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

Dixiechickonhols Mon 20-Feb-17 21:40:45 I can't see a grammar in town would make situation any worse.

But it migh not make much difference either unless there is a sufficient number of high ability DCs wanting (or rather their parents wanting) to go there.

DCs need to pass an exam to get into a Grammar school. Would sufficient local children get the pass mark? Do the local primary schools do well in the yr6 SATs?

FrayedHem Tue 21-Feb-17 12:11:08 There local secondary has a long history of poor results but is currently enjoying a turn around and outperformed the next nearest secondary.

Is the turnarond down to the fact that the high ability DCs not being creamed off by the Grammar or has the school replaced its SMT and all the teachers?

I think the distance cut-off only came in 2/3 years ago so it's not that. The local school has been in special measures at least twice and possibly 3 times in the last 12 years, but this time they seemed to have turned the corner and got Good in September. Parents' that appealed to get into other schools are now apparently applying to move their child into it.

They really didn't want my DS1 though. Fortunately we've got him a specialist ASD placement.

• "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?*

I agree entirely - that's the point I was trying to make but clearly didn't explain myself very well. Been following a lot of Twitter threads where people are being accused of hypocrisy for sending their child to a grammar when they are pro-comprehensive. But in the selective counties you don't have a choice.

Someone pointed out that if you support nationalising the railways you're not expected to give up rail travel.

There are 'Comprehensives' that don't offer even 1 MFL for GCSE due to the 'appalling' take up rate.

This again is not being mentioned. These discussions always compare the best 'Comprehensives' with the worst 'Modern' schools.

The posters never compare a 'Shit' Comprehensive with the best 'Modern' schools . They are however more than happy to compare the worst Modern's with the best 'Comprehensives' to advance their position.

There are 'Comprehensives' that don't offer even 1 MFL for GCSE due to the 'appalling' take up rate.
Names please as otherwise I do not believe you.

A nice demolition of selection at 11 where pretty much all kids are in selective schools
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39032961

According to the government website schools have to offer an MFL option at GCSE so I don't see how any comprehensive could not be offering one :

www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/key-stage-3-and-4

You yourself have been saying that schools in Stoke are not good enough yet these might be considered secondary modern schools since Stoke has a grammar. It seems rather odd to highlight supposed failings of secondary moderns to argue that there should be more of them.

I would rather that the bottom 10% were catered for seperately in schools with smaller classes focusing on the basics.

they are - its called special schools of which there are many hundreds in the UK

No, special schools take children with severe learning difficulties and there are insufficient places for those that need them.
Not the same at all as the bottom 10%.

Different schools take different groups and they take around 5% of kids who cannot fit into mainstream schools

Comps are good at differentiating and often specialise in their support areas

Segregating kids out who might be great at art or sport is a waste of resources

They can still be great at art or sport but in an environment with smaller classes more tai,ores to their need. Same as grammar school but bottom rather than top ten per cent.

and equally a bad use of resources.

Who will decide which kids go there ?

The ones that perform worst in the sats .

" The ones that perform worst in the sats ."

Like the highly gifted dyslexic kid?

Well how is it any different to the 11 plus as a means for determining who would be in the top ten per cent.

Highly gifted dyslexic kids are not in the bottom performing 10% are they!

flyingwithwings Tue 21-Feb-17 15:38:00 The posters never compare a 'Shit' Comprehensive with the best 'Modern' schools

Perhaps you can name one of those "best Modern" schools?

OK I can't find any schools that don't 'offer' at least one MFL . However, there are schools that only offer 'Spanish' and with only 4/5 pupils taking it.
Appalling ..
This means 95% of pupils at a school are not taking a MFL. That is a very sad indictment of a school or more likely the cohort of the school.

If 'Gilly' comes along, i ask her, does she know how many pupils take French in her local schools ?

We have constantly discussed the best 'Modern' schools on here , so we do not need to list them for the 100th time.

flyingwithwings Tue 21-Feb-17 17:46:14 We have constantly discussed the best 'Modern' schools

Sorry I must have missed the posts that named them. I have have another read through.

Different schools take different groups and they take around 5% of kids who cannot fit into mainstream schools

Not true. Under 3% of pupils have a statement or EHCP and of those roughly 50% are in mainstream. Nearly all special schools would require a statement or EHCP so it's nearer 1.5% of pupils are in special schools

"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"

Priceless!

I've just googled the article as it was a couple of years ago. The paper said he was calling for pupil premium to be scrapped but he didn't actually say those words. He was complaining enough for it to be construed that way. They are struggling financially and can't access the same amount of pupil premium.

www.echo-news.co.uk/news/11771254.Top_Southend_school_head_speaks_out_over___250_000_funding_crisis/?ref=mr

I've just compared the notable pupils from my brother's grammar to my modern school. Significant difference! 21 for his, 1 for mine and I discounted anything prior to 1960 or fictional characters. Mine did also say a few members of a dance group that appeared on BGT were former pupils but not who or how many.

And the town we grew up in (which is where my school is) leans towards the affluent side.