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?

Letstalk I actually did do a lot of comparison between schools in Bucks, Oxfordshire and Maidenhead. Results are consistently better in comprehensive Oxon and Maidenhead for middle and lower ability children. Of course some Bucks sec mods may be as good for these children as some of the Oxon and Maidenhead comps but overall there was no question.

Mart tuda, scrubthedecks,
I understand your points, just making it clear I had a high performer and low performer at same state primary, aka primary comp. school achieved outstanding ofsted over a period of 14 years, close to brilliant ks2 scores for upper cohort. It failed my younger son, and no stats et al improved him. I tutored him to build him up to a level, the tutors got hold of him and then prepared him fir grammar school. He had a mediocre Y7 and gas now flourished in Y8. He would not have done so in a comp!!!!

portico - He had a mediocre Y7 and gas now flourished in Y8. He would not have done so in a comp!!!!

How on earth can you possible make that claim if your DC never attended a secondary comp?

Portic,

It is always difficult to argue from the point of view of your own child, because by definition your child can't 'take the alternative route and see what happened'.

So you know what happened with tutoring for grammar + grammar; by definition you don't know what would have happened by tutoring (not for grammar) + comprehensive, or no tutoring + comprehensive, because you have not tested either of those 'other' routes.

What you have to look for is, at a population level, what serves the population as a whole best (because surely, as a country, that is what we should want). There is no evidence whatever that a two-part selective system produces better results, at a population level, than a comprehensive system - and thus there is no point in creating more grammar schools to replace comprehensives, because overall that does not improve outcomes for the population.

On the poster who says modern schools are better than comprehensives for the lower part of the cohort because they get some rare children to Oxbridge, whereas the lower attaining group at a comprehensive may not - no, it is not evidence of how good modern schools are. it is evidence of how poor an exam the 11+ is at actually identifying able pupils - those 'outliers' within the secondary modenrs should have been allocated to the grammar, if the 11+ was perfect, but were sent to the 'wrong school for them' and ths overachieved,. they would simply have been in the top sets - or have risen to the top sets - in a comprehensive, so been regarded as 'one of the top 25%' etc.

What you actually want, rather than comparing 'bottom 70% of a comp' with 'the whole of a secondary modern' is to create cohorts of matched pairs, at a population level - so children of exactly matched abilities and socio-economic / ethnic backgrounds - who attend comprehensives vs secondary moderns / grammars, and then compare outcomes.

Why are people talking about sec-mods? We have grammars in our town, alongside comps - we don't have sec-mods anymore - didn't they go out in the 70s?

the chance to move up and down sets if needed

Sounds good in theory, but in reality, the upper streams are so far ahead, it's a really big task for someone to move up, as they're going to have to do a lot of catching up. It works better in reverse with the kids in upper groups who are struggling being put down to a lower group so that they can do certain topics again or work at a slower pace.

Badbad - of course nobody CALLS the m secondary moderns.

However:

Comprehensives : schools which do not select, and thus contain a full (comprehensive) range of abilities that pretty accurately reflects the catchment area.

Grammar schools: schools which select those who apply and attain a particular standard in an 11+ exam. Range of abilities is not the same as that of the effective catchment as a whole, and will be heavily skewed to the higher range of abilities.

Secondary moderns: schools in grammar areas which admit those who do not take, or do not pass, the 11+ exam. Range of abilities is not the same as the catchment area as a whole, because it will lack those of high ability who are admitted to the grammar.

So you can CALL the 'other' school in a grammar area a comprehensive, or a high school, or a secondary school, or a technical college, or an academy. However, it is still, by definition, a secondary modern, because it does not admit a comprehensive range of abilities that represents the full range and proportions of abilities of children in its effective catchment.

Very clear post, CantKeepAway

BadBadBunny people talk of seondary moderns to emphasise the reality that a full grammar system also creates a full high school system (in Kent) which is pretty similar to a secondary modern.

A child who doesn't pass the exam on the day, or as a summer born boy needs another year to mature, or a socially / parentally unsupported child who recognises opportunities as they grow and enjoy subjects , for example, will, if they don't get into Grammar, find themselves in a school which:
Does not have the full range of ability - those having been 'creamed off' to Grammar
May not offer triple science - that being deemed for academically capable bright kids.
Ditto Further Maths
Ditto a second MFL
Or, because the top set kids are absent, there aren't enough kids to make up a class n these subjects.
So a general constriction of academic subjects.
Like a secondary modern.

(Though I know there are a few genuine, good, actual comps in some areas of Kent)

Selective education isn't just the 'selected' - it is also the 'not-selected'. Whereas on a comprehensive school there is open access and facilities and classes for the full range of abilities.

BadBUnny: tin our comp here was a big shuffle round of sets, people moving up as well as down, at the beginning of Yr 10 and the GCSE curriculum.
It was interesting - it gave a completely different picture from Yr 7. Some boys I had known since Reception were very 'middle to lower set' Yrs 7 & 8 , but matured, and by Yr 10 were put in some top sets according to their specific strengths and did REALLY well at GCSE. One as a language specialist. 3 different MFL.

One of the really difficult aspects of this debate is the confusion iof nomenclature. Because those who live in grammar areas have schools CALLED comprehensives that are in reality secondary moderns (with all the constriction of ability and curriculum that implies), that is their picture of comprehensive schools everywhere.

And, in general, they don't want that for their children, so they say they want to keep grammars.

However, those who live in 'true' comprehensive areas, where there are no grammars and thus no 'secondary modern' comprehensives, mean something completely different by the word 'comprehensive', because our lived experience of comprehensives are of just that - schools with comprehensive intakes, with all the breadth of curriculum and ability that implies.

That is before we start talking about socio-economic aspects of selection.

Any school should have a socio-economic mix that reflects its effective catchment - so a comp in a leafy area may have a %PP of 15%, identical to the average of that of its feeder primaries, because of the local demographic. Another might have a %PP of 45%, again because of its local demographic. Both are comprehensive schools. However, in a two part selective system, the two schools serving the same effective catchment can have %PP of 2% (grammar) and 30% (secondary modern / 'other school in selective system'), and that difference comes with a whole raft of behavioural / social needs and family background that of course affect the education delivered and how responsive the pupils are to it.

Let alone the Ofsted grade, as %PP is sadly very highly correlated, at least at the ends of the spectrum, with Ofsted grade. Those schools with low %PP are almost all Outstanding. Those with the highest nationally are almost all RI or in Special Measures. Ofsted is NOT intake blind. Easy intake = higher Ofsted grade.

Higher Ofsted grade = better public perception. So essentially, grammars, by selecting out those from deprived backgrounds, effectively buy a better Ofsted grade.

Ofsted do need to pull heads out of arse and really look at context.
An Outstanding school near me is outstanding- claims to be comprehensive - but is so leafy and advantaged re intake to not be really.
A virtuous circle of course.
A school near it has opposite issue. 3x as many children on PP. Do ofsted take that into account? I don't think so...
A negative cycle their due to public image. Not fair.

Aghh- leafy school is ofsted outstanding but not outstanding in my eyes; easy intake. [should check before sending].

An Outstanding school near me is outstanding- claims to be comprehensive - but is so leafy and advantaged re intake to not be really.

A school is comprehensive if its intake accurately reflects - in terms of the range and proportions of ability groups - its effective catchment. Such a school cannot be said to be 'selective' if it has standard admissions criteria (e.g. straight line distance from school or a natural catchment) and applies them in a way that is ability an background blind. You cannot say that a school must admit a certain ability range to 'be comprehensive' - as long as it truly represents its effective catchment and is not selective by any means (religion, cost of uniform etc), it is comprehensive.

Whether it should be Outstanding is a completely different matter, and there I agree with you. Sorting schools by %PP should give a genuinely random set of Ofsted grades - ie it should be equally likely that a school can get outstanding whatever its intake demographics, as the inspection process should be sufficiently robust to dissect out the effects of intake vs what the school does. A quick glance at the tables show this is not the case.

IF we had had the option of an outstanding comprehensive ( we did briefly, but it was reinspected on a snap call and put into remedial measures) we might have chosen it, but after GCSE was badly mismanaged, we opted for the new bright shiny UTC, which soon thereafter became the dumping ground for all the kids the authority wanted out of the PRUs.

Eight months on, having lost all the teachers we opted for, we bailed for an independent (and not a brilliant one, frankly) and repeated Y12. With the greatest respect to all posters here, unless you have a remarkable team, then most comprehensives do just enough to muddle past the posts without upsetting the C1 socio-economic level. One summer born boy with some processing issues, now starting to hit his stride, having been told for years he was thick, should get decent A levels. Fingers crossed.

Whether it should be Outstanding is a completely different matter

One OFSTED outstanding school I know was rated outstanding in 2008 and since then has had one Interim Assessment Statement in 2011. That's it. Does OFSTED really think that once a school is outstanding it can never be anything else?

It takes from other catchments- parental choice of course helps here.
It is oversubscribed- high PP school undersubscribed- with all financial difficulties that involves.
Like your PP idea re ofsted can'tkeepaway...

Does OFSTED really think that once a school is outstanding it can never be anything else?

Agreed that this is iniquitous.

Especially since routinely-inspected 'Good' schools can no longer become Outstanding after a single Ofsted inspection, but have to wait to be re-inspected within a couple of years before they can move grades....despite the fact that many currently 'Outstanding' schools were inspected under frameworks so lax that they do not match the standards required for Good if inspected today.

With something like 3000 or more so comprehensives, I don't think anyone can offer an opinion as to what 'most'comprehensives do.

Part of the problem here is we seem so unable to counteract the "Grange Hill" image that people seem stuck with. Why is it that whenever I read a success story in the newspapers it's always " so-and so has become the director of Extremely Prestigious Institution despite only going to the local school" or "so-and so got into Oxbridge despite going to a comprehensive"? And the particular school is never mentioned.

Recently I discovered that all three of the finalists in "Young Musician of the Year" 2016 went to comprehensives. Imagine what would have happened if they'd all been to grammars, I can see the Daily Mail headlines now.

It takes from other catchments- parental choice of course helps here.

That is what I mean by 'effective catchment' - the real intake area, whether this be smaller than the 'on the map' catchment or larger because of parental preferences. the effective catchment is the true admissions footprint, and the intake of the school should reflect the socio-economic and ability range of this area if it is to be comprehensive. This may mean that some schools are 'covertly selective' or 'admission is rigged against those from lower incomes', because e.g. students from richer families further away can afford the bus fares, whereas poorer students from the same further areas cannot and have to settle for closer, less good schools.

Grammar schools are both overtly academically selective and covertly socio-economically selective; many faith schools are both overtly selective in terms of religion and covertly selective in terms of the organisation needed to 'get the right entry tickets', as well as possibly the cost of transport.

"With the greatest respect to all posters here, unless you have a remarkable team, then most comprehensives do just enough to muddle past the posts without upsetting the C1 socio-economic level. One summer born boy with some processing issues, now starting to hit his stride, having been told for years he was thick, should get decent A levels. Fingers crossed."

Wishing him the very best for his A levels!

But... it sounds as if he wouldn't have got into a Grammar on the cut throat pass / fail system, with his processing issues?

It is true: not all comprehensives are good. I don't honestly know how you can say 'most'. And isn't the answer to invest in them and support them? Not for the gvt to constantly come up with un-needed new fangled money-saving brainwaves like UTCs and Teach First , putting unqualified people in front of classes as if teaching and pedagogy has no skill to it at all?

It is well known that London has a high overall achievement level in state schools despite having significant poverty and social challenges, And everyone always points out that London schools get more money. And that standards rose above the national average when that money was injected. So, arguably, money = better comps. What then might we expect an intelligent government to do?

Not slash the budgets in and outside London (but especially in) just as we need a quick thinking, innovative, adaptable young workforce to take our economy through Berxit.

I'd much rather the money was spent on making ALL schools good and outstanding.

When someone comes up with a definitive plan to make ALL schools good and outstanding, then I think everyone would agree. Trouble is that for the last 50 years, teachers, politicians, academics havn't found that "magic bullet" so until it happens, there'll continue to be a mis-match of policies, ideas, etc, some of which work, some of which don't which seems to depend more on the personalities involved and the immediate area given some things that work in one school don't work in another. What is abundantly clear after Labour trebling the NHS spending is there is no proportional link between spending and service improvement, so just chucking money at schools isn't the answer.