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.

Wouldn't it be better to invest in really good comprehensive schools that are able to cater effectively for all levels of ability?

Many years of this experiment have proved it does not work for many, many children.

You're missing the key words "invest" and "really good". Comprehensive schools these days are starved of money and expected to be all things to all people. Have we ever had a time when comprehensive education was properly invested in?

Which children do you think it doesn't work for? The ones who would go to grammar or the ones who would go to the secondary modern? What do you think is currently missing in the comprehensive system?

I don't think there is any evidence that comps can't work. I do think there is far too little investment in education, that comprehensive schools could be dramatically improved and that we should review the current curriculum and system of qualifications to ensure that we are meeting the needs of all children. I don't see how more grammar schools will provide any solutions at all to the problems that we're currently facing.

Fundamentally, there is no need for us to reinvent the wheel in "splendid British isolation".

We should be making evidence-based policy. There is plenty of data. Our education system has appalling outcomes compared to comparable countries, just like our healthcare system and pensions system. All are far superior in most European countries.

We should be looking around at other systems and what works and what doesn't. The data is all there, recorded for many years. We can reconstruct our systems based on this so they optimal outcomes. It isn't rocket science, or a guessing game.

@TurquoisePterodactyl at 11 no one knows who will choose academic or vocational careers. Many children develop later, or decide they'll work their butts off to achieve a specific goal. Or decide they want to be a carpenter despite having perfect GCSEs and A levels (I have had one of those - he is an amazing carpenter !).
Every child should have the opportunity to try every subject. Then decide at 14 what they like, what they enjoy, whether that is Maths or Textiles. I know some grammar schools that don't teach Food or DT as they are not 'academic'. That is bonkers and denies those students opportunities to discover their talent.
Again, have yet to hear from a secondary modern parent that grammar schools are great.

I totally agree that we should make evidence-based decisions and that we should learn from the experience of other countries. Which countries' systems in particular do you think we should emulate?

@TurquoisePterodactyl if our education system is so rubbish, why do so many people send their children here from abroad ? Everyone sits the same exams so they must like the process.
And our Unis are full of international students who value a British education, so much so many Unis have set up satellite sites abroad.
Comps work, if properly funded. Mine gets loads of money as our area is so poor, so we can fully resource and offer amazing extras. We teach Latin, every student gets free music tuition for 2 years, we have free weeks at outward bound places every year. And we have simple expectations of behaviour (but have funding to support the reasons behind bad behaviour and a separate unit fully staffed with counsellors).
Weirdly, many of the middle class parents nearby have noticed our results and what's on offer, and are now trying to get in. This will involve them moving to one of 3 v large council estates full of 60s high rises so I'm not sure many will do that. But, good comp schools are possible if fully staffed with good teachers. Less and less easy as there are so few teachers - because under funding is making the job harder every year.

www.dur.ac.uk/news/allnews/thoughtleadership/?itemno=28879#:~:text=Japan%20and%20South%20Korea%20do,a%20%E2%80%9Cchoice%E2%80%9D%20of%20school.

This makes quite an interesting read. It doesn't seem to support the idea of selective schools based on what happens overseas. I'm sure that there are many more studies looking into this issue, this is just the first one that came up when I searched.

You're missing the key words "invest" and "really good". Comprehensive schools these days are starved of money and expected to be all things to all people. Have we ever had a time when comprehensive education was properly invested in?

Blair threw money at it. And it was still appalling.

Which children do you think it doesn't work for? The ones who would go to grammar or the ones who would go to the secondary modern? What do you think is currently missing in the comprehensive system?

It doesn't work for those who have lower academic ability. They are forced to do a great deal of academic study that bores them and they do not engage with, causing disruption and exclusions.

It doesn't work for people who have more practical abilities and need education that supports them to develop those practical skills into technical qualifications and apprenticeships and careers.

It doesn't work for people with one specific heightened talent, as they get very little specialist tuition and little time to focus on it.

It doesn't work for the generally more academically able in most subjects as they are held back and bored by the incredibly slow pace due to lack of setting and streaming in most schools.

It doesn't work for most children with SEN.

OK, so what do you propose instead? What exactly would you put in place to meet the needs of all children? Surely you're not proposing that old fashioned grammar schools and secondary moderns are the answer??

@TurquoisePterodactyl if our education system is so rubbish, why do so many people send their children here from abroad ?

Ummmm... to private schools you mean?

OK, so what do you propose instead?

I've described that already upthread. ^^

Again, have yet to hear from a secondary modern parent that grammar schools are great.

Again, I've not suggested that we scale up the current system as is. I am suggesting that children with practical talents are given a chance to develop them into good quality technical qualifications and careers with strong industry links like they are in e.g. Germany.

I agree, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it - the comp schools in my area have so much technology and much nicer in comparison to the grammar.
The grammar school seems dilapidated in comparison. It's the attitude of wanting to learn that needs changing.

Everyone knows that kids don't all learn the same way, so I don't see why people are anti grammar school.

I would love to see technical colleges for children at earlier ages, kids that learn better kinetically, learning a trade and having maths, English, science installed that way- something that's more exciting for kids that would rather be hands on rather then disrupting.

@Itiswasitis90 exactly, totally agree.

I totally agree that we should make evidence-based decisions and that we should learn from the experience of other countries. Which countries' systems in particular do you think we should emulate?

Tons of data on this published online if you would like to look.

Yes @Itiswasitis90

My BIL is a case in point - he went to the same (shit) school as me. I got all A* GCSEs as I could teach myself well from books and have a great memory. He is far more talented than me, but left school without a pass in maths, which would astonish you if you saw him playing darts(!) - he aced all the maths exams he did in order to learn a trade when he later went to college (ironically, paid for by a grant because he failed his GCSEs). He is just a very practical learner. School offered him nothing and he thought it was totally pointless - there was no way to map from what he was (rote) learning, to what he could do with it.

Exactly there isn't enough choice for children. They pick their opinions in year 9, so would make sense (even if it appears early) to start making children think about their future and what will work for them.
The system is too communist and rather then bring academics down, they should be encouraging everyone's abilities.

I'm glad your BIL managed to learn a trade. Your correct how some people don't see the connection between learning from a white board to practical, the amount of kids that said I dont need to learn maths etc because I'm going to be a builder or a electrician was funny (I believed it too!) as an adult, I now know how wrong we were in our ignorance.

Everyone knows that kids don't all learn the same way, so I don't see why people are anti grammar school.
Actually the concept of learning styles has been quite widely debunked, and most psychologists don't accept there is any scientific evidence to support it. That's not to say there's nothing in it – some people clearly pick things up better if it's written down, while other like to be given verbal instructions and others prefer to watch it being done. But it's no stronger than a mild preference.

Again, have yet to hear from a secondary modern parent that grammar schools are great.
A recent survey (quoted in the national press last weekend) showed that a majority of people would be quite happy for the vast majority of DCs to have less good academic outcomes if their own DC got better ones.

Actually the concept of learning styles has been quite widely debunked, and most psychologists don't accept there is any scientific evidence to support it. That's not to say there's nothing in it – some people clearly pick things up better if it's written down, while other like to be given verbal instructions and others prefer to watch it being done. But it's no stronger than a mild preference.

Hmmmm... strange then don't you think how most adults manifestly recognise it as true based on their own experience and that of their own family members etc?

How would you know if the concept would work, when we don't actually have the systems in place to scientifically test the theory.

Also if you Google anything, you will always find statistics or research to suit your agenda.

Yes, I do think it's strange, possibly even counter-intuitive. But I believe in evidence-based research, and there isn't any.

Er, Demos and PISA have both conducted large-scale tests of the VARK learning styles model on students.

It's actually a really interesting topic, and I think @TurquoisePterodactyl has raised some valid points, but I do feel it's slightly tangental to this thread so perhaps we should start a different thread about learning styles?

Yes, I know. I linked to a research paper above that highlighted the lack of evidence with regard to academic selection producing better results. I'm quite capable of doing a Google search, I was just interested in knowing which countries' systems you thought that we should emulate.

You say that you've proposed alternatives above but I can't see how your suggestions would improve the system. You want more grammar schools with more fluidity for late bloomers but less academic, more practical content for the kids who go to the non-academic schools. Not really sure how late bloomers would transition between the two if they are following such different curricula.

Then you've talked about having "proper assessment" processes but you have been very vague about what that would actually entail, other than mentioning that it would involve teacher assessment, which has previously been shown to disadvantage kids from less privileged backgrounds.

You've made reference to different learning styles, but you seem to be working on the assumption that kids with similar level of academic ability will naturally have similar learning styles, which almost certainly isn't the case.

And you've highlighted that the current approach is failing kids with SEN but you haven't mentioned where they will fit in to your new system. And what about kids who are "twice exceptional" - academically gifted but also having SEN. Where will they fit in?

All in all, I don't see any real workable proposals that would contribute to better outcomes for all children, nor that would lead to greater social mobility. I just see a push towards segregation that would primarily end up being along class lines. Not what I want for my own dc or for anyone else's, thanks.