Bits of news on the grammar school issue

[HPFA]

Two snippets of news

schoolsweek.co.uk/film-company-targets-grammar-teachers-in-recruitment-video/?utm_content=bufferb7668&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Unclear exactly why grammar teachers are being targeted to tempt people into teaching. Perhaps to tempt recruits by suggesting they can have a nice career only teaching the easy kids.

And another piece of news:

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-church-england-not-interested-opening-new-grammar-schools

This is perhaps hardly surprising. Since faith schools are already so heavily criticised for being socially exclusive it would hardly do the C of E's image much good to open up schools explicitly targeting the already advantaged. Still welcome news to those of us on the pro-comprehensive side.

Noble, I am, believe me! Hi school has a 'take 4 to AS, then do A-level' thing, so I am working on him to at least consider moving to it as his '4th' subject.

Pergrina - on Pointless, people roll their eyes and play dumb at tow things : Geography (it seems OK not to know where anywhere is) and literature, where it seems it is hilarious never to have read a book.

To be fair, they don't have maths rounds, but science always produces positive excitement!

I have actually also noticed this on UC this year : but that is probably because the teams are often loaded with physicists! not that I am saying physicists don't read

There I go with tow again ....

I agree with most of what you say and am married to a maths teacher...

But I teach a 'woolly ' subject which has just been made so hard a university professor called it a three year degree in two years...

And it may not produce high paid people but feeds into one of the UK's biggest and most dynamic industries.

(I am encouraging my DS to do subjects he likes fwiw : maths is on a longlist)

'good job' = high pay, discuss...

I do suspect my DS may not have got into a grammar school to come back to the original topic and, if they existed round here would by now be even less work motivated than he is now by his distinctly below par comp.

How far have we come since CP Snow's The Two Cultures?

His criticism was that the study of humanities and subjects like Latin were prized over the study of the sciences. Are we swinging the other way?

Yes, I think we almost certainly are : the clever ones at my school almost exclusively do maths and sciences (especially physics and chemistry). There is till decent uptake for Lit and history - but they do tend to be much wider ability spreads. MFL is dead in the water.

In my day, the most academic (this was Scotland so very traditional) either did the Arts to be encouraged to pursue Law or sciences to go into medicine. And it was pretty a 60:40 split.

With the push to only offer 3 subjects to nearly all A level students now, too, I think we will see the end of scientists who complement their three science A levels with something like a language or English or music etc.

It is interesting that in real life and on Mumsnet, "clever" has come to mean "good at maths".

You never get threads about "my child is brilliant at English-they need to be at a specialist school".....

Very true Bertrand - when we had specialist schools ,there never were ones for English. There was languages, if I recall.

Definitely true that maths and sciences have way more cache than arts subjects now. In "my day" the clever kids took English, history and a language. We had three English A levels classes at my sixth form, two history and only one for maths and each of the sciences.

At ds's slightly smaller, independent (but very 'all-round', arty/musical) school, there are only going to be two classes next year for maths, physics and chemistry. The rest are all one class.

I think it's mostly parental pressure. At the high-performing state school I work in, parents of clever kids won't let them consider double science, or art or music GCSE, or English A level. They have to take all maths and science subjects. Some are even anti reading for pleasure...

Erm...cachet.

Ds said he thinks more students in his year have chosen Further Maths than English A level.

Dangling, again, I can't link to the article but lots of state schools are not offering further Maths this year, owing to lack of numbers and budget cuts ,so they're fortunate they can at that school.

But , I see your DS's school is private, so am guessing group sizes are quite small, anyway, and, if it's a boys' school, it's probably not all that surprising : gender attitudes are still rather engrained...

That schools are cutting further maths due to budget cuts and the lack of AS is a huge fail on the part of the government.

No, it's not an all boys' school, it's mixed ability and very arty and so the science /maths obsession is not as severe as in the high-performing comp I work in.

Yes, it's a real shame about FM in state schools, Noble. Many, of course, have never offered it. Ours will continue to do so, but is very large and sought after, with a strong reputation for maths.

Definitely true that maths and sciences have way more cache than arts subjects now.

I think triple science has changed this. 1982 I did Biology O-Level - the usual Arts student's science subject. But I never thought I was less intelligent than those doing three sciences. Now it seems that doing Triple Science is seen as a badge of being "clever" rather than of being keen on science.

DD is quite keen on being selected for the Triple Science group although she doesn't particularly like it other than Biology. It's simply the cachet.

You never get threads about "my child is brilliant at English-they need to be at a specialist school"

People typically don't want to hear the explanations because they don't fit what they want the world to be, rather than what it is. It is classic la-la-la-can't hear-you-stuff. For instance is that the first time you've raised this and were there no answers before?

Sorry, PiqueaBoo- don't understand.

I did Biology O-Level - the usual Arts student's science subject.
I did too. My girls grammar school didn't even teach Physics and Chemistry as separate subjects - there was one O level called 'Physics with Chemistry'.

I left school at a time when a lot of girls drifted into teaching, where the minimum qualification to be accepted was still 5 O levels including English. No maths, no science.... So it's not surprising that those of my generation who went into teaching were often not confident to teach maths and science.

Yes, it's now changed, it's become a graduate profession where at least two A levels are required and Maths, English and a science at GCSE are necessary, at least for primary. So that's good - except that Academies don't have to take on qualified staff, and cuts mean that classes are increasingly being covered by Cover Supervisors. So that's not good.

Yes, I think we almost certainly are : the clever ones at my school almost exclusively do maths and sciences (especially physics and chemistry).

And yet we are still massively underproducing STEM graduates, particularly relative to other high performing economies. We produce about twice as many history graduates per year as we do physics graduates, for example.

Imo the pendulum has not swung far enough into sciences. I also think it is ludicrous that we don't make all those studying academically post 16 do some form of Maths and English, as most other countries do (with English obviously replaced for relevant language).

In my day, the most academic (this was Scotland so very traditional) either did the Arts to be encouraged to pursue Law or sciences to go into medicine. And it was pretty a 60:40 split.

So pretty much nobody from the most academic group did maths, physics, chemistry, engineering, computer sciences etc? Not surprising that as a country we have shortages in these areas....

Triple Science is seen as a badge of being "clever" rather than of being keen on science.

If schools restrict triple to higher-ability children then what else would you expect? Then as dog-whistles go, three GCSEs rather than two is a quite basic, effective one.

"parents of clever kids won't let them consider double science, or art or music GCSE,"

It's a bit like that amongst many of the highers at DD's school, which might be middling but has a significant contingent from the right side of the tracks.

Clever Y9 DD likes science so obviously picked triple, would have been talked into that by school-side if she hadn't, but she also picked both Music and Art options with my approval. She's good at both, and I don't want a pure 'academic' child at this still young age. Or for that matter a pure academic adult.

There's a bunch of folk somewhere credibly arguing for STEAM, which is STEM with Arts & Design thrown in.

That isn't what I said - I said the ones with an aptitude for science did science! Or, do you mean at uni? Computing wasn't a thing in my day... I think some went an did degrees in maths etc )I know one did something like that because he works at NASA now). It's definitely quite a traditional Scottish thing : Law or medicine, take your pick!

What I find galling is academic students being pushed towards STEM as more worthy when their true talents lie elsewhere. This happened to my DH. All As at O level. Did science A levels and did OK, but not brilliantly. The did maths at uni, hated it and got a third.

I just cant get my knickers in a twist over STEM - I know it's my bias. But we are also not producing people who can speak world languages, for example.

Any road up, a smattering of grammar schools is not going to address those issues.

When I was at school btw they tried to make us all do Higher Maths (this would have replaced another option I wanted). I put my foot down and said absolutely not : I need an o grade and I have it. I know full well making me do maths would have given me a lower set of grades overall. I applied to Oxford (so, without 'boasting' was highly academic), who didn't care at all that I had no maths Higher. I feel quite sure I would not have been able to apply with a shitty grade in higher maths...

PiqueABoo - this ability to throw in an arts subject is also under threat , of course. With the budget cuts, many schools are dropping the options students can take outside English and maths to three or four subjects. Triple science would take up virtually all of it...

I just cant get my knickers in a twist over STEM - I know it's my bias. But we are also not producing people who can speak world languages, for example.

The latter doesn't matter that much in practice, since the global language of commerce, technology, science etc is English.

The former matters because we can't fill vacancies for civil engineers to build bridges; biochemists to analyse blood; radiographers to analyse X ray and other scan data; materials scientists to develop new devices; programmers and data scientists etc etc. That's before we discuss the shortage of science and maths teachers at schools. Our economy suffers from the lack of shortage of STEM graduates and we will fall (further) behind other economies if we don't start remedying it from within. (Right now we are heavily reliant on trained STEM workers coming to the UK from abroad... post Brexit these workers may not want to come, even if they are still allowed to.)