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.

And it’s absolutely not just ‘middle class’ parents who aim high for their kids, it’s quite insulting to suggest that. There’s lots of ‘working class’ people who engage tutors or teach their kids themselves. And it should be a case of bringing up those who struggle rather than complaining about people putting resource into their kids. I’m not keen on the tutoring culture in general but I do think that nobody should be complaining about people trying to do the best for their children, that’s a good thing! Level up not level down

I wouldn't consider DS to have been tutored. I bought him a workbook before the test but left him to it, that was enough for familiarity with the types of questions.

My DCs benefited hugely from their peers and the pace and therefore scope of learning in their very academic schools. I guess many of their teachers were better suited to keeping their students stimulated in that context, particularly at sixth form and would not fare so well in a secondary modern or teaching lower sets at comprehensive school.

If there was extra money I would use it to help disadvantaged pupils at primary school to ensure the academic gap is n’t entrenched before secondary school. Perhaps next after that expand the sixth form capacity of grammar schools.

@sendsummer but my kids got that at their comprehensive school. And I teach at one and am quite capable of teaching A level to A* as well as ELC students. I'd be a rubbish teacher otherwise !
No reason why bright students can't be stretched and challenged in any school.
Not sure where the teachers are coming from to teach at these new schools. Bit of a recruitment crisis at all schools at the moment.

@thing47

I'll answer it! No, I don't believe 10 is the time to decide an entire future - to be honest, I don't think any time is the time to write any child or person off. Of course, children do need to be streamed or assessed at various points in order to ensure that lessons are pitched at the right level for them currently, but it shouldn't be an inescapable conclusion and the grammar/secondary modern system did (and does) help to bake that in.

(It's not just the grammar system though - when I was at school, there was a bit of movement between top and middle sets, but almost none between middle and bottom - the bottom 40% of kids were absolutely miles off the pace after a couple of years, because they just weren't taught the basics well enough. It might have been a comp, but basically the kids in the lower sets were very much getting a secondary modern experience - any chance of them moving up was wholly theoretical. SEN and disruptive behaviour was just very badly dealt with. If the bottom 40% were better treated/funded in all schools, then frankly there would be less call for grammar schools, because there would be less fear of disruption amongst many families who place a high value on education).

Personally, I live in Kent due to caring responsibilities. If I could move to Hampshire, which generally has a high standard of comp, I would. And I would use the comprehensive. In a grammar school county, I am forced to hope my kid gets into grammar school - I'm not going to send my kid to the crap secondary modern just because I don't agree it's the best system.

Strictly speaking, you're right @BungleandGeorge, but in practice it's more nuanced than that. There is a big difference between an area where 25-30% go to grammar school and an area where 2% do. In the former, clearly those DCs not at grammar will be in a secondary modern – a school missing the 'top' quarter to third of their cohort cannot properly be described as 'comprehensive'. Whereas if all but 2% of the local cohort are at a non-grammar, that's much closer to being a comprehensive.

Incidentally, if you google my posts, you will see that I do fully understand the difference from personal experience.

And I don't actually mean google, of course, I mean 'search'.

The grammar school system only works if all children who wold benefit from a grammar school style of education have access to a place. This needs to be combined with a really high quality alternative for children who do not suit a grammar school style of education. Most of these children would benefit from more hands-on learning experiences rather than spending al day every day sitting still in a classroom, combined with extra support for literacy and numeracy. If children going to both types of school leave with a school leaving certificate which then details what they did then they have all succeeded in their education in a way that is suitable for them. What we have at the moment is a watered down grammar school education for everyone and it doesn't really serve anyone well. I would add that the natural point to make this division between grammar and an alternative wold be in Y9 or Y10 not Y7.

Mumsneedwine not all teachers have your abilities to enjoy teaching the full spectrum. As you say there is a recruitment crisis and therefore barring such teachers who are excellent with high ability pupils would be rather a waste. To stretch the point it would be like saying that university academics are not qualified to teach undergraduates because they would be hopeless at GCSE level.

@sendsummer teachers who can't teach all students need to go back to training. It's our job and we are all qualified to teach all abilities. If some are too lazy to teach harder classes then they should be paid less 😂

Because the 11+ is not particularly reliable at genuinely separating out high ability students, teachers in non-grammars will have to teach high ability students as well as those from across the rest of the ability spectrum - often in groups of very mixed ability due to there being small numbers of such students.

They will also have to manage a much wider variation in SEN needs, social needs and behavioural issues - so these teachers in non-grammars should surely be the most highly paid, most highly regarded, seen as being better teachers as they do a much harder job.

Is that really how society perceives - and remunerates - the teachers in each part of selective systems? Or are the teachers, as well as the pupils, in grammar schools somehow perceived as ‘superior’?

(It seems to cone from the same root as teachers who teach Tear 6 in Primary being seen as ‘better’ than the Reception teacher, or secondary teachers as ‘better’ than primary because they ‘teach harder content’. Believe you me, when it cones to actual teaching skill, Reception teachers are right up there, along with SEN teachers. I have seen Reception teacher transfer very successfully to Year 6, but never the reverse!)

You are wrong with regards to there is no reason why bright kids can't be challenged at any school, there is a very good reason- most kids at grammar want to be there and learn.

Looking round schools at the time (3 comps and 1 grammar) there was a noticeable difference in behaviour.

I couldn't learn at school due to the amount of messing about and ended up going in with the attitude of if you can't beat them, join them.

It's not the teachers that are the problem but the students, they are more unruly and disinterested in learning. I was a pain in the arse and honestly can't imagine what it's like now with social media and phones everywhere.

Going in on open days and seeing the schools at work, opens your eyes to the difference in attitude.

In reality I don't think it will happen and is just another thing Liz Truss will U turn on.

Not necessarily @Damnautocorrect - I got a U grade in English and some terrible gcses.
I helped my son with his prep for the test, if I can do it- anyone can.
There's lots of books that explain the answers and reasoning.
All grammar schools are open about what test they use.

Parents that are serious about getting their child in, will do basic research on what they need to cover. I didn't know anyone who went to grammar or what it entailed, until I started researching it.

Most grammars, also puts Foster children or FSM children (ours does the former) on priority lists , they get extra marks to make it fairer. As well as area ranking to make sure local children get an advantage.

@Itiswasitis90 we have a similar experience, DS didn't have years of tutoring (we worked through past papers). He got in (I was surprised after hearing how much work some families did).

We live in an area where the 2 modern secondary schools are failing; the grammar schools are out of catchment. The next city has far better modern secondary schools, but of course it's impossible to get a place there. Would a grammar in our area make sense? Possibly, but it would make more sense to fund the already struggling schools.

mumsneedwine^ and cantkeepawayforever* pragmatically I would rather see and retain an influx of teachers whose abilities best match teaching more demanding academic curriculums especially for example in physics or maths than restrict recruitment to teachers who have to teach all abilities or otherwise be perceived as not worthy or too lazy to be teachers.

Of course if supply outstripped the demand for teachers there might be enough mumsneedwines or even primary school teachers sufficiently academically qualified to also teach STEM subjects at the equivalent of STEP or olympiad level should that be needed. However that is not the case so IMO it would be wrong to further drain the recruitment pool by sticking to the dogma that one size has to fit all.

As another analogy nobody doubts that both GPs and specialists are required in the health sector and some consultants are even more specialised and will work at tertiary referring centres. The skills and qualities of each doctor may differ but laziness would n’t be an appropriate adjective to apply on the basis of what sector they choose to work in.

This:

In reality I don't think it will happen and is just another thing Liz Truss will U turn on.

I am not convinced that all teachers in grammar schools are better than those in comprehensives / secondary moderns, although they potentially have an easier job.

The whole school systems needs an overhaul, so that it's not just the academically cleverest who get the most 'investment' from their schools. DC2's experience at a very mixed comprehensive has been equally eye-opening and not necessarily in a positive way. The top set pupils getting all the 'enrichment' opportunities and the others seemingly none. It sucks. It really sends out a very negative message to the others, including the more middling ones some of whom may have the potential but for various reasons are not as motivated or inspired.

As I have said repeatedly, I have less issue with a ‘grammar’ school being nominated if:

• An equal or greater number of highly funded Special Schools is created at the same time.


• The ‘non grammar’ school has at least twice the funding per pupil, enabling them, amongst other things, to pay teachers at a higher rate than grammars as well as provide academic, pastoral and SEN support at a high level.


• Selection for the ‘grammar’ school is wholly reformed to become, as far as can possibly be devised, fair in terms of social background, accurate in its identification of academic potential and tutor-proof.

The above list is pie in the sky.
As I said in a PP
If any extra money I would use it to help disadvantaged pupils at primary school to ensure the academic gap is n’t entrenched before secondary school.
Then after that expand the sixth form capacity of grammar schools.
Also almost certainly pie in the sky but more realistic than the PP.

They tried and failed recently to create a tutor-proof test.

Some people have v strange ideas as to what a comprehensive education is. The assumption that all students 'don't want to be there', are disruptive and it's a terrible environment to learn are, to me, odd. I've worked in 6 comps and never had that experience. Yes, I've had several classes like that, but there are always reasons and those students won't be mixing with the more academically minded. Who will be in lessons with others of the same mindset. However, those students will be aware, and potentially friends, with the less school loving kids, maybe through sport or a shared interest. This is a good thing as they understand that not everyone finds academic stuff easy and they may have talents elsewhere. My current school is in an area of massive poverty but we manage to get kids to Uni (included the beloved Oxbridge, to do medicine etc).
Any teacher worth their job is trained to teach all abilities. Yes, it's much easier to teach 'grammar' students and some people opt for that to reduce the stress. But they are not better, just chose to specialise. Doctors don't even start to do that until at least 7 years post training.
Comps work if properly funded.
We seem to only hear from grammar parents about expansion, not v often from secondary modern ones. Strange !

*Any teacher worth their job is trained to teach all abilities. Yes, it's much easier to teach 'grammar' students^
Not easier from my perception just different as the work of GP versus consultant is different or how a university academic teaches is different to primary school level. If more maths and physics teachers are to be recruited then you can’t exclude those who prefer to divert their career to teaching bright sixth formers.
How long it takes for doctors to be able to select their pathway is irrelevant.

With regards disruption, I think from my DCs, bright pupils can be very disruptive especially if they can talk and work simultaneously.

Not sure the medicine analogy works as they are so different but surely it would be more like
GP-cover teacher
specialist- subject teacher
Highly specialist- head of department
or
gp- subject teacher
specialist- head of department
highly specialist- HOD in a specialist school eg music conservatoire, dance school, SEN school

I think a teacher with QTS should have the skills to teach any students in mainstream education