May has got her Grammars.

[ScrubTheDecks]

Despite widespread lack of support from the education sector. Despite not having got a majority for her manifesto determination on this. Despite the Tories having cancelled BSF. Despite schools budgets being SLASHED.

She has introduced a 'slip it past' programme of expansion for existing grammars. So: no access to the newly funded grammars in areas where they don't exist. Weasel words about lowering standards for disadvantaged pupils to ensure access....so, admitting they don't bloody work as agents of social mobility or inclusion!

Why not invest in Outstanding comps all over the country that are doing well by all students, including the disadvantaged? Why not invest n comps all over the country that are struggling to recruit teachers and need standards raising?

A nostalgic move by a grammar school educated vicar's daughter (faith schools expanding too - hooray, what a great move for the religiously declining, multi-cultural C21st that is!) for a golden age of grammars that never did what they were supposed to do in the first place - except for a minority of lucky pupils.

I am utterly disgusted by this. Totally anti-democratic move.

I understand those MN-ers in a grammar area where you have no choice but to buy into the grammar system, or those who have, on an local level, poor schools and for those with bright kids, grammar is the only salvation. But grammars and disadvantaged / under achieving schools are to an extent are symbiotic .

Good comps getting their budgets cut should go on strike right now. Oh, but they can't / won't because of the public exams. Nifty timing, T May.

Is there a march I can go on?

[portico]

More grammar school places, please. I live out of catchment. In fact grammar school is 30 miles away. Both my sons attend one. The reason the MC have a stranglehold on them is that there are so few of them, tutoring is the cheapest way of gaining a coveted place in a competitive academic environment. Both my children are flourishing at grammar school, especially my younger son who was a poor performer in a state comp primary. He would have remained a poor performer in a state comp secondary.

[Peregrina]

The reason why the MC have a stranglehold is not because there are fewer of them - they always did have a stranglehold when that was the system everywhere, despite us being told about a few WC children who did well via a grammar school place.

I could see some logic in them back in the days when only 25% of the population were deemed to be clever enough to get 5 O Levels, and the school leaving age for the majority was 15; I can't see it now when we expect 50% to be able to obtain 5 GCSEs.

[ScrubTheDecks]

So are Grammars for kids who can’t motivate themselves in a comprehensive school?

[Tid13]

From a Telegraph article, (albeit in 2013)
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9729674/Top-state-schools-flooded-with-over-1000-applications.html


ENGLAND'S MOST OVERSUBSCRIBED SCHOOLS
Al-Hijrah School, Birmingham, 18.35 (F)
Herschel Grammar, Slough, 14 (AC / SEL)
Langley Grammar, Slough, 13 (AC / SEL)
Sutton Grammar for Boys, Sutton 13 (AC / SEL)
Harris Academy Crystal Palace, Croydon, 12.3 (AC)
Tiffin Girls’ School, Kingston upon Thames, 12.3 (AC / SEL)
Tiffin Boys' School, Kingston upon Thames, 12 (AC / SEL)
The Latymer School, Enfield, 11 (SEL / F)
King Edward VI Five Ways, Birmingham, 10.6 (AC / SEL)
Slough Grammar, Slough, 10.5 (AC / SEL)

Quite a few grammars in that top 10.
With figures of 10 or more kids applying for every place, it is clearly not JUST those whose kids are actually going to pass that want Grammars. There is a genuine enthusiasm for the schools whether you like it or not, and parents aspire for their kids to go there, and not just middle class snobs before we fall back on that stereotype.

Many are unhappy with academic elitism, but I am not. Peregrina said on here "Where we fall down badly as a country is in our technical and vocational education, and for the 50% who don't go to university." I actually agree with this, but I don't see that this is helped by treating our children in a "one size fits all" system, where those who would be best served by a technical and vocational education are taught in exactly the same way as those who would benefit more from a rigorous academic environment.

As for more grammars meaning more secondary moderns, well that's really a conversation for another day, because we're not talking about more grammars here are we? We're talking about expansion of existing grammars, which given the expanding number of secondary age pupils (Secondary pupil numbers set for 19% rise by 2026 www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40608795) is just keeping pace with the same overall proportion of places compared to the student population.

Clearly people have deeply ingrained personal beliefs about our education system (myself included I admit) so I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but in these days of social media "echo chambers" it's important that we expose ourselves to the other points of view (hence I read this even though the first post is clearly from a different point of view than I hold personally).

[prh47bridge]

I struggle to see this as "anti-democratic". It isn't as if the public has voted against this policy. Some polls say that the public favours grammar schools, others that they are against. However, support is strongest in areas that currently have grammar schools. Those areas are definitely in favour of more grammar schools.

The big question for me is what effect grammar schools have on pupils. Some studies show that they help social mobility, others show that they don't. Some studies show that the overall level of achievement in areas with grammar schools is higher than in comprehensive-only areas, others show the opposite. Similarly, some studies show that bright children do better at grammar school, others show that they don't. A summary of the available research (can't remember whose summary - I'd have to go digging if anyone wanted to know) suggested that most research in this area is designed to confirm the prejudices of the researcher. As I favour evidence-based policy, this mix means I have no idea what policy is best. However, I certainly wouldn't regard the views of the academic establishment as determinative.

[portico]

ScrubTheDecks said:
“So are Grammars for kids who can’t motivate themselves in a comprehensive school?”

Yes!

[letstalk2000]

When posters talk about 'Modern ' schools and 'Comprehensive schools'. Its rather relevant to ask which of these schools would you rather you Children attended:

Harrop Fold school, Thornhill Community School or The Polygon School

OR
Waddeson School, Wellington School, or Hilview .

This is important to understand because the top group are all fully comprehensive , whereas the second group are in fully selective areas.

If you believe education and schools in particular should be about evidencing a true representation of the utilitarianism of a local community than comprehensive schools are the ticket !.
This being 10 % very bright children 15 % bright children 50% average children on so on down to 10% of below average academic ability.

However, if you believe schools are not there to represent a perceived utopian panacea , comprehensive schools are not the ticket.

I am so thankful my DD1 did not go to DSs 'outstanding' comprehensive, otherwise she would have permanently excluded for battering the three 'bastards' that made DSs life hell there !
The three girls are lionized by the school not only by being children of teachers there but because they are Oxbridge bound !

The whole idea of comprehensive schools was not to improve the educational outcomes of children, but solely for social integration purposes.

[letstalk2000]

Then comprehensive schools are the ticket .

[HPFA]

lestalk200

Not sure I understand the point above? You say the girls who did the bullying are "Oxbridge bound" which implies that if we had grammars and secondary moderns they would have been at the grammar and presumably bullying there?

It maybe that the comp in question does not have a good anti-bullying policy but that is not intrinsic to it being a comprehensive. A grammar school may equally well be poor at dealing with bullying.

[letstalk2000]

Firstly the three girls would certainly have not been lionized at DD1/2s grammar for being Oxbridge bound ! The lionization of the girls enabled them to bully a boy with 'sen' 2 years younger than them my DS. The girls would then act all sweetness and light and seem to be helping DS when a teacher came past.
Rather alarmingly one of the girls is the current Head Girl of the school hence is lorded by the school all the time.

As for a comprehensive school being able to cater for all needs , well obviously that's not my experience . DS going from perceived level1 GCSE capability in Maths/English. This to possibly attaining level 5 Maths/English in a Independent school in just 18 months confirms my doubts !

The number of other points I am making include referencing the fact , that defining a school based on its designation is misleading . The three so called modern schools are among the best 'non selective' schools in the country regardless of location.

The so called comprehensive schools that consistently better them three have a number of selective pupils ! Selection of children should not be viewed as evil nor defining their future. It should be about evaluating a child's current abilities and placing them in an environment suitable for it to flourish or advance !

[noblegiraffe]

It should be about evaluating a child's current abilities and placing them in an environment suitable for it to flourish or advance!

But that’s not what it does. The 11+ is inaccurate and routinely allocates students to the wrong school.

[letstalk2000]

Miss- allocation happens sometimes, certainly I miss allocated my son to the wrong school. This by judging the level 1 GCSE Maths/English attainment achieved by the aforementioned teaching at his previous school.

Noble, I am assuming my son if placed with you would have achieved at higher than grade 1 in Maths ! But perhaps my son's rapid strides in English and Maths are to do more than just good teaching.

These reasons being ones such as an environment free from bullying on a 'industrial level' . A strong school ethos based on 'over achieving' and finally the appropriate support from a SENCO . This being one does not view my DS as a drain on limited resources .

[marytuda]

My guess is the reason people in grammar school areas are super-keen for grammar-school expansion, prh4, is that they think it will give their DC a better chance of getting into one. They have little experience of and no access to the best alternative, good local comps.
And it's no surprise either that grammars are generally oversubscribed. Simply because they exist locally, you'd pretty much have to do all you can to get your DC in, to avoid the sorry alternative.
I know too that some tiger-parent-type families move into these areas "to give their DC the very best chance" of what they perceive as an elite education. But I also know at least one family which then moved out again, when reluctantly forced to recognise their DC was, erm, not grammar school material.
It's the ensuing primary-school tutoring madness which I object to most. Gosh, SATS prep the schools are forced to do is bad enough. Do we have to inflict even more senseless hoop-jumping on our under 10s?

[letstalk2000]

It would be interesting to compare a 'standard' comprehensive school with the highest attaining 25% taken out with a ' standard' secondary modern school.
This would be able to show if the next cohort down of 30% do significantly better in a comprehensive school !

I am not sure they do...

In the highest attaining 'modern' schools they achieve GCSE results consistently that put them in the top 5% of non selective schools. This proving that modern schools can and 'do' send pupils to RG& Oxbridge Universities!

Therefore why not compare a 'standard' modern school with a standard comprehensive minus the highest achieving 30% !

[Kazzyhoward]

So are Grammars for kids who can’t motivate themselves in a comprehensive school?

Not necessarily just about motivation. If you're constantly being bullied (verbally and physically) and there's disruption in every lesson, it doesn't matter how motivated you are, you're not going to reach your full potential.

I speak from experience. I was a straight A pupil upon entering my comp. 5 years later, I failed all my exams, had burn marks on my arms (from fag ends stubbed out on me), suffered from depression and anxiety, had no friends, was suicidal. All because of a crap comp where the teachers didn't give a toss and had no control. As for lack of motivation, once I'd escaped from that hell hole, I taught myself A levels, then taught myself chartered accountancy exams in evenings/weekends, whilst working full time, eventually becoming a qualified accountant - I'd say that was pretty damned motivation that enabled me to do that.

I'd move heaven and earth to prevent my son ending up in a crap comp to suffer like I did.

[daffodildelight]

Kazxy - I think the whole point of being against grammar schools is to reduce the bad comps/secondary moderns.
Don't cream off the top kids for grammar and leave the rest at awful schools. Get the top, middle and bottom kids all together in one good school.

[Kazzyhoward]

Kazxy - I think the whole point of being against grammar schools is to reduce the bad comps/secondary moderns. Don't cream off the top kids for grammar and leave the rest at awful schools. Get the top, middle and bottom kids all together in one good school.

There weren't grammars in my area when I suffered the comp - it had been the town's grammar a few years before, but had been converted to a comp to merge with the town's sec mod which was closed. It really was the big lie of "Get the top, middle and bottom kids all together in one good school". Everyone, my parents included, believed that lie which was why they sent me there believing it would provide a quality education for everyone. It's now in special measures with falling numbers and is highly likely to close!

[Tid13]

Marytuda wrote "My guess is the reason people in grammar school areas are super-keen for grammar-school expansion, prh4, is that they think it will give their DC a better chance of getting into one. They have little experience of and no access to the best alternative, good local comps.
And it's no surprise either that grammars are generally oversubscribed. Simply because they exist locally, you'd pretty much have to do all you can to get your DC in, to avoid the sorry alternative."

I'm not so sure. I live in Surrey where there are no grammar schools, but close enough to the borders of Sutton, and of Kingston which do have grammars. These areas have plenty of “good local comps”, or at least local comps with Outstanding Ofsted reports. Take the Epsom area for example. This has Glyn School (for boys) and Roseberry (for girls) which are both Outstanding across the board in the Ofsted inspections, and are both about 3 miles from Sutton Grammar (for boys) and Nonsuch High (for girls), the local grammar schools just over the border in Sutton. Both Sutton Grammar and Nonsuch have plenty of pupils from the Epsom area and plenty more that form part of that huge batch of unsuccessful applicants for every place the grammars have. Even closer to the grammars mentioned at about a mile or less to each is Cheam High, another Outstanding rated local comp, yet many within its local area go to the grammars, or at least apply.

The same is true in other local areas. Waldegrave girls school (which I think is rated in the top 10 by the Times in State Schools) is less than 2.5 miles from Tiffin Girls, yet many girls from the Twickenham area flock to Tiffin Girls on exam days to take their chances.

So it just isn’t true that it is always about no experience or access to good local comps. The schools I’ve mentioned are not “sorry alternatives”, failing schools, schools for 11+ rejects, or some sort of second tier system that people seem to be calling “secondary moderns”. These are good local comps rated very highly by Ofsted and doing very well for themselves, yet a huge number of people from those local areas still prefer the local grammar schools, or at least prefer to try and attain a place their should their child achieve that. To dismiss this preference as lack of experience of good comps or the result of only poor alternatives is just not true.

[ScrubTheDecks]

Kazzy, that’s clearly dreadful. No one, no one at all wants a kid of any ability to endure that.

I suppose the difference is in tne approach to the solution: focus on investment and improvement in all comps, because we know the model can work. It does so very well in many different types of area. We know they can deliver a good education to kids across the academic spectrum.

OR maintain and expand Grammars as safe havens, if you like, for bright kids to escape bad comps. Comps good and bad, up and down the country, are having their budgets slashed.

I went to a posh selective school and thought it a limited experience. I was actually molly coddled, I think and wouldn’t have done so well in a secondary modern. Maybe I didn’t deserve the results I got.

DH went to a truly terrible comp, now demolished. We both think the good S London, not posh comp is a better all round education than either of us received.

[ScrubTheDecks]

Oh, and some kids were horribly bullied in each of our schools, violence, humiliation, I am horrified, looking back.

[NotARegularPenguin]

I think that having mixed ability schools with full streaming makes much more sense. Some kids will be good in some subjects and not others. Everyone gets teaching pitched to their level and the chance to move up and down sets if needed.

Kids from wealthier or middle class backgrounds won’t have as much of an advantage over other kids as nobody will be tutoring to get into a better school.

And I say this as someone who went to a grammar school and who’s dd passed the eleven plus (but went to a comp).

[portico]

daffodildelight

Kazxy - I think the whole point of being against grammar schools is to reduce the bad comps/secondary moderns.
Don't cream off the top kids for grammar and leave the rest at awful schools. Get the top, middle and bottom kids all together in one good school.

And thereby, screw everyone’s chances, eh!

[marytuda]

Tid it was just a thought. Clearly there are many parents who think it has to be grammar or private (or possibly Graveney!) or nothing . . ."Don't you want the very best for your child??" they would say to me incredulously (and frequently have.)
But there must also be many parents, myself included, who would only put their primary age child through 11+ tutoring-madness if the price of failure were very high. If there were good comps available - say I lived where you describe, indeed my area is not so different - then, No Way. And I don't think I'm alone by a long way.

[marytuda]

Gosh, portico, "screw everyone's chances?" You don't know a lot about first-rate comps, do you?? There really are quite a lot of them round about (not only in London) though perhaps not in your area, which is a shame - with proper investment, they should flourish everywhere.
I think my chances were screwed pretty much by my rubbish grammar school, but that was, granted, many many years ago. Things really have moved on a lot since, especially when it comes to comprehensives.

[ScrubTheDecks]

Portico; how exactly does a good comp screw everyone ‘s chances?

If they operate as Penguin says? I can list a string of good comps that I know of relatively locally that work really effectively.