little would that not just push everyone into tutoring, who previously wwnt private?

People would just play the system. Private till Y5 or something.

I've been mooching around the education section a bit at the sorts of threads I'm reading. 'My kid is 2, I want them to go to the local superselective for secondary, what's the best way of ensuring this?'

noble I was quite amused by that one too. There's now one from someone looking for 11+ advice for a child who hasn't started primary. I prefer this honesty though to the sort of "separate but equal" line you get from some grammar supporters.

Interesting that in general most pro-comprehensive people are quite open about the fact that they would use the grammars if the choice was between that and a secondary modern

twitter.com/Samfr/status/831846565581041664

whilst most grammar supporters claim they would be happy for their child to attend a secondary modern "if it was right for them" - it just so happens that their child will be right for the grammar.

Although I should excuse the poster who said that it was good her child was at a secondary modern as his behaviour was "too disruptive in lessons" to be at a grammar. The fact that the children at the secondary modern were presumably having their education disrupted by her child's behaviour obviously not being important.

I haven't RTFD but quite a bit of it. I disagree that grammar schools offer social mobility, the children who get in are the ones with ambitious parents who can afford to live in catchment, send their kids to prep, tutor them extensively etc.

However, I don't disagree on principle with the idea of an academically selective school. I'm not totally convinced one way or another and I can't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about educational theories, outcomes etc so this is just an opinion but it's seems feasible that the very academically gifted might do better at a grammar school. I do think it's right that each child should have the best chance to fulfil their own potential, ergo grammars might have a place.

What worries me with grammars though, apart from the fact that disproportionately far more children from privileged backgrounds will get into them, is what happens with those who don't get in. Are they labelled as failures? Do they view themselves as 'less than'? Do they go to schools that have lower aspirations for them? And what about those who develop academically a later age? Why the arbitrary siphoning off at age 11?

It's possible that some of these concerns could be addressed by, for example, offering tutoring to all children so that they are 'trained' to deal with the questions/ format of the 11+ and it potentially becomes more of an even playing field. Maybe having more grammars will ease the demand and that will give less well off families a better chance of getting in. I just don't know.

But beyond that, how do we get away from the mentality that being academically gifted in a certain way is worth more than having other strengths? Or that you're either one thing or the other - academic or practical? Don't grammar schools just reinforce that?

For me, the absolute killer of the idea of an academically selective school is that there is no way of accurately assessing academic ability. Whichever test you use, a large proportion of kids (potentially 1 in 5 if you take off the top 25%) will end up in the wrong school because tests can't accurately predict the future and that's before you even consider kids who are ill/underperform due to stress on the day. The whole thing should be a non-starter.

I found out from threads on here that some grammar schools acknowledge that the test is flawed and as a result headteachers have to spend time on appeals - what a huge waste of time and resources in an education system that already doesn't have enough of either.

You can't complain about students being inadequately prepared for your university course if you set grade requirements low in order to get enough bums on seats

But highly selective courses which don't drop grade requirements also complain about skills gaps in incoming students. For example, I am frequently shocked at the level of our students writing, and they come in with A stars in maths/science subjects.

But maths students aren't expected to be able to write to get an A* (can't speak for science).

If you want writing skills, then have entry requirements for writing skills. If you don't want to set entry requirements for writing skills, then have an intro to writing skills module.

A simple solution would exclude Children educated privately or a quota of say 10% only from private school and the remainder from state and tested in the schools.

It wouldn't work. People would move their DC to state schools and use the money saved in fees to pay for extensive tutoring.

And bear in mind that some kids in private primaries are there just because they just moved into the area (and were offered failing schools or no school could take all siblings) or because something went wrong at the state school they attended (bullying not dealt with well etc) and their parents got them into private schools on bursaries.

Meanwhile some much wealthier/very highly educated families will have their kids in the best state primary schools in the area. These kids may well be just as advantaged or more advantaged than the kids in private on bursaries or kids who just moved to the area.

OK, so let me give another example. Many of the kids coming in to us with A stars at A level maths have been taught to the test. They can differentiate according to rules but do not understand the meaning of differentiation. These kids start with a conceptual gap that shouldn't be there.

Yes, we can choose not to take them, but we would then be turning down kids with high ability and high potential just because of poor teaching.

I just don't see why you won't admit that some high ability kids in some state schools are not getting the teaching/support/advice that they deserve.

BTW one of the reasons for the weak writing is often the lack of push at GCSE: if a kid who's great at maths and going to do maths/science at A levels looks like they're going to get an A or B at English, why push for more? Yet this relative weakness at English comes back and bites when these students have to write at university.

if a kid who's great at maths and going to do maths/science at A levels looks like they're going to get an A or B at English, why push for more

This is fucking stupid. The English department is not measured on maths results so the suggestion that schools do not push kids in English who are doing well in maths is absurd.

And if you can get an A* in maths without understanding what differentiation actually means, then that is a failure of the test, not the school whose existence depends on results, no? Anyway, the new GCSE will sort that out.

I just don't see why you won't admit that some high ability kids in some state schools are not getting the teaching/support/advice that they deserve.

I didn't say this. I agreed that there is poor maths teaching around the country. The lack of qualified maths teachers isn't going to be solved by grammar schools, and the suggestion that only kids who are going to get A*s at A-level deserve good maths teaching (if you are going to suggest that all the good maths teachers should teach in grammars) then that is a rather narrow view which would be economically disastrous for the country.

Are they labelled as failures? Do they view themselves as 'less than'? Do they go to schools that have lower aspirations for them?

Kent secondary modern heads certainly think this is a problem:

edexec.co.uk/grammars-plan-heads-tell-education-secretary-of-their-deep-opposition/

There certainly seems to be a view on MN that if you do not pass the 11+ aged 11 this means you are 'not academic' and perhaps should do 'vocational education' instead.

The English department is not measured on maths results so the suggestion that schools do not push kids in English who are doing well in maths is absurd.

Measures in the league tables have generally not distinguished a great deal between an A or B, and an A or A star. Yes, of course, the English department wants the best results for their students, but in practice much of the focus is on getting the borderline kids to passes. (This is clearly stated in parallel threads.)

But not pushing the A/B kids up a bit in writing can and does have consequences later on. It would have far less consequences if we had enough money in 16-18 education to make scientists do some writing (and humanities/MFL students do some maths/science) to bring their levels up.

the suggestion that only kids who are going to get As at A-level deserve good maths teaching (if you are going to suggest that all the good maths teachers should teach in grammars)*

As I have written further up the thread, I do not believe in grammars.

But I do think that people should acknowledge that parents of high achieving students have some legitimate concerns and talk about how to deal with these concerns within a comprehensive school framework. It isn't helpful to simply discuss the widespread concerns of those working in higher education about unachievement of (some) high achieving students in (some) schools.

It would be more constructive to acknowledge the concerns, develop solutions and lobby for more funding to implement them.

Measures in the league tables have generally not distinguished a great deal between an A or B, and an A or A star.

But teacher performance management targets do differentiate. I had top set last year for maths. If they'd all got A/B when they were meant to get A*, then I'd have failed my performance management target. The school focus for intervention was on the C borderline for league tables that doesn't mean that they were left to rot by teachers.

But I do think that people should acknowledge that parents of high achieving students have some legitimate concerns

There are many parents who have legitimate concerns. Poor maths teaching, for example, doesn't just hit high attainers. In fact they are more likely to have a qualified maths teacher.

This grammar school nonsense is distracting from a huge number of legitimate concerns about state education.

More children achieve enter from comprehensive than from selective divide.
People buy into grammars.
Comprehensives get some very, very good results. Many send children to Oxbridge/medicine/vets. A higher proportion of those considered bright in fact than from those where 'top 10 %' are creamed off.
Admittedly the 'slightly bright' might do better with the focus at a grammar but the truly bright will do well wherever they are educated. My eldest daughter's year at a 'bog standard' comprehensive sent 5 to medical school, 2 to vetinary school, 9 to Oxbridge and many to Russell Groups. It held its own against the 'top 10' independent school my youngest went to.
What comprehensive can't do is provide an elite peer group.

I read these threads with interest but don't often post. Most mumsnetters don't live in deprived towns. In the northern town where I work best non faith comprehensive pass rate is 50% 5 A-C gcse (worse 21%). The one faith comp (RC) school gets 58%. There isn't a grammar school and no private secondary. As soon as child is junior age all talk turns to what you are going to 'do'. Options (a) go to church for 2 years (C of E) to get child in the C of E comp in next town - 75% pass rate. Bus is £540 but warning on council website they may withdraw the subsidy so full rate £900 could be payable soon. (b) Luckily have a baptised catholic child or move your child to a catholic school so they are in a feeder for best school in town (c) Move a couple of miles to get into the next catchment area of decent schooling, the number of school buses and teens in the morning there is ridiculous (d) Try to get place at Grammar in the 3 neighbouring areas, but child needs to pass very highly to get an out of catchment place. (e) several small private secondary schools in nearby towns starting at £10,000 a year mark.
Sending child to closest comprehensive isn't the done thing. I can't see a grammar in town would make situation any worse. They have thrown money at it - £250 million super schools initiative, a £10 million UniversityTechnical College (UTC) for age 14 plus which is closing after 2 years. If no grammar school then I imagine there will be a move to open Muslim high schools like the very successful ones in nearby Blackburn.

I am the parent of a high ability DS. As a science enthusiast he had covered the whole GCSE curriculum by Yr8, just out of his general interest. He is now bored and disaffected in Yr 11.

A Grammar school wouldn't have sorted this out. He is in high achieving top sets with bright kids in a good comp.

What would sort it out (I think) is a more challenging curriculum, more open thinking required in course work, and GCSEs that cover a wider range of abilities, from top level, to 'foundation'.

I am horrified by the Literature GCSE compared to the essay writing that I did.

"Interesting that in general most pro-comprehensive people are quite open about the fact that they would use the grammars if the choice was between that and a secondary modern

Sorry, posted too soon;
"Interesting that in general most pro-comprehensive people are quite open about the fact that they would use the grammars if the choice was between that and a secondary modern "
What choice do you have if you have a high ability child? Secondary Moderns / high schools often don't offer more than one MFL, or Triple Science or Further Maths, So why would you opt for secondary modern if your kid wants to do those things?

Glad I am not in a grammar area. Summer born, anxious DS probably would not have made a 10% grammar intake aged 10, but he is predicted a row of A* / 8 etc, except for literature . And he would get 8 for that if he would actually read the damn book!

Anyone mind if I get involved in this thread?

Pitch in!

I live in a grammar county but the part I live in now is quite a distance away from either of the nearest. One now has a distance cut-off so children living here are treated as outside the area. There local secondary has a long history of poor results but is currently enjoying a turn around and outperformed the next nearest secondary. Still nowhere near the grammar results though.

A couple of years ago there was a piece in a local paper where one of the grammar head teacher's called for pupil premium funding to be scrapped. He felt it wasn't fair his school got less than others.