Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[syne]

It seems clear that anyone who argues for fairness, justice or equality here on sheffieldforum are at risk of being pigeon-holed.

 

I'm not a communist, but I am a tax-payer, and I would like to see the tax system properly enforced so that the rich and powerful cannot simply choose not to pay. And I am clear in my view that revenue should be utilised according to needs of all rather than to bolster the advantage of the few.

 

I'm quite the fantasist when it comes to how the world should be, but you quote fairness, justice and equality when in reality those things really occur, what's fair about having feckless parents, or being born into the catchment of a sub par school or being forced to share your teachers attentions with kids who can't behave or are simply unsuited to school.

What's fair about grammars is that it at least gives some slight opportunity that you could be recognised as a diamond in the rough. Exam style dependant ofc.

 

It's not the upper end of achievers, who generally when all things considered would be in with a fighting chance of success anyway that really need hep. it's the ones who fall into the lower middle bracket, those who really need attentive teaching to not slide and theirs is the group, that due to whatever policy creations, have to share their classrooms with disruption.

 

The few don't need their advantage bolstering, by being smarter, diligent, attentive etc the advantage exists already.

Being taught at a rate or level the remainder would struggle with isn't in some way unfair it just is what it is.

 

Doing the sensible thing which is much harder, would be to remove any mildly disruptive or time swallowing pupil from a class and educate separately.

But that would be very callous, much more expensive and almost certain political suicide to impliment

Edited September 10, 2016 by syne

[Santo]

It was on the BBC news last night, I can`t find the exact figures off that, and I'm short of time at the moment, I`m sure they`ll come to light. But in the, meantime here is a report on the top 200 comps v Grammars (I`d have thought the figures would be rather worse if they were for all comps and Grammars) :

 

Percentage on Free School Meals

 

Comprehensives = 6%

Grammars = 2.1%

 

• The findings also suggest that the top schools do not reflect the social make up of their immediate areas: the average rate of FSM eligibility in the postcode sectors of the top 200 schools is 12.3% - almost 10 percentage points and more than four times higher than the schools’ average rate. In only 11 of the top 200 schools does the FSM eligibility rate reflect that of their local area.

 

Hmmmm, doesn't that suggest top 200 schools aren't in areas as affluent as has been claimed on this very forum?

 

• Eighty-percent of the top schools are grammar schools, and although these were found to be more socially exclusive - with an overall proportion of pupils eligible for FSM of 2.1%, compared to 6.0% at the comprehensives - much of the difference can be explained by the fact that grammar schools are sited in more affluent areas, with average FSM rates of 11.7%, compared to 15.7% for comprehensives. The overall gap between school and area rates is similar for both school types – at just under 10 percentage points – indicating that the intakes of both are similarly unrepresentative of their local areas.

 

Who would have thought? Even comp intake doesn't reflect the local area then.

 

This survey is of the top 200 schools, of which 80% are grammar schools. So, there are at least 160 grammar schools in the country already. Didn't know there were that many....

Edited September 10, 2016 by Santo

[Staunton]

I'm quite the fantasist when it comes to how the world should be, but you quote fairness, justice and equality when in reality those things really occur, what's fair about having feckless parents, or being born into the catchment of a sub par school or being forced to share your teachers attentions with kids who can't behave or are simply unsuited to school.

What's fair about grammars is that it at least gives some slight opportunity that you could be recognised as a diamond in the rough. Exam style dependant ofc.

 

It's not the upper end of achievers, who generally when all things considered would be in with a fighting chance of success anyway that really need hep. it's the ones who fall into the lower middle bracket, those who really need attentive teaching to not slide and theirs is the group, that due to whatever policy creations, have to share their classrooms with disruption.

 

The few don't need their advantage bolstering, by being smarter, diligent, attentive etc the advantage exists already.

Being taught at a rate or level the remainder would struggle with isn't in some way unfair it just is what it is.

 

Doing the sensible thing which is much harder, would be to remove any mildly disruptive or time swallowing pupil from a class and educate separately.

But that would be very callous, much more expensive and almost certain political suicide to impliment

 

I find a great deal to agree with in syne's post. However, my concern is that many children would depend upon the selection panel of a grammar in order to enjoy the advantages of such a school. What about those candidates whom the panel decide not to admit? Unless there is individual choice rather than selection, then inequality will be reinforced, and many children will be disadvantaged as they are left with greater challenges than in a fully comprehensive school.

 

I am sure that mild disruption can be diminished with a suitable school ethos based on evidence-based effective practice. More challenging behaviour should not be tolerated in class, and children who present as challenging require support in an environment more conducive to their particular needs than a mainstream classroom can supply. And yes, this would cost, but I'm happy for my taxes to fund such remedies for children disadvantaged by circumstances entirely beyond their control. That is what public services are for - to provide essential facilities for all, and to provide additional assistance for people in particular need.

[tinfoilhat]

I find a great deal to agree with in syne's post. However, my concern is that many children would depend upon the selection panel of a grammar in order to enjoy the advantages of such a school. What about those candidates whom the panel decide not to admit? Unless there is individual choice rather than selection, then inequality will be reinforced, and many children will be disadvantaged as they are left with greater challenges than in a fully comprehensive school.

 

I am sure that mild disruption can be diminished with a suitable school ethos based on evidence-based effective practice. More challenging behaviour should not be tolerated in class, and children who present as challenging require support in an environment more conducive to their particular needs than a mainstream classroom can supply. And yes, this would cost, but I'm happy for my taxes to fund such remedies for children disadvantaged by circumstances entirely beyond their control. That is what public services are for - to provide essential facilities for all, and to provide additional assistance for people in particular need.

 

Why would they need a selection panel - I thought a test would do that?

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 20:40 ----------

 

• The findings also suggest that the top schools do not reflect the social make up of their immediate areas: the average rate of FSM eligibility in the postcode sectors of the top 200 schools is 12.3% - almost 10 percentage points and more than four times higher than the schools’ average rate. In only 11 of the top 200 schools does the FSM eligibility rate reflect that of their local area.

 

Hmmmm, doesn't that suggest top 200 schools aren't in areas as affluent as has been claimed on this very forum?

 

• Eighty-percent of the top schools are grammar schools, and although these were found to be more socially exclusive - with an overall proportion of pupils eligible for FSM of 2.1%, compared to 6.0% at the comprehensives - much of the difference can be explained by the fact that grammar schools are sited in more affluent areas, with average FSM rates of 11.7%, compared to 15.7% for comprehensives. The overall gap between school and area rates is similar for both school types – at just under 10 percentage points – indicating that the intakes of both are similarly unrepresentative of their local areas.

 

Who would have thought? Even comp intake doesn't reflect the local area then.

 

This survey is of the top 200 schools, of which 80% are grammar schools. So, there are at least 160 grammar schools in the country already. Didn't know there were that many....

 

There are a lot of schools with grammar in the name that are full-fat private schools with all the trimmings (and fees). Not sure whether these would count in a survey.

[Staunton]

Why would they need a selection panel - I thought a test would do that?

 

Maybe, but I suspect that there will be many more children capable of achieving the required score than grammar school places available.

[El Cid]

This survey is of the top 200 schools, of which 80% are grammar schools. So, there are at least 160 grammar schools in the country already. Didn't know there were that many....

 

And England still performs poorly, compared to countries with zero grammar schools.

[tinfoilhat]

Maybe, but I suspect that there will be many more children capable of achieving the required score than grammar school places available.

 

What are basing that on? They'll set it up so the top X percent go through surely. If we are going to do an exam where everyone gets a gold star there's no point.

[I1L2T3]

Assuming that's true:

Because smart people are more likely to make a good living and smart people are more likely to have smart kids.

But it's only likelihood. It's very possible, and common for smart kids to be born to no-so-smart parents. Or for smart parents to have had some bad luck or made some bad choices and not make a good living.

 

Selecting based on ability is, by definition, meritocratic. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for so many. It's insanely obvious.

 

Why do you choose to ignore the evidence that suggests that kids that pass grammar school entrance exams are likely to have been privately coached to get through them. Therefore the exams do not truly or accurately measure ability.

 

This is why May is at pains to say that any exams will be harder to be coached for. I'm not sure why she thinks that would even be possible.

 

The plans have more holes than a swiss cheese

[tinfoilhat]

And England still performs poorly, compared to countries with zero grammar schools.

 

Like which countries? South Korean (their results always rate well) children have 14 hour school days 6 or 7 days a week. I think a shift to that might cause ripples.

[Staunton]

What are basing that on? They'll set it up so the top X percent go through surely. If we are going to do an exam where everyone gets a gold star there's no point.

 

Grammar schools could set a very high bar by all means. That would serve my purposes admirably since this would provoke howls of protest from the many aspirational parents whose children didn't quite make the grade.