Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

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

518 replies

noblegiraffe · 09/02/2017 15:47

What an excellent use of scarce public funding, to build schools that most kids can't access Hmm 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

OP posts:
IrenetheQuaint · 09/02/2017 23:24

I know the conversation has moved on, but Shock at:

"Angela Rayner (Shadow Ed Sec) tweeted earlier: "Unbelievable grammar school heads have been given inside track on the Govt plans while our state schools&academies are left out in the cold.""

How on earth can the shadow education secretary not understand that the grammar schools to which she's referring are both state schools and (in pretty much all cases, I think) academies??

purits · 09/02/2017 23:30

Grammar school places are hoovered up by prep school kids and the tutored kids of the better-off.

Why? If State education is so brilliant then why aren't Junior schools capable of routinely preparing top-end children for the Grammar tests. They do differentiation, apparently, so it should be possible.

BertrandRussell · 09/02/2017 23:33

"Why? If State education is so brilliant then why aren't Junior schools capable of routinely preparing top-end children for the Grammar tests. They do differentiation, apparently, so it should be possible"

Because the preparation necessary for 11+ tests bears very little relation to the primary school curriculum. It's not just harder school work, it's a completely different set of skills, which are useful largely for nothing but passing the 11+.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/02/2017 23:34

Because state schools don't tutor for the 11+ and private schools do.

The tests are supposed to accurately separate sheep from goats so the state school admitting that special intensive preparation is needed to compete fairly would be rather an own goal.

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 09/02/2017 23:36

There is a private school near me whose main selling point is its near 100% 11+ success rate........

BertrandRussell · 09/02/2017 23:37

And anyway, I thought grammar school supporters said that it's all about raw talent?

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/02/2017 23:39

I don't know, Irene, but at least she's tweeting about it. Justine Greening is strangely silent on the matter.

OP posts:
purits · 09/02/2017 23:40

The State Grammar sets an entrance test that State educated children stand no hope of passing?Confused Well done State educators, that's really joined-up thinking.

IrenetheQuaint · 09/02/2017 23:41

One does wonder if Justine Greening has been armtwisted into this policy by No. 10.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/02/2017 23:41

That's why private 11+ tutoring is such big business.

OP posts:
TheEdgeofSeventeen · 09/02/2017 23:43

To be fair , i could really have used this as a kid - I was always in the top % ( not bragging just context) and i spent most of my time at a comp being bullied for being smart, watching the naughty kids get rewarded for a few weeks good behaviour by being taken ice-skating or to the cinema whilst i slogged away for grades and wasn't payed any attention to, other kids distracting me or the teacher so id be sat there thinking shut tf up. Its maybe unfair to lower performing children but then ... they're not fair to the higher performing and why should my childs success be dragged down?
Comps need improving but i don't see an issue with a new option for higher academic kids tbh x

GreenGinger2 · 09/02/2017 23:45

Actually the new curriculum and new CEM are quite similar. You need solid maths skills and a good vocabulary/ comprehension to do well in the CEM,the new primary curriculum pushes both of these.

The maths is now a very similar level.

I have DC who did both Sats and both 11+ exams. They are now more similar. Previously year 5 kids hadn't covered the maths included in the 11+ by the time they sat the exam or learnt the calculation skills needed to do well in maths papers at speed.Sats also focus on Spag and writing on top of maths and vocabulary/comprehension

I think many primaries simply need to inform parents of the existence of the exam and how actually their children would have a good chance of passing.

purits · 09/02/2017 23:47

The tests are supposed to accurately separate sheep from goats so the state school admitting that special intensive preparation is needed to compete fairly would be rather an own goal.

Again, educators talking hogwash. What's wrong with admitting that preparation is part of the procedure. I suspect that the Grammars intensively prepare for GCSEs and A Levels, or do they leave that to intuitive genius.Hmm

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/02/2017 23:47

I think this was sprung on the DfE by Theresa May and they're just trying to make the best of it.

It totally goes against Tory education policy up till now which has been tough exams, rigour, ebacc for all. Reintroducing selective schools is just saying bollocks to all that, special academic education for the bright and, er, the other kids will also get an academic education?

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 09/02/2017 23:47

he State Grammar sets an entrance test that State educated children stand no hope of passing?confused Well done State educators, that's really joined-up thinking."

No. it sets a test that very few children from either sector can pass without specific coaching.

BackforGood · 09/02/2017 23:48

I think it's brilliant and will provide social mobility to those who need it the most

Ha Ha Ha

I live in a big city with a very, very small number of selective schools (I believe about 2% of the secondary population). I went to one of those grammar schools. In the 60s and 70s, you rocked up, sat some tests, and they selected the people who scored highest in those tests. Now, people have their children tutored for YEARS to master the skills to score highly on the tests. A Massively high % come from private schools. This is NOT social mobility - this is not even selection of the brightest children. This is selection of 'the children of parents who have been investing in this probably since birth'. Even if you made it 10% rather than 2, the same thing will happen.
I am all for dc being taught at the pace they can learn, and starting from the point they are at, but in the 21st Century that isn't achieved by giving people a test at 10 rs old. It seems at no point that I can find, has it been the case for all children - even when 'going to the grammar' was a good thing for those who got in, it was only good for those that got in. What we need to do is properly fund education for all those that won't ever get in, however high % of pupils they made it.

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/02/2017 23:49

Actually the new curriculum and new CEM are quite similar.

Doesn't matter, part of the plans are to bin current 11+ efforts and introduce some national test. To combat 'test tourism' apparently.

OP posts:
Original poster
noblegiraffe · 09/02/2017 23:50

Again, educators talking hogwash. What's wrong with admitting that preparation is part of the procedure

Why is an untutorable test the Holy Grail of 11+ exams then?

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 09/02/2017 23:54

We have a grammar school and secondary modern school about a mile apart. Th y serve a very mixed community, with large areas of significant social deprivation. The gramma school has an average of less than 1% pupil premium children, the secondary modern 37%. So unless you believe that poor children are inherently less clever than better off ones, something is badly wrong.........

ToohotforaSeptday · 10/02/2017 00:03

Why can't primary schools be encouraged to support poor but bright children in their application to grammars?

BertrandRussell · 10/02/2017 00:08

"Why can't primary schools be encouraged to support poor but bright children in their application to grammars?"

Well, they could. But they would still be comp ting against kids who have been being prepared for years. And those who come from the bookish sort of background that gives them an automatic advantage. And what would "give" in the primary curriculum to make the space and time and teacher hours. And when would the kids catch up with all the stuff ththat t havenMt done because they who been practicing verbal reasoning?

Original poster
noblegiraffe · 10/02/2017 00:10

Because you aren't supposed to need support. The whole point is that the test is supposed to objectively identify bright kids.
Teachers having to pick bright kids to support would be subjective and biased and opening a can of worms too. Pity the poor teacher having to explain to Pushy Mrs X why her (not so bright) daughter isn't in the support programme. Primary teachers are better off well out of it.

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 10/02/2017 00:11

And what noblegiraffe said.

flyingwithwings · 10/02/2017 00:29

I am from the Centre Right Politically , but am finding myself regularly agreeing wholeheartedly with Bertrand about the 'attitude' of some posters to state education and more amazingly some posters disassociation with reality.

Bertrand i would just like you to understand that both of us are united in our battle against the unfair advantage private school pupils give.

I though believe the way to reduce the advantage is to give 'state' school children the same or 'better' whats available privately.

flyingwithwings · 10/02/2017 00:30

get.

Swipe left for the next trending thread