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.

Yeah, you're right. It would just ramp up the pressure over SATS.

I think getting rid of the grammar schools would be a much better option!

I think you'll find this is parents trying to play the system – wanting it to appear that their DCs are very bright but normal kids from the local comp! And not the beneficiaries of an expensive private education, so they get considered as state school pupils when applying to university.

@thing47 won't work as most Unis look at a lot more than what school you go to. And this comp is not on any contextual list anyway - too successful

@cyclamenqueen that's what comprehensive schools do !

@mumsneedwine no it isn't.

I mean a completely different structure so a common curriculum until 14 and then a modular credit system from 14 to 18 . As far as i am aware the only courses offered in comprehensive schools end in exams at 16, or 18. I would abolish GCSEs and students would accumulate credits which would be a mixture of core subjects at appropriate levels. So for example my dyscalculic ds could have done basic maths until year 13 but his brother at the same age could do advanced maths, ( our local school only offers maths at year 12 if you are doing A level or resitting GCSE) alongside his higher level maths he could have done a language module one year and European history another and maybe a food tech module because he's a good cook etc instead of only 3 A levels. DS2 could have done IT and because he is a good reader despite his dyscalculia and dyspraxia he could still have done a literature module at a higher level . Credits would be given, and crucially be on your transcript, for non academic achievement for example team sports, extra curriculars and volunteering. The system would be completely different and not just based on exams and narrow academic academic achievement.

In my experience students have very little choice in English comprehensives, how many top set english students are also doing a term of dance or a term of motor mechanics ? everyone does the same narrow choice of GCSEs or BTECS , maybe if lucky they might get a day a week at the local agricultural college but that will only be for the lower set dc. At our local comprehensive you need 7 GCSEs at grade 6 or above to get into the sixth form and the nearest alternative is 10 miles away so its impossible to mix academic and vocational and its hugely divisive at 16. Those who can stay those who can't go to the college in the local town and do hair and beauty or travel and tourism or IT or they travel further to do A levels elsewhere.

@cyclamenqueen yes it is. At 14, all students take maths, English and some kind of science (ELC for some). We then send some to college to do mechanics, beauty, carpentry, plumbing, construction etc. They might also do a few other GCSEs but will also get some qualifications in their trade.
Others will do 5-7 GCSEs, spending more time doing extra English and maths. Combined with the Princes Trust award in leadership. Others will do 9-10'GCSEs.
Everyone has the chance to study textiles, DT, food, graphics, astronomy either as a GCSE or as a twilight subject.
That is what a comprehensive school can do, if fully funded. Most aren't.

Oh and at 16 they have a choice of 19 A levels and 7 level 3 and many more level 2 BTECs.

Well thats not the case around here at all. Plus I just don't see the point of GCSEs. My ds2 was told he could only do English and maths (he didn't pass maths ) because he was on the pathway for vocational subjects based on year 6 SATS it didn't matter that he was actually really keen on other subjects. Anyway he wouldn't have been able to stay at school for 6th form because he didn't have high enough grades .

three subjects at A level is ridiculous, we need students to have a broad base of subjects and experience. My ds3 really wanted to carry on with his sciences but he also wanted to do english and history too. He also wanted to be at school with his brother but as above he was kicked out becasue they didn't deem him academic enough.

If we had a system of credits over the four years and two semesters a year then they could have a broad curriculum and be able to find where their talents lie and also do a much broader range of subjects. You might have 19 A level choices but people can only do 3 or 4 of those .

Also how many do triple science and carpentry ?

Super-selective grammar schools swap pupils amongst themselves at 6th form (there is a definite 'pecking order'), discard pupils they don't want (ie where the 11+ failed in its job) to the non-grammars and take in some of the non-grammars' highest attainers.
Obviously even the brightest at age 11 may lack motivation for academics later or have personal circumstances that hinder them reaching their potential. The eleven plus is not a crystal ball just a snapshot of attainment.

So in your region cantkeepawayforever very good comprehensives don’t suffice for the ambitions of some of their pupils. Pupils are actively wanting to transfer when they can. for a reason. Maybe it is just status but I somehow doubt it. There is a parallel with universities. Many universities have comparable funding but different strengths according to available courses and the academics they employ. Students (and their parents) will choose accordingly to suit their individual needs and academic level. Again that choice is on the basis of a snapshot of attainment, this time age 18 but still not a crystal ball for achieving full potential.

by triple science I guess you mean gcse as that’s where it’s commonly used? Plenty would do DT, which would be the nearest equivalent
the carpentry described is at college so probably a vocational qualification and would be full time into a trade, so no opportunity to do it with 3 science a levels. nearest equivalent would be DT a level. I imagine physics may be quite complimentary to carpentry if you’re thinking about constructing things. Whilst kids are currently pushed towards maths with science traditionally science was more linked with the arts

No. But we shouldn't have the current "grammar" areas.

All or nothing. Either make it available to all areas or don't.

It's seen as "free private school" to the areas that have it. Weed out the less desirable element.

Bad. Awful. Divisive. Favours the wealthy and leads to kids being tutored to death and travelling miles

But how on Earth do you know at age 10? Even a lot of SEN isn't really picked up by then

For those on here that seem to imply or even state that state comps are places where people are bullied for being clever or trying hard - that view is very outdated. It was often the way when secondary moderns converted many years ago. All the high schools that I know of in our city have very high expectations & reward systems. I have friends with DC in at least 12 different highs. None report any serious discipline issues. All say their DC are getting a good education

I agree. My dd is extremely academic and she has tons of friends. Her friends make jokey comments about her intelligence but there's never any hint of bullying or nastiness.

I did get bullied a little bit during the early years of secondary school, but to be honest, I think that was more the result of poor social skills than being clever. I learned how to talk to people, and everything got better.

I agree. My DCs go to a school where results are very polarised (school overall performs poorly but there are some very high performing students), my DCs say no bullying.

So, sacrificing many people's chance to reach their potential to benefit others. Like a human shield. With children. Sounds super ethical...

I would also posit that the evidence the a comprehensive system where we chuck everyone together is better at a population level is tenuous - being very generous - as there are NO studies to support this in comparison to the type of system I suggested upthread. In fact, in the countries that have the types of situation I described, the mental health of children is significantly better (UK scores one of the lowest scores in the OECD for this for teenagers/ young adults) and they have better outcomes on general educational attainment, lower levels of young adults not in education or employment, and higher productivity. Hmmm... all coincidence?

I would suggest instead a total reevaluation of it all, rebuilding from the ground up based on models that we know work, because they have worked in other countries for decades with better overall outcome for everyone.

This insistence against all empirical evidence that the comprehensive model is the best idea is a bit like the UK fundamentalism about the NHS when we know that better models for healthcare that actually work and improve patient outcomes exist, but refuse to adopt them regardless.

But how on Earth do you know at age 10? Even a lot of SEN isn't really picked up by then

Again, you don't have to. Although there should be FAR better provision for both identifying potential SEN earlier, diagnosing it without a 3-5 year wait and then another fight to get an EHCP and then schools not implementing them anyway, etc; but I digress.

There can be a system designed where there is fluidity in the system with children moving to places that suit them. IF we designed a proper education system and funded it properly.

Nobody is suggesting a return to "do this exam at 11 and it's all decided then", rolled out countrywide. It doesn't need to be like that. A more child-focused system with different schools to cater to ALL different talents and abilities and skills and needs could be designed, it's not as hard as they'd like you to believe. We can build space rockets and people believe this is impossible to achieve? It's not.

Once again, please tell us which countries' systems you think we should be emulating? Where have they got the model right, do you think?

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/

this report has some interesting data on education systems . We score poorly on years in education , social inequality and several other factors . Also in the 2019 survey the U.K. scored bottom on the mental well-being of teenagers with 1/4 of 15 year olds reporting being bullied in school and 71/72 for for a positive answer to ‘my life has a clear meaning and purpose ‘. This should be a massive wake up call for anyone in education, the old form of selective education may not be right but that doesn’t mean the current one is either .

The thing is, a country’s education system does not exist independently of it overall society and culture. As anyone who has taught through the fashion for ‘Shanghai Maths’ knows, you can’t just take something that works in 1 country, impose it in another and expect success, because that success depends in societal attitudes, the socio-economic realities of each location, structural approaches to teacher timetabling and pay, outside school education such as coaching etc etc.

Finnish schools are effective - in Finland. While it is instructive to look in forensic, sceptical detail at what works in other countries and why, it does not mean that these approaches will necessarily have the same success in England.

(Don’t get me wrong - there are aspects of the Shanghai Maths approach that have improved Maths teaching in my school, and I suspect many others. However, it has required a huge number of iterations, a lot of time and much hard work to adapt the approach to the very different context)

You can’t just take something that works in 1 country, impose it in another and expect success, because that success depends in societal attitudes, the socio-economic realities of each location, structural approaches to teacher timetabling and pay, outside school education such as coaching etc etc.

I have a friend who has a PhD in precisely this, @cantkeepawayforever. You are right, of course, it is a complex issue. I 100% applaud @TurquoisePterodactyl's suggestion that we should be able to devise a better school system (for want of a better word) than we currently have but the notion that we can start again from scratch and somehow build from the ground up is pie in the sky, I'm afraid.

I don't see any country have a schooling system where children can switch between academic, vocational and manual subjects easily and quickly if and when their interests/abilities change or develop. I would love to be proved wrong.

Even 30 years ago at the state comp I went to (proper comp, in a county with no grammars) bullying for intelligence and academic aspiration wasn’t A Thing. Yes, there was bullying - over stuff like having the wrong trainers or a bad haircut, which happens in every type of secondary - but not for being in the top sets, or wanting to go to Oxbridge or Medical school (which some did, including my brother). Some peoples views of state comprehensives are apparently based on the Beano!