Grammar Schools

[JagLover]

lawless50 said:

The general public will always be in favour for new grammar schools, until the day they find out that their children are not smart enough to get in. Before anyone attacks me, I'm not making judgements on anyone, it's just how it will work in reality.

You are probably right.

Interesting article I read at the weekend that Grammar schools were unpopular in the 70s in general hence why the Conservatives made so little effort to defend them.

The transition to Comprehensive schools was presented as a "grammar" school for every pupil, but in fact, for the most part, it became a secondary modern for every pupil....

No easy answers to this and the only thing I am fundamentally opposed to is bright children being held back in the state sector by "lowest common denominator" teaching. The structure to prevent this is open to question.

[Lucas Ayde]

People opposed to academic selection seem to be oblivious to the fact that there will always be a situation where there are some especially 'good' schools (really obvious thanks to the publication of academic league tables) and places in those schools will be highly sought after.

This has lead to housing in the catchment areas of the 'good' schools becoming extremely valuable with the result that well-heeled parents find a way to get their kids into the 'good' school by locating to that area and everyone else ends up in the 'second best' schools.

Far better to have academic based selection than 'parents wealth' based selection IMO but there seems to be some sort of adverse reaction from the general public to testing all kids (rich and poor alike) for places in academically higher achieving schools as opposed to letting 'rich kids' get all the good places. Naybe some sort of traumatic throwback to facing examinations when they were kids themselves. Highly immature IMO.

A system of Grammar, Tech College and regular secondary school would cater for everyone's needs and abilities and be a much fairer way of allocating resources.

[Efbe]

JagLover said:

No easy answers to this and the only thing I am fundamentally opposed to is bright children being held back in the state sector by "lowest common denominator" teaching. The structure to prevent this is open to question.

But this isn't what happens.

Students are streamlined into different sets. A decent size comp will have 5 sets per year group per subject.
So the band will only be 20%.

But the streamlining within a comp school will take into account changes in development throughout the students education, assessment from a variety of sources, tests, practical, behavioral. Rather than the (as pointed out before by myself far too many times) very poor 11+ exam, which is a one off test, very limited in scope, requires the parents to choose whether they consider their child capable rather than reality, and can be tutored for.

The problem is the best teachers are not available to these comps to teach these students, they are generally taken up by private and grammar schools.

The only downside of having the grammar level of teaching in a comp school is that posh children have to mix with the plebs... or am I reading this incorrectly?

[turbobloke]

Efbe said:

JagLover said:

No easy answers to this and the only thing I am fundamentally opposed to is bright children being held back in the state sector by "lowest common denominator" teaching. The structure to prevent this is open to question.

But this isn't what happens.

Students are streamlined into different sets.

<snip>

Yes they may be, but mixed ability groups persist and they are the worst possible context for very able pupils (as confirmed by Ofsted) and the same Ofsted research also showed that far too many comprehensives which use setting or banding or streaming are failing the very able pupils in their schools far too often. As mentioned so many times previously, comps have had 40 years to get it right and are still failing. What possesses people to even consider the possibility that they'll suddenly get it right simply because TM has proposed more grammars? These proposals also, apparently, carry the possibility of entry at 14 and 16 as well as 11, which is more complicated but should at least partially offset concerns from the 'late development' camp.

[Lucas Ayde]

Efbe said:

The only downside of having the grammar level of teaching in a comp school is that posh children have to mix with the plebs... or am I reading this incorrectly?

The posh kids are generally in the 'good' school because Mummy and Daddy paid a fortune to buy a house within the catchment area of said 'good' school. (Or of course, in a full on fee-paying privately run, well funded school.)

Everyone else gets streaming in whatever school happens to cater for the area that their parents can afford to live in. And regardless of how the kids are streamed internally, they all have to share the academic resources of that school.

[Efbe]

turbobloke said:

Yes they may be, but mixed ability groups persist and they are the worst possible context for very able pupils (as confirmed by Ofsted) and the same Ofsted research also showed that far too many comprehensives which use setting or banding or streaming are failing the very able pupils in their schools far too often. As mentioned so many times previously, comps have had 40 years to get it right and are still failing. What possesses people to even consider the possibility that they'll suddenly get it right simply because TM has proposed more grammars? These proposals also, apparently, carry the possibility of entry at 14 and 16 as well as 11, which is more complicated but should at least partially offset concerns from the 'late development' camp.

agreed in some subjects it is like this, and it's not a great thing.

The other argument against my point of view on this (yes I do like to argue everything both ways) is that friendship groups do effect the achievement of children (I have nothing to back this up, sorry!). Bad friends, and the bright children stop achieving. A school with a greater diversity incrases the chance of bright children hanging out with less bright ones. There are advantages to this (IMO) socially, but academically less so.

And agreed that the lower end of the academic spectrum is being failed miserably. I think this potentially comes back to behavior and parental attitudes.

[768]

Efbe said:

The other argument against my point of view on this (yes I do like to argue everything both ways) is that friendship groups do effect the achievement of children (I have nothing to back this up, sorry!). Bad friends, and the bright children stop achieving. A school with a greater diversity incrases the chance of bright children hanging out with less bright ones. There are advantages to this (IMO) socially, but academically less so.

Agreed. But I'd suggest the academic side should be left to schools, the social side to sports clubs, scouts, etc.

[turbobloke]

Summary of the proposals so far:

1. Selective schools can expand as long as they ensure “good quality non-selective places locally”.
Meeting this criterion may include:
- Taking a proportion of pupils from lower income households
- Establishing a new non-selective secondary school
- Establishing a feeder primary in low-income area
- Partnering with existing non-selective school or ensure there are opportunities to join the selective school at different ages, such as 14 and 16 as well as 11
2. The government will set up a £50 million fund to help existing grammar schools to expand and...
3. Allow new entirely selective schools if there is local demand.
4. Existing non-selective schools can become selective, as long as there’s local demand
5. Selective schools which expand and do not deliver good quality places locally could be stripped of access to additional funding streams, have their right to select by ability removed or be barred from further expansion
6. Multi-academy trusts will be encouraged to set up schools for their “most able” pupils, dubbed a “centre of excellence”
7. Existing selective schools required to work with other schools, eg teacher exchanges.
8. Selective schools must have fair access strategies in place

[JagLover]

Efbe said:

Students are streamlined into different sets. A decent size comp will have 5 sets per year group per subject.
So the band will only be 20%.

Glad to hear it

Back "in my day" only maths was streamed, and even then only after one or two years.

There seemed to be a sense that the first three years of secondary school you were just marking time until the start of GCSE's. For those last two years the more disruptive kids were also often taken out of class for "special" classes, which also emphasised those were the only two years that seemed to matter and it didn't matter if lessons in the first three years were disrupted.

To take one example my memories of English from those first three years are of, extremely slow, whole class reading and staining paper to make it look old. Clearly the solid foundation in grammar, spelling and essay writing skills needed to succeed academically in later life!

[turbobloke]

JagLover said:

Efbe said:

Students are streamlined into different sets. A decent size comp will have 5 sets per year group per subject.
So the band will only be 20%.

Glad to hear it

It's still not working for very able pupils in far too many comps.

[Dr Jekyll]

What do these percentiles mean in practice?

Is it something like

Top 20% go to a proper university
Next 20% general studies at the university of the north circular
Next 20% quit after a couple of A levels
Next 20% quit after GCSEs
Bottom 20%, oh dear.

[Efbe]

Dr Jekyll said:

What do these percentiles mean in practice?

Is it something like

Top 20% go to a proper university
Next 20% general studies at the university of the north circular
Next 20% quit after a couple of A levels
Next 20% quit after GCSEs
Bottom 20%, oh dear.

that bottom 20% is a bit of a contentious one. Includes a number of special needs children which require huge amounts of attention taking away from the other children. Yes, support assistants are provided to assist in these classes, but it's not enough and far too often these untrained support assistants are left to run these classes due to a teacher shortage.

[turbobloke]

Purely for entertainment purposes, here are some extracts from the 2014-15 UKIP education policy as set out in “A Better Education System for a Better Britain”:

- a grammar school in every town
- existing schools will be allowed to apply to become grammar schools
- selection ages will be flexible and determined by the school
- a new apprenticeship qualification for secondary schools
- Ofsted to inspect schools only on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors
- a move to one exam board for GCSEs and one for A-Levels offering one course for each subject

[wiggy001]

turbobloke said:

Purely for entertainment purposes, here are some extracts from the 2014-15 UKIP education policy as set out in “A Better Education System for a Better Britain”:

- a grammar school in every town
- existing schools will be allowed to apply to become grammar schools
- selection ages will be flexible and determined by the school
- a new apprenticeship qualification for secondary schools
- Ofsted to inspect schools only on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors
- a move to one exam board for GCSEs and one for A-Levels offering one course for each subject

Interesting that some think UKIP have no raison d'etre now we've voted for Brexit. If they keep coming up with sensible policies for the Tories to implement then I have no issue with them staying around as a party.

[Efbe]

wiggy001 said:

turbobloke said:

Purely for entertainment purposes, here are some extracts from the 2014-15 UKIP education policy as set out in “A Better Education System for a Better Britain”:

- a grammar school in every town
- existing schools will be allowed to apply to become grammar schools
- selection ages will be flexible and determined by the school
- a new apprenticeship qualification for secondary schools
- Ofsted to inspect schools only on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors
- a move to one exam board for GCSEs and one for A-Levels offering one course for each subject

Interesting that some think UKIP have no raison d'etre now we've voted for Brexit. If they keep coming up with sensible policies for the Tories to implement then I have no issue with them staying around as a party.

What on earth is the Ofsted line about?

surely no-one actually thinks that's a good idea?

[Esseesse]

Efbe said:

What on earth is the Ofsted line about?

surely no-one actually thinks that's a good idea?

Probably not, however from what I've heard/read I think a review of what Ofsted uses for it's criteria might be worthwhile.

[Efbe]

Esseesse said:

Efbe said:

What on earth is the Ofsted line about?

surely no-one actually thinks that's a good idea?

Probably not, however from what I've heard/read I think a review of what Ofsted uses for it's criteria might be worthwhile.

agreed on that.

Mind you, one of the private schools I taught in used to encourage parents to come in to watch their children through a screen that was effectively one way. Whilst at first I thought it was a bit 'big brother', the children behaved extremely well with the knowledge their parents could be watching, my teaching assistants improved their participation and I think it probably focused me a bit more. Having an inspector come into the room if massively stressful and pushes you to teach in a style your pupils would not recognise and is often quite alien to the usual classroom style.

[hidetheelephants]

Esseesse said:

Efbe said:

What on earth is the Ofsted line about?

surely no-one actually thinks that's a good idea?

Probably not, however from what I've heard/read I think a review of what Ofsted uses for it's criteria might be worthwhile.

Not giving advance notice of an inspection would be a good place to start.

[hornetrider]

turbobloke said:

Summary of the proposals so far:

1. Selective schools can expand as long as they ensure “good quality non-selective places locally”.
Meeting this criterion may include:
- Taking a proportion of pupils from lower income households
- Establishing a new non-selective secondary school
- Establishing a feeder primary in low-income area
- Partnering with existing non-selective school or ensure there are opportunities to join the selective school at different ages, such as 14 and 16 as well as 11
2. The government will set up a £50 million fund to help existing grammar schools to expand and...
3. Allow new entirely selective schools if there is local demand.
4. Existing non-selective schools can become selective, as long as there’s local demand
5. Selective schools which expand and do not deliver good quality places locally could be stripped of access to additional funding streams, have their right to select by ability removed or be barred from further expansion
6. Multi-academy trusts will be encouraged to set up schools for their “most able” pupils, dubbed a “centre of excellence”
7. Existing selective schools required to work with other schools, eg teacher exchanges.
8. Selective schools must have fair access strategies in place

Thanks for this summary. Just trying to think through the practicalities of how this will work. Can anyone shed any light?

We live in a smallish town with a highly rated school. The next nearest secondary schools are 5 miles away (another county but also highly rated and possible grammar candidate) and 7 miles away (an absolute sthole). We moved here as the school was on our tick list of 'must haves'. Our daughter has just started primary school.

'If' our excellent local school switched to being a selective grammar, and 'if' our daughter failed the selection criteria, it would throw everything to st basically. The next nearest school is almost in special measures and is in a not very nice area. The practicalities of transport, logistics, friendships, not to mention her future education prospects all turn to st.

It's a selfish view of course but potentially we're not happy bunnies at the moment, if it pans out for the worst case scenario.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

hidetheelephants said:

Not giving advance notice of an inspection would be a good place to start.

Great idea. Ofsted turn up, and the Head and deputy are at a meeting with at the local council, and the SLT have all got lessons booked and can't arrange alternative cover with no notice. The 6th form leader is away on a school trip. So who is going to actually be available to deal with the inspector?

You clearly have little or no understanding of the logistics of an Ofsted visit or the complexities of what they need to look at and the logistics involved.

The advance notice makes no difference. You cannot drag a school to the next level with 3 days notice of an inspection. If inspectors were that easily fooled, there would be no point in having them at all.