Oftsed Chief declares war on grammar schools

[Amber]

Amber, are you advocating that the ideal comprehensives would have no setting / grouping by ability at all right the way through? Much as I like that idea I am not sure that I see it working in all subjects through to 16.

Yes. I have faith that what is good enough for Finland, the rest of Scandinavia and countries in the Far East could be good enough here. Though of course it would require a massive sea-change in this country, not least in teacher training, as well as a robust support staff network in every school. I don't pretend it is any picnic to teach mixed ability classes to GCSE; though my daughter was taught all subjects except Maths and English in mixed ability groups and the feeling from staff was that this raised the performance of the lower ability children while not affecting that of the high ones. This of course is exactly what larger-scale studies, including the dread PISA, have consistently demonstrated.

DD's view now as someone who moved to grammar for sixth form is that the teachers have an easier time, and the pace of the lessons is faster, but outcomes are similar as most of the work has to be done alone anyway. I don't think there is any doubt that top achievers like being taught together, but then they aren't used to anything else. The preference of a few is not a good enough reason for a whole system to be built around them. I know of a school in Denmark, where it is actually illegal to group by ability, where for one week in a year they tried it as an experiment (they are allowed to do that). The school council (ie the children themselves) protested on the second day saying it was a travesty of human rights and the school was forced to stop right away.

Amber, if you lived in an area without private schools and grammar schools, would you then send your own children to a comprehensive?

Categorically, yes. I certainly would neither move house nor send them on impossible commutes for a selective school. In fact the attainment of some of their friends at what would be our nearest secondary school, which does not enjoy an illustrious reputation, suggests to me that with hindsight some of my decisions might have been different.

[southbucks3]

I am going to be absolutely annihilated (that is a hard word to spell!) but I do think the introduction of technology in the classroom, such as ipads or laptops, particularly in maths, will go a long way towards streamless classes. As long as there is someone actually reading the individuals results and reports, and supporting those findings within the class, it will prove to be a very useful tool imo.

Go on then...I have my Kevlar suit and helmet on..be gentle.

[Amber]

Maths is actually the one subject in which mixed ability teaching has been proven to raise attainment across the board - someone has done some proper studies on it.

I don't know why you think that is so controversial SB3 - you should have the courage of your convictions. Everyone else on here does!

IMHO the thing which would most raise attainment would be the expectation that everyone is going to achieve.

[southbucks3]

The anti iPad thread scared me Amber, that is why..not just the money, but general disapproval.

Having a youngest son who floundered for a year when swapped to bottom stream maths, then went up 4 sub levels in 12 months, after being shifted to the bottom of top stream maths class, my opinions on this are quite strong. Give them all a chance.

[tiffinboys]

Since it is the rule of majority in democracies, the not-so-bright will always win, as which ever way one looks at there would be few kids more bright than the rest. And as it goes, the rest should have it.

Middle class families should stop working hard and become poorer, every one will sympathize with them then. Or some how join the upper class; take the cue from Middletons.

In the meantime, as grammars select on the basis of ability (not income or class), these should be closed immediately as the country is better off with all becoming less able. The well-offs can send their kids to the private schools/finishing schools/Dame Lawsons cookery club etc.

All problems solved. Our Lord W will not have a grammar schools yardstick to compare his failing comprehensives and can have more restful sleep.

OR

Go back few years and have grammar schools in each borough to cater to atleast 20% of the eligible children. The fierce competition for few places will reduce. More low income, but aspiring, kids will get good education. Open grammar school admission 13+ or 14+ as well, so those who didn't get in at 11+ will have another chance to prove their ability.

AND keep on striving to improve the comprehensives.

[JSN]

Good point well made!
but hang on to your hat , you are going to be in for a mulling!!!
you are difinately braver than I- good luck

[sherry_d]

A report I read on iPad wasn't that they are useless but they're misused by the children. Instead of doing maths they are on Facebook and playing games.

I can vouch too for technology. My daughter uses conquer maths mainly and she has moved from hating maths to wanting to study mathematics at university. A lot can be said about bad and uninspiring teachers too.

Do we even need schools? Does the ancient method of sticking a bunch of 10 year olds together in group of 30 work? It simply doesn't work very well considering nearly half are finishing 12years in school and failing to achieve the government' benchmark. That clearly isn't value for money. Perhaps we should be braver and go further and look beyond classrooms.


There is a interesting talk by Ken Robinson on Ted talks on how schools kill creativity if anyone is open to look beyond the classroom for learning. It is the most watched video and he has what may seem like radical views on reforming education.

[Proud_Dad]

Since it is the rule of majority in democracies, the not-so-bright will always win, as which ever way one looks at there would be few kids more bright than the rest. And as it goes, the rest should have it.

Well obviously if you DEFINE the "not-so-bright" to be at least 70% of the population who don't pass the 11plus then of course they're going to be a majority!

[mystery]

Since it is the rule of majority in democracies, the not-so-bright will always win, as which ever way one looks at there would be few kids more bright than the rest. And as it goes, the rest should have it.

Middle class families should stop working hard and become poorer, every one will sympathize with them then. Or some how join the upper class; take the cue from Middletons.

In the meantime, as grammars select on the basis of ability (not income or class), these should be closed immediately as the country is better off with all becoming less able. The well-offs can send their kids to the private schools/finishing schools/Dame Lawsons cookery club etc.

All problems solved. Our Lord W will not have a grammar schools yardstick to compare his failing comprehensives and can have more restful sleep.

OR

Go back few years and have grammar schools in each borough to cater to atleast 20% of the eligible children. The fierce competition for few places will reduce. More low income, but aspiring, kids will get good education. Open grammar school admission 13+ or 14+ as well, so those who didn't get in at 11+ will have another chance to prove their ability.

AND keep on striving to improve the comprehensives.

In Kent there is grammar provision for more than 25% of children. But there is still a tiny number of FSM children in these schools.

I think that whatever system you have - comprehensive, two tier, tripartite, true mixed ability classes, ability groups within lessons, setting, streaming etc etc - there will be good and bad. It's not the system as such that provides the answer is it?

[tiffinboys]

Yes, the 11 plus selection system which means that they may end up going to a sub-standard school if they don't pass the test. Or are you suggesting that all "middle-class" children will always pass?

Actually, you are quite right. Most do not make it to the grammars. So Sir Wilshaw should not have brought this class issue. He himself, son of a postman, went to a grammar school. Enough proof of social mobility, isn't it?

In Kent there is grammar provision for more than 25% of children. But there is still a tiny number of FSM children in these schools.

If any kid in the school's catchment achieve the cut-off score/selection criteria, then place is for him or her; otherwise not. In selective schools, no class of children should have any preferential rights. That's just my humble view; may not be acceptable to some.