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

tag team FAQ answering, tiggy!

Odd one here:

inews.co.uk/essentials/news/education/grammar-plans-smuggled-article-50-triggered/

Govt going to introduce more grammars because this will be so popular and are planning to smuggle out the news when no-one will be paying attention to this incredibly popular policy?

Maths at Cambridge is a course where a high proportion of kids come from the state sector with 3 solid A levels having miraculously survived non selective education until they were 16.

Probably best to check the facts. They do usually have more than 3 A levels (because FM is required) and the course isn't doing as well as it should be for state school entrants. But of course many students doing Cambridge maths came through non-selective state education. (The problem is that more state school students should apply, not that state school students can't get in.)

For the OP: how on earth will schools for the top 10% be a vote winner?

I can't wait to all the locals are complaining that 'Skem' Grammar is full of kids from 'Standish and Ince' !

There is only one poster who knows what i am talking about , since most of posts are about South East based issues and problems.

Posters seem to prefer that towns give 100% of children a 'shite' education than giving 80% a shite education. That is preferable for them , then destroying their ideological dream , because after all 'no child should be told they are a failure at 11'.

A ideological belief that if everybody can't have it nobody can just means destroying 100% of children's chances rather than 80%..
After all their local 'Surrey' Comprehensive sends 65 every year to Oxbridge .
Newsflash the outcomes (what careers or jobs 10 years down the line ) that the most able children coming out of East Lancs or Stoke comprehensives are far far lower than middle ability students from the Home Counties.

This is the truth but is of little importance or relevance to the Home Counties agenda here.

Regular users of these threads will be unsurprised that the above is not true.

High Achievers in Knowsley - continually cited as having the worst schools in England - have an Attainment 8 of 55.2 and 85% gain C or above in English and Maths.

Middle attainers in Surrey have an attainment 8 of 51and 70% get C in E and M. Relevant figures in Oxfordshire are 50 and 67.

Couldn't be bothered separating Stoke out from the rest of Staffordshire so used Knowsley instead.

And as for accepting that in the 21st century the best we can do is give 20% a good education -well, what can I say?

HPFA. I asked what careers or jobs are 'high achievers' from Stoke or East Lancs doing and what jobs are Middle attaining students from Surrey doing at 25 years of age !

That is the true meaning of 'outcomes' not whether you attain an A* at GCSE

What are doing at 25 . It is no good if a an A grade pupil from Stoke is working in a Call Centre on £7,50 PH and the average attaining pupil from Surrey is earning £25,000 PA.

I mention Stoke because my sister is HOD of a subject the school no longer offers for GCSE 'Chemistry' figure that one out. The school stopped offering Chemistry as a stand alone option 2 years ago. The school makes all pupils do 'double' science instead.

The secondary schools in Stoke (with the exception of the Grammar school) yes believe it or not Stoke has a Catholic grammar are 'appalling' !

This is the reason Sister sends both her DD and Ds private (not being a catholic , means little choice).

Oh god- we're not back to As from some schools being better than As from other schools are we?

The South East thing is not a "Grammars" issue.

DD is at Uni oop North.
Most of the kids at the Uni are from oop north
admittedly her course is about 1/2 north, 1/3 south and the rest from all over the world
BUT
looking at placements for their 3rd years, lots of the kids are thinking of being no more than a couple of hours from home.
DD is looking at South America
All of the kids are bright and stuff, but many have self narrowed horizons

How can you argue with one breath that grammars are a good thing then on the other complain that schools in a town that has a grammar have stopped offering triple science What do you think will happen to the other schools when the majority of bright kids go somewhere else?

HPFA wow that article is concerning, why hasn't it been picked up by anyone else?

The Grammar school in Stoke is not the same as a Grammar school in Bucks or Kent look at the results they are more akin to a High achieving Comprehensive in 'Hertfordshire' .

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/136460

The school has little or no impact on the rest of the schools .

The average GCSE attainment in stoke is 52% . St Josephs 94%

A level score at St Josephs is C + which really tells the score about Stoke

That the standout 'State' school in the town only averages C+ at A level , need we say anymore.

flying

Hi, it's me, I totally get where you are coming from.
Sadly though, others won't see it as different areas obviously have different issues.
I do get what others say and understand their point, even though it's not something I have experienced.
The problem is that grammars will be a positive in some areas as the issues others complain about don't/ wouldn't exist in those areas.
I also think with a grammar in every town there wouldn't be the rush of mc families buying in gs areas, as these would be everywhere.
I totally agree that in some areas there is a rush to the bottom and that 10% or even 5% of bright children having access to a gs would be positive and not detrimental to the 80% who went to the comps. Nothing would change in some areas, children wouldn't be written off at 11 or feel inferior.

That the standout 'State' school in the town only averages C+ at A level , need we say anymore.

Yes, because I can't for the life of me fathom how this supports government grammar school policy.

From what you are saying, Stoke is full of low attaining crap schools. The sort of place that people argue need a grammar school to 'save' at least some of the kids from mediocrity. Except it already has a grammar school. And you appear to be saying from its A-level results and future job prospects that they end up with mediocrity anyway.

So the point appears to be that low attaining crap towns with no prospects won't be saved by grammars.

(I don't know Stoke btw, it may well be lovely).

"The HeadTeachers appeals in Kent schools-and I think in Bucks too- take place without the parent's knowledge in the time between the results being known and the parents being informed."

That's really shocking. How can that be in any way right or fair? All on the Head's say so - how far any one head can find the energy to find every last bit of evidence, compete for their school to send the most to grammar, put in the arguments for any one child - the less-favoured child, the child with the pushy parents who will create merry hell if they don't get the place, etc.

I also think with a grammar in every town there wouldn't be the rush of mc families buying in gs areas, as these would be everywhere.

The Salisbury Grammars do not seem to drag Hampshire house prices down by much .....

What a waste of time for Heads too.

Flying Fair enough, didn't spot the careers bit so give you that one.

However, I'm afraid I don't get what that has to do with grammars. If children in Stoke get better exam results but worse careers than those in Surrey then it suggests that that has nothing to do with education but everything to do with other social factors.

gilly I still don't think you've given us the mechanism by which you'll avoid the grammar places simply going to those who would otherwise have gone private or to the more middle class comps. The only way you're going to get lots of poor kids into grammars is to have lots and lots of grammars. Believe me you'll then get loads of Mumsnetters complaining about "house price" grammars!

Noble If that article is true it seems to show what a weird state of mind the government has got itself into. Why do they want to sneak out a policy that, according to them, is going to be really popular?

HPFA

Some areas don't have private schools, mc families, mc schools, they are all poor.
In our town anyone who would be considered as mc lives in other 'naice' areas and commutes to work here.
There aren't many opportunities for children, some if they are lucky find a way to move away, a small percentage go to uni.
Aspiration is very low and this is ingrained.
At least when there was a grammar the brightest ones had some chance of social mobility, which is what grammars were all about.
Yes, the present system doesn't work and sounds bad for places like kent or Manchester where house prices are high to gain access to gs.
With one in every town why would house prices be dearer if everyone could access the school.

mixedgrill- the idea is that any obvious injustices will be sorted out at that stage- something happening during the test, marking the wrong boxes, that sort of thing. But yes- just one more layer of unfairness.

Stoke might be 'Shit' for education, but the 'Northern Soul' that is now being played on BBC Stoke is 'World Class'.

Listening to from Bucks via the BBC Stoke Website.

Gilly I know your are in Lancs so just for you Northern Soul Started at the Torch in Hanley in 1967 the Casino started in 1973.

Everybody confused.....

The Grammar in Stoke might be crap compared to others in more prosperous areas but it still represents the top 25-30% of the towns ability range.

I also believe if a grammar school existed in places like Skelmesdale for instance it would achieve similar results to St Josephs.

There are two reasons why Grammar schools in such places will not attract kids currently at prep schools . A the standards will not be good enough . B Families that live in Up-Holland would never let their offspring mix with kids from the 'SKEM' no matter how bright those kids might be.

The standards might not be good enough to attract private school families.However, they would be many times better than what is currently available for bright or probably just above average children.

As much has changed since my older 2 were at secondary and i don't know much about recent changes I looked briefly at some of the schools in our area ito the new 8 marking thingy (getting technical now)
Our borough average is 60% which looks like it's propped up by 2 schools that would likely take the grammar school kids.
There are schools around 50%.
Some have been able to opt out of publishing theirs too, I believe down to high pp and children with SN.