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.

Of course, nobody uses the term "secondary modern" any more. Too many negative associations. That doesn't change the fact that that's what they are, though.

We need to be honest that non-grammar schools in grammar areas aren't fully comprehensive schools because a certain proportion of the "brighter kids" (or at least, the most heavily tutored kids) will have been creamed off by the grammars. Especially in areas like Kent where a relatively high proportion of kids go through the grammar system - much less so in the areas where there are the so-called super-selectives. If we are to have more grammars, or if we are to expand the ones that we have already got, then we move even further away from the comprehensive model.

And yes, secondary modern schools can call themselves whatever they like, but it doesn't change the reality of what they are.

Middle class people who might vote tory may like the idea that their children will be educated away from others who misbehave and cause issues in comprehensive schools.

Recent polling shows the majority of Tory voters don't want grammars.

The ones that do are more likely to be over 60, I reckon.

In my area I found it interesting that a few working class people I've spoken to didn't even sit the test for the grammar, saw it as for the posh kids not for them and all their friends were going to the comprehensive. So they did chose the comprehensive/secondary modern (grammar is super selective with kids travelling so it's not taking the top 25% of local kids).

In my grandad's day the grammar was for the clever kids, he was from a large working class family and him and a few brothers went to the grammar. While now for DS the same school is quite middle class. So I think things have changed.

@ClocksGoingBackwards I agree - I think grammar schools are great. There are certain secondary schools which are known for being particularly sporty / musical etc - so why shouldn't there be schools for those who are strong academically.

I'm not aware of state secondary schools that select children at age 11 on the basis of musical/sporting ability and exclude those who don't quite make the mark?

@mumsneedwine My own mum couldn’t go to grammar school because her parents couldn’t afford the uniform. However, things have moved on and my DC’s grammar school have a significant supply of second hand school uniform, including shoes and rugby boots and make it very clear than it is available for anyone that needs it. Furthermore, a number of places are reserved for looked after or pupil premium children who have to get a minimum score which is lower than the usual score required to get in. I know that one of the closest primary schools to the grammar has had significant success in helping its pupils secure a place. The primary is in the most deprived areas of the city. So it is possible to promote social mobility in grammar schools if the school itself and its feeder schools are willing to encourage it.

I'm not aware of state secondary schools that select children at age 11 on the basis of musical/sporting ability and exclude those who don't quite make the mark?

There are a couple of state schools near me that have musical aptitude places. It's only 10% of places though; the rest are allocated using standards admission criteria (catchment, siblings, feeder schools etc).

And there are specialist schools (Tring springs to mind) that only take students who pass an audition. These are pretty few and far between though.

@Anothernamechangeplease a number of state schools in my area offer a certain percentage of places to pupils with specific skills such as sport, music and languages. It means you can secure a place even where your child doesn’t live in the catchment area.

Sorry - I don't mean Tring - that's independent. Can't think of the name of the school I do mean though (goes off to Google)

I think noble is probably right about over 60s being keener on grammar schools. My mother (who's 80, so 60 might be too young) is very keen on them, seeing that they were her way to a university degree from a strongly working class family where no one had been to university before. Sadly, I'm fairly sure that students with her family background are not getting into grammar schools today.

I think Queens School in Hertfordshire selects some pupils on sporting ability.

Bucks has had a number of problems with inadequate upper schools in recent times - note they are not called secondary modern schools anymore and I think it’s not right to refer to them as this - also technically Bucks classified them as all ability schools. I’m not going to list the schools by name as that feels wrong but with the exception of a handful the majority have been in special measures. One was closed and another (mentioned as a good school up thread) has effectively been closed this year as the government stopped funding due to severe concerns over many things including safeguarding (it has transferred to another trust). That said ther are some Previously inadequate schools are now great. But there is nothing t equality in provision. House prices in catchment for GMS are huge for instance which in itself is its own form of selection.

the 11+ has a massively negative effect on primary education with it being the main focus for a number of parents. I do disagree with the oft cited mass tutoring for the 11+ in Bucks - it’s not really the case and sadly those who are heavily tutored often struggle and have a miserable time and then don’t meet the grades for A level so have to go elsewhere.

some of the uppers have a “grammar” stream but it n reality there is very little opportunity for movement between streams and children often end up (and stay) in the one their ks2 data suggests which then potentially limits their access to things like triple science.

as I said earlier my children have benefited from grammar schools but they are not a fair system and having had children in the Bucks state system for 15 years I think they negatively impact all schools - people make choices for places in reception based on the perceived likelihood that that school will deliver a grammar place. Having been educated myself in the comprehensive system I would never have expected it to have such an impact.

as I said before my children have had an education which was outstanding and provided truly outstanding opportunities for them but all children deserve an outstanding education.

The problem with sport and music aptitude is that just like direct exams it favours children in families that can support these things. That takes parents with time and sometimes resources so favours MC. Some primary schools may have good music or sport however practice needs time and space. Some children from poorer backgrounds will see that music or kit is expensive and not try to excel because they know their parents can’t afford stuff (maybe not realising that school can help, or not wanting to have to ask.)

No one 'chooses' secondary modern. They might not take the 11+ because they don't think it's for them but that's not choosing. A true comprehensive can support all students, regardless of ability or aptitude. And allow for bright students who want to take more vocational subjects and those late developers who might want to try for harder A levels. Also helps students realise that people come in all shapes, sizes, interests and abilities. Seen far too many ex grammar kids at A level who believe they aren't v clever with their handful of 8s and 9s.
Grammar schools might give a few places now for PP students and provide uniform but the majority will be from middle class homes who have been tutored. When I taught at one the presents at end of the year were v v nice 😂.
I hate selection at such a young age. By 16 we have a much better idea of who they want to be and where they want to go.

In Bucks which is a grammar county, there are no real sink secondary schools.

This is true, in absolute terms. But the secondary moderns (and I'm sorry but that is what they are, even if the preferred terminology is 'upper school') do not compare to the grammar schools in terms of catering for the 'high achievers'.

My personal experience (I had one DC at a grammar school and one at a secondary modern at the same time) is that while it is possible for DCs to get good grades at the secondary modern, it takes more determination, focus and self-motivation than it does at the grammar school.

The secondary modern is concentrating on trying to get lots of DCs to achieve reasonable grades, the ones who get top grades are doing it largely through their own devices.

Yawn. How many times are we going to have go through this to please some Tory pensioners?

Let's go through all the practical issues:

A. Where is the money coming from for new grammars? Schools are already struggling with energy bills rising and staff pay rise having to be funded from existing budgets. Do govt ministers really want to be justifying this when kids start getting cold? The Labour attack lines write themselves really.

B. You want to convert existing schools? Fine. Except: How are you going to choose which schools become grammars and which the secondary moderns? What about that nice leafy comp? Good luck with explaining that to all the parents who assumed their kids would go there and now find 80% will be excluded. Or that school that's struggling? Again, try and justify that to all the surrounding "better" comps who are now rewarded by becoming secondary moderns. What happens if schools decide to blow up the system and all apply to become grammars simultaneously?

C. How are you going to justify the removal of choice from all those who don't want more secondary moderns? Everywhere you put a grammar it affects the intake of surrounding schools. You think this isn't a recipe for poisonous local disputes? Which side are Tory MPs going to be on when parents protest the undermining of local schools without them having any say? It's not even universally popular among them now. Here's one who, coincidentally, has a constituency full of nice, high achieving comprehensive schools.

twitter.com/david4wantage/status/1553671055256031233

E. Why would this be assumed to be a popular policy among parents?

twitter.com/Samfr/status/1554056156779352065

F. Existing grammars would likely be quite wary of this as well. An incoming Labour govt would presumably seek to reverse the legislation - and would be under considerable pressure to just abolish selection altogether. There is already a pot of money for existing grammars to expand.... and it's never been fully spent!

There are reasons why all previous attempts to "bring back grammars" have failed. Maybe it will be different this time......

Hey @HPFA it’s been a while since we’ve had to argue this nonsense, nice to see you again

Hi @noblegiraffe - yes, it's ridiculous isn't it?

Honestly, I think the pros and cons of the issue have been argued to death now - I'm just going to bang on about the insane impracticalities of it all. And hope they continue to defeat this nonsense just as they always have.

I think Teresa May did actually have a strong personal conviction on this whereas the two candidates just seem to be trying to drum up a few votes. I'm not sure how much time either of them would devote to this once they've won.

Hope all's well with you.

I started this thread because all the national newspapers and TV stations were reporting the story and Truss has been quite dogmatic about it so I was interested to hear people's opinions.

Personally I think it's a terrible idea and I don't want to be complacent about the possibility of it happening, but if you feel the topic has been done to death @HPFA, and there's nothing else to say, please feel free to wander off to a more interesting thread.

I’m in a grammar area.
Its terrible, kids are tutored from year 4, once a week, with an hour every day homework, this then ramps up as they get closer. Which pushes the pass rate up of the entire year.
i tutored my daughter for a few months before, not growing up in a grammar system i didn’t know I left it too late. She was top set for everything should have walked the exam and had passed all mocks.Unfortunately I don’t know what happened on the day. It didn’t come off for her. She was devastated, I mean devastated.
she cried for weeks and I had to ask the school for support building her self esteem up.

if I had known how she would take it I would never have put her in for it I could have appealed with the schools support but I realised she needed for it to be dropped, move on and have certainty over her future.

she’s at secondary now and is top set for everything, I’m about to get her a tutor for maths as the provision is fucking terrible and she should be pushed more.

in my area it takes away any choice. So you pass you get one grammar and one comp to chose from. You fail you go to the comp. That’s it.
you need a choice for your child, a best fit. Grammar removes that for most.

This is what’s happening in my area. Where tutoring has been ramped up it’s now “not for people like me”. The exact opposite of what it was intended for

Not all Grammar school children are tutored, and let's face it, if a child is tutored just to pass the test, they will struggle there anyway if they aren't academically clever enough in the first place.

My ds is at Grammar, he went to a very ordinary Infants/junior School/s and we are a very normal working class family. He never had tutoring, just did some papers prior with us to get him used to the stuff his primary didn't do.

He was always a "Greater Depth" child consistently from year R, had that something extra in his brain. He's a natural Grammar school child who sits at 8/9 grades and is the kind of kid that the schools were aimed for. The notion that Grammar school is only for the middle class, well its nonsense.

One point about SEN that regularly gets missed is the pool of children who are "twice exceptional" -- academically gifted but with some type of SEN. The current system does a terrible job of catering to those children, and it's even worse when schools are selective. There are parents of children with SEN who have to choose between their child getting academic qualifications or getting proper support. In practice, they are usually only getting the second.

Grammars cater for children who are bright all rounders and can meet high expectations of work and behaviour. One of my nephews is autistic and absolutely brilliant at maths, working years ahead of his expected level, but is only average at English. A grammar wouldn't suit him at all.

For context, the pass rate was 308 points and my son got 374. So we'll beyond the "just scrapping past" point.