Oftsed Chief declares war on grammar schools

[tiffinboys]

I generally agree to Amber's views and these are quite logical and informative. But occasionally, I do disagree. I know I may be in the 'minority'.

I don't think so. One or two people have called into question my right to post on here, as I am against selective education.

1. Where did I say all comprehensives are failing? .

You didn't. And I didn't say that is what you said either.

2. By closing nearly 1200 grammars, have we improved the standards in comprehensives? If not, then haven't we become less able?

Sorry, I really don't follow the logic of that at all. Failing to improve is not the same as becoming less able. How do you define failure to improve? Why do we need to improve? What do we need to improve? These questions are not as daft as they sound - crisis rhetoric and common sense 'driving up standards' logic has taken over and no-one questions what it means any more.

By establishing grammars in every borough, I am sure that competition to get grammar place will reduce, tutoring will not be as intense and effect will be more aspiring kids will get into grammars.

Well yes you may well be right on that one. And how would that benefit society, or the 70-80% of children who don't get into grammar? How would that improve equity or social justice? How would that improve the life chances of the majority of children in our country?

It is interesting to see that those who call for a return to grammar education are never those who failed the 11+.

1. Within the forum rules, any one can air their views, though it is interesting to read that even while vehemently being opposed to selective education, one likes to be on this forum. I think credit goes to the forum to have such good posters as Amber.

2. Every one form their opinion based on their experience and knowledge. In my view, grammars are good for high ability children. These were a great vehicle for social mobility as well, when these were in sufficient number.

3. There can be no improvement if someone even question the need for improvement. According to our friend Sir Wilshaw, comprehensives are failing high ability children. Our catchment comprehensive has less than half of the results than the nearest grammar.

4. Agree that all children must be encouraged to attain their potentials. Same way, the bright children must be given the environment and facilities to attain their potentials. More grammars should not mean taking away resources from the rest of the society.

5. How can one be sure that one asking for more grammars has not failed 11+ test or has not been to grammar herself or himself? That's a big generalization. And I say this with knowledge of parents of my DCs forms. Majority of whom have not been to grammars.

[Amber]

1. Within the forum rules, any one can air their views, though it is interesting to read that even while vehemently being opposed to selective education, one likes to be on this forum. I think credit goes to the forum to have such good posters as Amber.

I have been trying to decide if this is a compliment and I think it is; mostly to the mods for putting up with me (Cheers Guys, it keeps me off the streets); but also to me so thanks TB.

Our catchment comprehensive has less than half of the results than the nearest grammar.

Could this be because the most able children who would have gone there have gone instead to the nearest grammar? And conversely the grammar doesn't have any less able children to bring down results? You're not comparing like with like.

I take your point about parents who haven't been to grammar school wanting their children to go; my point was that not many people who failed the 11 plus and were consigned to the old secondary modern schools can be heard calling for a return to 2 tier education.

'Fulfilling potential' is a phrase I dislike I'm afraid as I am not sure any of us ever does that, and there is far more involved than schools and teachers on that lifetime-long road; but in the context of your question, why do bright children need a different environment and extra facilities to be able to do this, as opposed to less bright children? You might argue that if they were that bright, their needs for learning would be less complex and costly than those of a more average or below average disposition.

[Tree]

Our catchment comprehensive has less than half of the results than the nearest grammar.

I think this is just a function of the maths if you take a normal distribution (of say academic ability) and take out the top 20% or so the average of this is gonna be about twice the average of what's left. You obviously can't directly compare the results of comprehensives or upper schools with grammar schools or private schools, it amazes me that this is so often done in the media etc, it can't be that the academics or politicians that do this don't realise, I think they just think people are dumb enough not to notice, it's pretty insulting really.

[southbucks3]

My dh first stepped into the hallowed grounds of his local grammar when ds1 achieved his place. He was somewhat overwhelmed at the difference between it, and the awful, since raised, upper school he attended. DH is firmly established "middle class" if there is such a thing, but his parents respected the education system, (even though his mum was privately educated) and sent him to his local upper. His views on the unfairness of the two tier system in bucks have not been lessened now he has first hand comparison, but reinforced.

Thankfully uppers have improved a lot since my dh was educated, but the isolation of those deemed academically elite at ten years old into hot houses of learning, does create social stigma in the local community. Every parent round here faced with the simple question "what school does he/she go to" is immediately labelling their child.
Obviously I strive to get my children into grammar, if t seems their best option, not for the social esteem, not for the rugby , but because the teaching and management of the grammar is first rate, whilst the same at the upper, according to ofsted, is not.

[stevew61]

A number of posts removed so this thread can be unlocked.

[mystery]

I would say that in Kent we have both some grammars and some non-selectives (uppers, or secondary moderns or whatever you want to call them) which fail children. And I guess if we had some true comprehensives (some of the church ones near county boundaries are approaching it in terms of the make-up of the intake in terms of ability but probably not social mix) we would have some true comprehensives which would fail some children too. And we have some of all types which do an amazingly good job for the children inside them.

It's easier now than it was to compare different types of school by looking at GCSE results as you can look at the percentage of the children who make satisfactory progress who went into the school as high (level 5) attainers, medium (level 4), low (level3) attainers. You can also look at FSM to get an idea if one school has a much poorer intake than another too.

It's not perfect, but I'd say that if you an see a school were 95% plus of the high attainers on entry make satisfactory progress in English and Maths, and another school where only 50% do, and the FSM levels are pretty similar, you are seeing a school that does pretty well with its intake and another one that does not.

This is the kind of way that OFSTED look at the data, so in a way I am sure that on this occasion Wilshaw is not talking entirely out of his wherever. The thing with OFSTED though is that what the top says does not always bear fruit on the ground as the minions that go out inspecting are not always "on message" with the the latest guidance and thinking from the top.

The notion of three types of school across the country for all children is pretty dream-like. It would be expensive to have grammars, technical colleges, and secondary moderns within a sensible distance of all children. Schools would probably have to be much smaller than they are now and less cost-effective.

How does the grammar school, technical college, secondary modern in every town notion work when the country is almost broke? It didn't work from the outset when LAs did have control and money was being poured into it. It's even less likely to work now.

The thing that was striking about the Sevenoaks grammar "annex" debate is that Kent County Council seemed to convince everyone that they had the powers to decide which grammar could build an annex and where, and that if they voted that there should be a grammar in Sevenoaks that there would be. Local authorities do not have these kinds of powers any more do they?

I am also puzzled why Invicta and Weald had to apply to the DfE to expand in the first place? If it truly was an expansion don't academies just have the right to go ahead and expand anyhow?

Even if the law were to change to allow new selective schools (i.e. grammar schools) to set up, would they get through the Free School public consultation process. Would enough people in any one area, if consultation was done properly, really support a selective free school. And when funds are so tight, do tax payers really want vast amounts of capital funding going in to build a school which only a certain percentage of the population could ever attend? I don't know.

[kenyancowgirl]

mystery "Even if the law were to change to allow new selective schools (i.e. grammar schools) to set up, would they get through the Free School public consultation process. Would enough people in any one area, if consultation was done properly, really support a selective free school. And when funds are so tight, do tax payers really want vast amounts of capital funding going in to build a school which only a certain percentage of the population could ever attend? I don't know."

Especially in an area like Kent, where there is the highest number of grammar school places already, per capita than anywhere else in the country? Possibly not...

[ToadMum]

But they do vote for selective Free Schools - why is it any better to be able to select up to half of your intake by how well Mummy has made herself known to the right minister of religion if your school is oversubscribed, and not by what your learning needs / abilities are?

[KenR]

Kent is interesting - I had some insight a few years ago into some new technology based methods that Kent were prototyping working closely with Microsoft to overcome some of the severe resource issues that Kent had in certain areas of the county.

I know they were piloting issuing free tablet PCs to all students in some areas of the county (Thames Gateway I believe) so that the students were guaranteed access to all the necessary knowledge based resources (via an intranet library).

They also piloted Virtual Classroom teaching between some schools in some specialist subject areas (using advanced virtual whiteboard techniques) - e.g Further Maths, where students in a "satellite" school would be able to attend lessons from "Top" teachers in "Outstanding" Schools in other areas of the county.

I believe the initial results were very encouraging -

I don't know if this approach was extended further to other parts of Kent - I hope they contined with this scheme

[tiffinboys]

A number of posts removed so this thread can be unlocked.

I had written a reply to Amber's last post, just before the thread was locked and all got lost. I will have to recollect and write that again. May be some other time.

Instead of locking the thread, deleting irrelevant posts is much better option, as done in this case. Thanks.

Our catchment comprehensive has less than half of the results than the nearest grammar.

I think this is just a function of the maths if you take a normal distribution (of say academic ability) and take out the top 20% or so the average of this is gonna be about twice the average of what's left. You obviously can't directly compare the results of comprehensives or upper schools with grammar schools or private schools, it amazes me that this is so often done in the media etc, it can't be that the academics or politicians that do this don't realise, I think they just think people are dumb enough not to notice, it's pretty insulting really.

No, Tree, it is not that simple. From our borough, about 30-35 boys goes to local grammar, as it is open selective. If these boys were disbursed among the local comprehensives, their performance will hardly make any dent to these comprehensives stats, assuming that these boys will still be getting same results as in the grammar - which they may not get in other schools.