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.

I’ll be surprised if it happens. Theresa May said she wanted to bring in more grammar schools and then backtracked.

I don’t really have a view on whether grammar schools are “good” or “bad”. I suspect a mixture of both. I would have loved to have gone to one but there weren’t any in my county. Once my comprehensive started putting us into sets, it became far more like a grammar in many ways.

I often hear from people who are opposed to grammars that comprehensives are better because they mean children of different backgrounds mix. I’m not certain that this is the case - my friends ended up being studious, floppy haired girls who played musical instruments (because they were the most like me).

I do think it is infuriating that people in Kent can choose a grammar school (if their children get in) but people in, say, Sussex can’t. I’m not convinced that the overall educational outcomes are better in Sussex as a result of not having grammar schools.

If the Tories bring this in then it may be that the Labour councils refuse to introduce grammar schools - so they end up being an option for those who live in Tory boroughs (no not, generally, those living in the centre of cities).

When they start talking about the investments they will make to the secondary modern/ comprehensives that those that don’t get into grammar school go to I may listen. ( actually still disagree because I don’t think children should be labelled at 10) but I can see a place for expanding vocational education and most certainly improving SEN provision. They never go into details about what provision will look like for those who don’t get into grammar and how the grammar school system will be better for them. ( we know it’s not)

Grammar schools should be completely scrapped. All schools should be comprehensive. Comprehensive schools should cater to all kids including high achievers as well as kids needing more help. It's ridiculous and unfair to separate kids at such a young age.

Education is the most important tool in trying to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

BTW My kids didn't apply to a GS but did well academically at a 'leafy comp' ( so still privileged as we could afford to buy a house in an area with good school)

It's yet another way to confirm the Tory idea that the poor are poor because they're stupid or unmotivated. The bright children of caring parents will be given opportunities to advance. The oafs and oiks will languish in sink schools. The wheat will be separated from the chaff, sheep from goats, etc. The belief that a system and its outcomes are based on merit is always self serving.

Dickens knew his people so well.

Maybe more Grammar Schools only if there were also more vocational schools, technical schools, ones that specialise in the Arts and/or Media (bit like the Brit school) etc.
The divide shouldn't be until age14 though in my opinion.

I’m in Hampshire and I remember articles like this from Theresa May was trumpeting for more grammar schools
www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/13/grammar-schools-success-comprehensive-education-hampshire

Apparently Hampshire has similar education outcome as Buckinghamshire. But Hampshire is fully comprehensive and Buckinghamshire has grammar. Living here I just don’t understand why we need to put the children through 11 plus. It’s a stress they don’t need. I’m very happy with DC to attend our local comprehensive. Those who want to go to something selective can go to private schools.

Same here. Our 'High Schools' also perform really well. Our LEA was consistently one of the best.

It really is bollocks. My DC at 10/11 was probably around the upper end of average, an assessment at 11 would have unlikely to have opened the gate to a grammar school. I think their confidence would have been really hit by that which would have been likely to impact on their performance from then. They’ve just sat Nat 5 recently (Scotland) and were forecast by school today get all As with the majority A band 1 (we shall see).

The Hampshire/Bucks comparison is meaningless.,It just means that they have similar ability children. No one system gives particular advantages and no changes should be made to existing schools. What matters is that they are all Good schools.

SEN school provision is interesting.When I worked in education the whole vibe was inclusivity for SEN children enshrined by law and what parents wanted. SEN schools were closed. Now it’s patently obvious that mainstream schools cannot educate everyone, we want more special schools.My LA didn’t close them and didn’t close grammars either. However as SEN becomes more complex it’s obvious more SEN places are needed.

I don't think they are the right solution for society, but would send my DC to them if we had them in our area, because they would definitely suit my DC. It's an area that makes me feel like an absolute hypocrite.

I'm not sure I even agree with them being available in some areas but not others. I think it would make more sense to make them universal or scrap them. Either of those options makes more sense than the mixture we have now.

Also unless you look at the background of every child and every piece of data, comparisons don’t really stack up. Both areas are mainly middle class with lots of well educated parents. A few less good areas and both have private schools. I don’t think anyone thinks either LA is failing pupils.

That's been tried - the University Technical Colleges and studio schools introduced in the Gove era. Kids selected to go there at 14, they specialised in various areas like engineering, or media.

They've been pretty much a failure, poor results, half empty schools. A lot closed shortly after opening.

There's a problem with schools from age 14 and that's that they mainly appeal to kids who are extremely dissatisfied with their current school. Kids who are enjoying secondary school and doing well generally don't want to leave.

Although Hampshire currently has only one secondary school performing at well above average. Bucks has 12 with half the number of schools. Bucks has 3 at well below average and Hampshire has none. I’ve excluded special schools.

@noblegiraffe
The UTCs were, for many, another round of failure for DC. These schools were often used for the non academic and they were largely dire. What was needed was first class provision at 16 via colleges of FE. They were starved of money. The utcs were pointless. In 1944 the Education Act established technical schools. Where did they go? We had them once in the tripartite system.

Liz Truss keeps saying her comp failed pupils despite her going to Oxford. Alumni of her school in Roundhay Leeds refute this. It was a former grammar. She’s not honest about her school and it wasn’t failing.

More funding to all comprehensive schools tp create a flexible programme of "grammar stream" and "skills and vocations

Malfunctioning post button

@noblegiraffe I think it's a shame the UTC's haven't really worked out. Although from talking to people (or even many threads here on Mumsnet) I find a lot of parents have never heard of them or don't really understand what they are.
They have (in my opinion) been very poorly promoted.
If it was standard for 14 year olds to choose and move to a specialist school - either academic or more vocational (or in the case of large secondary schools choose a stream) then the UTC's would maybe be more successful.
If I was in charge I would have something like everyone goes to a community (ie local) primary then several primaries feed into comprehensive community Lower Secondary and then at 14 plus it becomes specialist - including a form of grammar school.

I don't think I am in favour of the idea of grammar schools in theory. However, the area you live in can determine how good a comprehensive school you end up in. So a comprehensive school can still be selective by whether or not you can afford to live nearby. I don't know how you fix that.

DS sat the test for the local super selective because of the reputation of the other local schools. Maybe the grammar made the other schools worse, I don't know. We are a low income, single parent family, all I did is buy a workbook and left him to it, then took him for the test and he got in. Many of the other parents do seem middle class though.

More funding to all comprehensive schools to create a flexible programme of "grammar stream" and "skills and vocations” options would be better, with it being easy to move between streams and for students who are very strong in some subjects but needing support in others to be accommodated and to thrive. These things aren’t possible when everything is pared to the bone. Flexibility requires there to be spare capacity. The grammar system can be wonderful for those blessed to be selected but if that blessing can be bought then the main families who will benefit from any expansion will be those who currently pay fees and spot an opportunity to save some cash. Many such will be tory voters of course. As pp have already said, expansion of grammar means expansion of the sink schools that have to mop up those who don’t pass the 11+. They don’t magically become better than the failed “secondary moderns” just because they are called “academy" instead.

My children are in (or have been in) a Bucks Grammar from years 7-13. They have been fortunate to have been at an outstanding school. Not just in terms of academics but also the access to music, drama, dance, sport, leadership opportunities in the 6th form running academic societies, primary school mentoring and much much more. They are fortunate- both they and I know this. The downside is that selective schools are a lot of pressure - a 7 at GCSE is viewed as something of a disaster.

I disagree with grammar schools on balance as I feel every child deserves the opportunities they have had especially with the extra curricular stuff but also with language tuition (everyone learns 2 languages and has to do at least one to gcse) and the breadth of the curriculum they benefitted from not just at gcse but also at a level.

the upper school where we live is equally impressive academically but less so in its music / arts provision but still a fantastic school. Not all upper schools are as good. More children will not qualify for grammar then will. In wealthy areas many of those who don’t qualify will then go to independent schools which can have the effect of making the upper schools somewhat secondary class citizens. That said students from all different schools are in the same hockey, netball, football clubs out of school and there is no us and them.

But no educational opportunities should be equal for all and I don’t think selective schools promote equality- they are the privilege of the middle classes although that is finally being addressed with lower qualification scores for pp students although it remains to be seen if this will really make any difference.

My grandfather and my mum credit Grammar Schools with getting them out of poverty. But in those days there were far more schools and a greater chance of getting in. Nobody was tutored. Same when I did the 11+ . Unfortunately because there are now so few of them, it is much more competitive so people pay for tutors if they can afford them.

There are several Grammar schools where we are, but also some excellent High Schools too. Plenty of DC's friends went to the local High School and are now at Russell Group Universities.

But that shouldn't be the only measure. We are too focused on academics. We need to start really appreciating the trades. DH gets a Building magazine monthly and regularly sends tables about salaries to his friend who is a careers advisor. But it is falling on deaf ears - university or bust unfortunately.

I was reading about Germany, I think, where when students graduate from the local technical colleges, the whole town celebrates with them. It made it sound like students there have proper choices and opportunities to work to their strengths.

In Bucks which is a grammar county, there are no real sink secondary schools. Several could do better but the vast majority are decent schools and have results and progress better than the uk average which is, of course, mostly comprehensive. Therefore they are not, by any definition, sink schools. In fact the vast majority are liked by parents and DC who support them.

I agree that the grammars have a wider curriculum offering but I suspect MFL is not taken up enthusiastically by many of the 70% not in the grammar schools. Judging by MN posts, MFL is the first subject to be ditched for GCSEs. I do think the arts and applied sciences should be available in more schools but many teach vocational subjects as well as academic ones.

I don’t recognise the implied failure if DC don’t get 8 or above in a Bucks grammar either. None of my neighbours DC who went to Aylesbury and Chesham grammars got a string of 8s snd 9s. The Bucks grammars are not super selective snd have always had quite a few DC who are 6 and 7 level in some subjects. No one thought they were failures and they went to good universities. As indeed have the Dc who went to the secondary moderns. Their destinations included Exeter snd Nottingham. Some Secondary moderns here have over 30% high achievers and that compares very well with many comps.

However if schools are built, they probably shouldn’t be grammars. They would destabilize existing schools. The existing schools should (snd mostly do) cater for bright DC.

Changing schools at 14 is disruptive. It’s not much different to being segregated at 11 but somehow justified on vocational grounds. Vocational courses should be available at comps. There should be technical comps. Our old Technical High school (now a grammar) used to teach shorthand and typing! All sorts of modern skills could be taught alongside GCSEs. But it takes money and imagination. Few have the latter and there’s definitely not the former!

That’s exactly the problem. I believe all children should be given the opportunity to have the same level of education and age 10 or 11 is much too early to essentially close some doors to them.

My dd, for example, was judged to be fairly “average” at the end of primary school. A few years made all the difference and she is excelling academically.

We should focus on improving standards at all schools. And we also need to focus on changing attitudes to education, as there is definitely a culture of low expectations in the UK.

That’s exactly the problem. I believe all children should be given the opportunity to have the same level of education and age 10 or 11 is much too early to essentially close some doors to them.

My dd, for example, was judged to be fairly “average” at the end of primary school. A few years made all the difference and she is excelling academically.

We should focus on improving standards at all schools. And we also need to focus on changing attitudes to education, as there is definitely a culture of low expectations in the UK.

That’s exactly the problem. I believe all children should be given the opportunity to have the same level of education and age 10 or 11 is much too early to essentially close some doors to them.

My dd, for example, was judged to be fairly “average” at the end of primary school. A few years made all the difference and she is excelling academically.

We should focus on improving standards at all schools. And we also need to focus on changing attitudes to education, as there is definitely a culture of low expectations in the UK.