New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

[thing47]

I see Liz Truss has announced she is in favour of creating more grammar schools (Rishi Sunak has opted for saying he will allow existing ones to expand, which is in keeping with current Conservative philosophy). What does everyone think of this? A good idea, or not? I know we have quite a lot of teachers on this board, be interested to hear what you all think.

Not a teacher but a parent. I think it's a terrible idea.
We don't live in a grammar area but there are some selective/grammar options not so far away. The pushy middle class parents pay for tutors for their kids to be trained for the exam. It doesn't exactly say "levelling up" does it?
I don't agree with any selection in state schools whether it's grammar or religion.

Can we also discuss whether people think it's a good idea to create more secondary modern schools? Because that's what is also implicitly included in this proposal.
I think new grammar schools will tend to mostly benefit those from well off middle class families who know how to jump through the hoops to get their children into them. And are likely to do better than other children anyway. Money would be much better spent improving the education for all children.

I agree with the concept of grammar schools but not the method of selection, and let’s not ignore that attention also needs to be paid to other types of schools..

A grammar test on one day on material that requires “training” on how to answer it (verbal and non verbal reasoning), seriously biases the results towards to the better off with motivated parents. I really wish there was a method of continuous assessment throughout Y5 on dates not shared with parents. If you could work towards the tests being untutorable then I see no problem.

However, there are currently way too few special needs schools in the U.K. Parents are fighting for places at schools which are already full to capacity where it has been proven that a mainstream education is not appropriate for their child. And what about schools that meet the needs of those that fall somewhere between mainstream and special needs - those who are capable of doing one or two GCSEs, but need significant extra support? There’s just a handful in the U.K. I would prefer that any funding available for grammars went to fixing this first.

For those children stuck in the middle. We need to ensure that no doors are closed to them and just because they aren’t at a grammar doesn’t mean that they are written off and receive a second class education or can’t achieve 9 A*s at GCSE. Many children would benefit from a wider choice of qualifications outside the traditional GCSE route - BTecs and vocational qualifications alongside GCSEs. With current funding levels it is impossible for a comprehensive (or secondary modern) to offer something for everyone.

All children are different and it is impossible to have a one size fits all education. We should look for a system that better fits a whole spectrum of needs, not just the very brightest.

Good for those who get in, bad for everyone else. If you don’t believe in equality of opportunity then they are great.

However, there are currently way too few special needs schools in the U.K. Parents are fighting for places at schools which are already full to capacity where it has been proven that a mainstream education is not appropriate for their child. And what about schools that meet the needs of those that fall somewhere between mainstream and special needs - those who are capable of doing one or two GCSEs, but need significant extra support? There’s just a handful in the U.K. I would prefer that any funding available for grammars went to fixing this first perfectly put!!!! After fully.

Id also like to see apprenticeships supported, training schemes etc- not everyone is academic and there’s plenty of practical roles which we need the next generation to fill.

People who support them always assume that their kids will get in.

What did for grammar schools originally was parents finding out that most kids don't get into them.

Theresa May had more grammar schools in her manifesto for the election where she lost her majority. It clearly wasn't a vote-winner then, parents don't want an expansion of the secondary modern system.

It's also shit for social mobility. If anyone brings up the German system (which inevitably happens on a grammar school thread), this system was condemned by the UN for increasing social inequity.

Too divisive.

As posters have already said grammar schools are full of kids who have benefited from tuition. There will be an early separation of the middle classes from the working classes which limits both sets of children's social vision. Children not getting into the grammar school will receive an education with an assumption they are not capable of top grades.

Additionally you may have high achieving working class kids who do not want to go to the 'posh' school and be separated from their friends and perhaps be subject to bullying because of background or lack of wealth.

Would prefer more vocational options as @BookwormButNoTime suggests

As a parent of a grammar school child, I think grammar schools are not a good idea. We would be better off as a society with comprehensives that would up their game and have an even mix of high,medium, low ability children.

Grammars promote Uber competitiveness causing low self esteem and MH issues in teenagers. They all cause comprehensives in the area to under achieve due to taking away all the bright kids.

The trouble with grammars is they only allow for the clever kids who bloom early and are good at maths and creative writing. Yes indeed, these clever kids do go on to achieve well but so do later bloomers and kids who excel at say, science and languages, which they don't get the chance to demonstrate as a ten year old in primary school when the exams are sat.

This is a super interesting read. fullfact.org/education/grammar-schools-and-social-mobility-whats-evidence/

I'm in NI where we still have loads of grammars. I'm a fan, however I agree with @BookwormButNoTime, more Special school provision is needed first.

A good comprehensive should set appropriately and cater for a full range of academic ability. Resource should be channelled down timeouts instead of reinvigorating the idea of grammar schools.

I live in an area where grammar schools are the norm. They are not decisive as people assume.

Many of the non-grammars locally provide good education, providing grammar streams within their schools, and so can get good results as well. Statistically, their results may not look as good, but that’s only because they have a smaller cohort of potentially higher grade pupils.

However, all schools should be invested in, whether secondary modern, comprehensive, upper school, high school or grammar.

Money would be FAR better spent enhancing special school places and numbers for those with the complex SEND needs and children who are not coping with mainstream.

I am all for inclusion but there's no real alternative if it doesn't work.

I'm also contraversial in that I think we need to do the opposite to grammar school and bring back technical learning/training from 14+.

People who support them always assume that their kids will get in.
Ha, yes, that's 100% right @noblegiraffe .

I agree with everything most of you are saying. 10 is far too young an age for DCs to be told they are only suitable for this or that type of education. Nobody should be told they don't have the potential for an academic education at the age of 10, it's ridiculous.

In a previous life I did a lot of research into education, and it was quite apparent that educational attainment is not linear – children have peaks and troughs at different ages for a whole host of reasons including quality of teaching, disrupted home life, caring responsibilities, tragedy and trauma, learning styles, being better at certain subjects (something @BlackberrySky explained well), thriving when doing fewer subjects, being better at coursework than exams (or visa versa) etc etc etc. Everything I read back then pointed to it being disadvantageous for selection to happen too early.

I think more grammar schools would be a good thing, along with more special schools, more schools that focus on vocational training, and schools for children that need more support with their emotional development.

I don’t like the idea that one type of comprehensive school can meet the needs of nearly all children.

I'm not against the notion of academic selection per se. After all, you don't hear many people saying it is unacceptable for universities to set minimum standards for entry.

But not at 10. There are just far too many variables at that age, so there needs to be flexibility until children are quite a bit older.

No. Unless you call all schools grammar schools and have done with it.

At the moment we're asking secondary schools to meet a wide range of needs for children aged 11 - 16, when they're maturing at different rates. They need to be able to serve those with quite difficult educational needs, children who are academically gifted and those who struggle academically but are extremely practical. And of course those with a mixture of all those things.

But many, if not most, schools can't meet all these needs so children can't achieve their fullest or explore opportunities for their future. I support more grammar schools, they meet a need for some students, but we also need to look at creating tech schools that younger teenagers can go to where they get their basic educational needs met but are given the opportunity to explore different trades. I don't believe one school can be all things to everyone. We need to diversify to meet business and service demands for the future.

My Dad, now in his 70s, has never recovered from failing his 11 plus and being told he wasn't clever enough for all sorts of things that were only available to clever children in those days, when the system was fully grammar/secondary modern. He's spent a lifetime over compensating for it and has a degree and a masters now, but all earned the hard while while working FT and never really giving the same career benefits that doing it straight out of school does.

The system is even worse now, where very few children who haven't been tutored get in, but MC Tory voters will love an opportunity to buy better opportunities for their DC

Whatever system you have it needs teachers, TAs and support staff as well as specialists so that Send is diagnosed early snd suppprt asap.

These, or definitely teachers and TAs feel under pressure and are leaving. That needs to be addressed first or at the same time as type of school.

No, I would get rid of the existing grammar schools personally. I support setting by subject at state secondary schools, but I think selective schools are a terrible idea.

I went to grammar school and enjoyed if. I was never top of anything.

It depends how you define success. Lots of girls from my school are on average salaries. Blokes lots younger than me who didn't do well at school but went into a trade or something vocational at 16 seem to earn 2-3 times what I do.

I don't think the issue is grammar schools as most of my lessons were actually quite boring & wouldn't suit everyone. The teachers relied on us being prepared to sit still & listen.

The issue is that people still seem to see getting into grammar school & their child being that type of learner as a sign of success. We need to celebrate our children whatever their academic prowess. So they might be really good at sports or cooking but not great at maths.

DD would probably have got into grammar school - she was in top 2% in her CATS scores. DS didn't pass all his SATS and was average in CATS scores. I don't really care tbh - I think DS will likely outdo DD with salary as his emotional intelligence is good & he's smart but in a different way.

If you’re looking at earning potential, or even university, everyone I know who went to a grammar school either earns less or went to lower-ranked universities than most of those I know who didn’t go to grammar school.