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

Starting selection in comps is no better.

If they are all in the same school then everyone has a chance to get into the top sets or be in lower sets if they need a slower pace or more support. Some students are strong in some subjects and weak in others. A test at 11 cannot accurately or fairly separate the academic from the non-academic.

If you come from a weaker primary,have unsupportive parents it is harder to access those top groups. In some schools fluidity is lacking and it is very hard to move once curriculum has been covered.

Those in the top and bottom sets rarely mix.My DC have different ability friends who never see their primary friends or siblings,who seem to get an entirely different education within the same school.

Comps that set will have mixed ability PE, Drama, Art, etc, and students will be able to be move up and down the sets in Maths, English, Science, etc. It sounds like the school you are talking about streams rather than sets so the students are stuck where they are. Personally, I would not want my DS to a go a school that streams and neither would I want him to go to a secondary modern.

But even with setting it isn't always that easy to move.

DH went up a set in French but the higher set were miles ahead of him so he struggled and lost interest. Probably ended up doing worse than he would have in the lower set.

Just saying...

DS is in sixth form at a comp... he has a school friend that went to Oxford Uni last year, school friends with 10 As and others who didn't pass any of their GCSEs.

No not streamed just regular setting.

Stands to reason as if you are in the bottom sets for Eng and maths it is going to be harder to access top sets in other subjects. So many children are worlds apart. Friends of mine teaching secondary say disruption is far worse in the lower sets. Those in the smaller top booster sets will be getting a whole different education.

It's true that moving between sets is difficult and doesn't happen as much as people would hope.
In maths, top groups cover the ground much faster,mso someone from a lower set who deserves to move up might not be moved up because they simply won't have covered the ground the higher sets have. There can come a point when it's not possible to move up. THere might be some movement but probably not loads. If you start on the top set, you are much more likely to be there at the end, than someone who starts in a middle set. That is the reality.

And schools don't really stream anymore, although sometimes a couple of subjects might be connected together for timetabling, so setting determines who is in which group for another subject too. It is true that you could be top set for perhaps maths and bottom for English. In reality though, often those in the top groups and in the top groups across the board and this is what can lead to those of differing ability getting little time together, certainly in academic subjects. Yes, PE, Games and some other subjects will be mixed ability so the will be some mixing.
Dot you tend to find though that kids often make friendships amongst those of similar ability anyway? It might be that it's reinforced by them being together in maths, English, languages etc....but don't they often (not always) naturally gravitate towards those who are similar in this regard?

I guess good Comps find ways and activities that help kids of all abilities mix and get on together.

It's the lower sets that have the "smaller booster" classes rather than the top sets. Disruption is indeed worse in the bottom sets and it's not helped by disruptive bright kids being moved down from the top sets. It is often the case that it is not the very bottom set that is disruptive - it's the next one up! The issue is that the kids in the top sets do not need to be taught in a separate school. My DS was in top English and Science sets and a low Maths set. He started off in bottom set English (he has dyslexia) but worked his way up to the top. If he'd been streamed or in a secondary modern, there would have been no top set there for him to work his way up to. He's doing A Level English now.

I've heard before it's the one up from the bottom that is most disruptive. A teacher friend said that the very bottom set in a big school was very docile, but the next set up was full of badly behaved characters, who had enough about them to find lots of ways to misbehave and try and get away with it. Some weren't really low ability but had ended up in the group through laziness or poor behaviour which meant they underperformed. Kids like that....with ability but poor attitude must ne worse to teach than those who are just quite limited in ability but willing to try, or at least not to disrupt.

I think avoiding thes kind of groups is why some people are so desperate to avoid some Comps. If your kid will definitely be in the top set with well behaved kids, then great. If you can't be sure they will and might end up in that low but not not bottom group with all the disrupters, then you can see why people worry and might pay or slave to get through an 11+ in a grammar area.

Not at ours Four we were told about the smaller groups for G&T kids and poked our nose round the door.

But if they would be in the bottom group with disrupters in a comprehensive, they would be in a similar group with similar children in a secondary modern.

Unles you are proposing an alternative 11+ system in which children are selected by behaviour rather than ability.

But many people aren't quite clear ex rely where their children sit in the ability ranks.
They might know they aren't top of the top set in primary, but be unclear if they would make it into the top or middle sets in secondary, or if they would pass the 11+ in a fully selective area that takes 25% for grammars. In Primary people often just don't know - being in the top set in a weak primary isn't necessarily a sign of passing the 11+ or avoiding a low set at secondary.
For many people it isn't the comprehensive system per se that they worry about....it's about disruption in lower ability sets. Yes this is possible in both Comps and in Secondary moderns - hence manic tutoring in grammar areas and people in Comp areas often being keen on the 11+ system.

In my mind, all of the systems serve the more able better. The more able get a good education at a grammar or in a top set of a good comp. as ever, the problem remains for the less able and provision can be worse for them in all types of school. That said, many Comps and Secondary Moderns do very well and add lots of value to their weaker students too. These tend to be in the more affluent areas, hence the comments upthread from people saying the key thing is to be in a school in an affluent area rather than in a selective school in a poor area. Look at the Secondary moderns in the affluent bits of Bucks and see the fantastic results they deliver, despite having a less able cohort, or some of the great Comps which exist near to Super selectives.

Stats show more able do less well in comps.

I have read on other threads that they do only very slightly less well in a comp whereas everyone else does significantly less well in a sec modern.

Well TM has stated they won't be returning to secondary moderns. Many areas have grammars that are fed by large numbers of primary schools and thus have very little impact( if any) on comps in the county.

Not every county with grammars are like Kent.

Surely people who worry about poor behaviour in comps are those who are convinced that its universal and that every bright child is having their head shoved down the toilet? People who worry specifically about poor behaviour in lower sets must realise that the chances of their child passing the 11+ are incredibly slim.

There are so many ifs and buts around attempts to compare the performance of children in different schools its dangerous to give them too much reliance. However selective counties do not perform better than non-selective counties with similar socio-economics. So if higher ability children are performing better in the grammars then this surely must mean that children are performing worse in the secondary moderns? Otherwise selective counties would have significantly better figures than the non-selective?

greenginger
Stats show more able do less well in comps.
Indeed.
The most able kids get 1/3 of a grade higher at grammars than at comps
(as per the published recent research)

So DD would have got one extra A* rather than an A
and DS would have got two extra A* rather than A

utterly not worth the stress of selective schooling

In your opinion. Not your choice to make for everybody.

It was discussing 8 GCSEs. Many grammar kids may have a few subjects they'd be on course for Bs at a comp so actually a third better grade would be most useful when going for uni places. The impact on A levels( not discussed) could be the difference between a top uni place or not. State pupils are competing with top private schools.

Same research said no negative impact so "not worth the stress" not really accurate.

Many grammar kids may have a few subjects they'd be on course for Bs at a comp
What ON EARTH are you on about ?

If kids are going to get A and A* at a grammar, they will do the same at a comp.

DCs school has 300 per year of whom around 40 per year get solid A and A* grades
they would do exactly the same if they were at a grammar

I don't understand why the sec mod students are not factored into your reasoning? There will be students there who could be on for As if there were top sets for them to be in - but there won't be any top sets. Can you not see that their education is being more adversely affected than the students at grammar?

See this article by Guardian journalist:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/08/grammar-schools-may-brexit-divisive

This school details its full exam results
www.kings-winchester.hants.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/GCSE-RESULTS-2016.pdf

113 out of 323 kids got five or more A* at GCSE
38 of GCSEs taken were A / A

but if you look at the range of subjects taken, its a comp.

Yes green ginger very much agree how is it ok to bus kids out to the better comp but not grammar. talkinpeace you say if kids are going to get a a*\a at grammar they will do the same at a comp. Yes if you can play the system and get them to the nice comp. Not if they are at the local comp. My friends dc left the 21% 5 a-c comp last year. Requires improvement and lowest category for progress 8. He was a level 5 yr 6 pupil. He could well have passed Grammar if in catchment. He was the only child in whole school yr predicted an A in English gcse. He just about scraped grades for a levels at college (one of 6 in whole year to be able to go on to do A levels) his grades would have been considerably better at a Grammar or if his parents had done what the other white mc parents do and gone down the church attendance/expensive out of town bus fare route to a better comp.

Sorry, but if the problem is underperforming schools and bad behaviour, grammar schools are not the solution - the same people who currently think they will do better with grammars will whinge once the new grammar schools are open that the local schools' performance is even more appalling than it used to be, academic subjects that used to be offered have now been dropped entirely, all the best teachers have left, and that only the middle class, pushy parents who can play the system and afford tutors are getting their kids into the grammar schools which, incidentally, happen to be the same schools which used to be the best comprehensives, because they will be the ones offering to convert as they will already be stuffed with the "right material. "Then lots of middle class, wealthy parents will be laughing all the way to the bus stop to drop their privileged children off for the grammar school bus and the parents who whinged about underperforming comprehensives and not getting their children into top sets, will have somewhere even more nightmarish to contemplate.

Basically, the JAMs Theresa May is thinking about are those who are really struggling to afford the private school fees, not those who are really struggling to manage.