Oftsed Chief declares war on grammar schools

[southbucks3]

re: Correlating being "thick" with being badly behaved, rude etc.

This is an example of stereotyping which is best starved ftom the minds of children, not fed and watered by their parents. My eldest son occasionally mentions somebody in his gs class being thick, and he immediately gets reprimanded, just as he would if he made derogatory comments about someone's culture or race.

The two most disruptive characters in my ds2's class last year were the most intelligent. One is a simple case of bad spoil him rotten parenting, the other has behavioural issues which are related to him not being able to control his impulses, which is a shame, but my son bears the scars.

I am guilty of making brash comments, I know this, but to judge someone's academic intelligence, by their behaviour and vice versa is shocking. Did you watch the Cambridge v oxford rugby game on Friday? Red card! Need I say more.

Edited simply because my tenses went all wrong during my outrage!

[kenyancowgirl]

Just pm'd you southbucks3

[Amber]

Gosh an astonishing number of rather interesting (and in some cases downright nasty) assertions have appeared on this thread now.

1. Children will become 'less able' across the board if grammar schools close:

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

2. Comprehensives are 'failing'. By implication, grammar schools do not 'fail'.

Our Lord W will not have a grammar schools yardstick to compare his failing comprehensives

3. Allowing 20% of children into grammar schools will reduce competition to get into them. Allowing all these extra children in (or in fact reducing intake to 20% from 30% in some areas like Bucks) will mean that the 'poor but bright' children will take up the extra capacity and be offered a good education - which presumably will be denied to the remaining 80%. But these rejects should be grateful as they will better off at least than if grammar schools closed as per 1 above, as this would reduce their ability even more... (I'm struggling with the logic of this one, but I went to a [failing] comprehensive myself):

: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.

4. Oh wait! There aren't any 'poor but bright' kids, only

'thicker members of the class'

who also happen to be

'nasty pieces of work'.

Good to see progress towards equality and social justice is alive and well on EPE.

[Rob Clark]

're: Correlating being "thick" with being badly behaved, rude etc.
This is an example of stereotyping which is best starved ftom the minds of your children, not fed and watered by their parents.

Couldn't agree more! Actually reading magwich2's post I am quite glad that my kind, hard-working DD is being educated at an upper school and not alongside people with this sort of snobbish, offensive attitude.

I do not agree at all with those who say that mixed ability teaching is ok especially in maths.

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.

Amber has already said upthread that some proper studies have shown this to be true, your opinion does not trump those.

[heartmum]

I have not read all comments, so apologies if going over old ground, but having just read 'Sir' Michael Wilshaw's comments in The Bucks Herald ".... But Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw told the Observer: “Grammar schools are stuffed full of middle-class kids. A tiny percentage are on free school meals: 3% .... " just because there are children there who do not qualify for free school meals, doesn't mean they are wealthy or from pushy middle-class families etc. We do not qualify for free school meals, we both have to work and could never afford private school fees. I have tutored my older DCs for the 11+ (currently at grammar) and am going through the process with my younger DC; whilst also having to fit in general family life and work.

Please 'Sir Michael Wilshaw' do not put people into boxes to try and make a point, my OH and I were both taught at 'comprehensive schools' and even then not the best in the area as our parents could not move to the areas where the 'best' comprehensives were, too expensive! It is not that the grammars are wrong it is that through own personal experience if every area could offer a grammar school, a high performing secondary school and technical college then we would be able to offer the right type of education for every child.

[tiffinboys]

Gosh an astonishing number of rather interesting (and in some cases downright nasty) assertions have appeared on this thread now.

1. Children will become 'less able' across the board if grammar schools close:

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

2. Comprehensives are 'failing'. By implication, grammar schools do not 'fail'.

Our Lord W will not have a grammar schools yardstick to compare his failing comprehensives

3. Allowing 20% of children into grammar schools will reduce competition to get into them. Allowing all these extra children in (or in fact reducing intake to 20% from 30% in some areas like Bucks) will mean that the 'poor but bright' children will take up the extra capacity and be offered a good education - which presumably will be denied to the remaining 80%. But these rejects should be grateful as they will better off at least than if grammar schools closed as per 1 above, as this would reduce their ability even more... (I'm struggling with the logic of this one, but I went to a [failing] comprehensive myself):

: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.

4. Oh wait! There aren't any 'poor but bright' kids, only

'thicker members of the class'

who also happen to be

'nasty pieces of work'.

Good to see progress towards equality and social justice is alive and well on EPE.

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'.

1. Where did I say all comprehensives are failing? Generally, the grammar school results do provide a comparison yardstick, to measure performance of other schools. Comprehensives which are not performing well or comprehensives which are merely coasting are highlighted, if one compares the overall grammar results with the comprehensives.
2. By closing nearly 1200 grammars, have we improved the standards in comprehensives? If not, then haven't we become less able?
3. The suggestion was at least 20%. I didn't say reduce it to 20%, if it was 30% in some areas. 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.

Amber, I hope I make myself clearer now.

[Amber]

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+.

[Tree]

Well my 'personal view' is that my dd has achieved a lot more has been encouraged a lot more supported a lot more and is involved and cared about her peers a lot more and had by far the better more inspiring teachers at her comprehensive than my ds at his grammar. There is no comparison in my view the comprehensive is just a better school.

It is better because it is a comprehensive, kids who started out in bottom sets have risen to the top as they develop, difficult disruptive kids are supported not only by the staff but by their peers. The only thing that is missing is 10 or 15% more of the smartest kids (like my DD) who are presumably at grammars or private schools that would round off the academic strata and provide more challenge and stimulus for the top teir that already exists at the school.

It's a no brainer in my view that we really don't need more grammars we need to integrate the existing grammars and uppers more to work towards all comprehensives which if they have the mass power of the parents of the grammar school children who care about their childrens education (ie most people on this site) working to make them succeed they would have the potential to become amazing inculsive schools achieving the best for all their pupils, this would have the result of attracting more and more private school parents to send their kids to these schools creating a positive feedback loop of greatness and we would extract the maximum as a country from our most valuable resource - our youth.

Merry Christmas to you all.

[neveragain*]

As someone who works therapeutically with children, often those who are disenfranchised, I find so much of what has been said on this thread upsetting and appalling.

I have yet to meet a child who behaves badly, systematically, for any reasons other than to get something that they really need, albeit in not the most effect it manner. I've also rarely met parents who at heart don't want a better life for their children than they had, even if it takes a while to find that out.....

[JSN]

Well my 'personal view' is that my dd has achieved a lot more has been encouraged a lot more supported a lot more and is involved and cared about her peers a lot more and had by far the better more inspiring teachers at her comprehensive than my ds at his grammar. There is no comparison in my view the comprehensive is just a better school.

It is better because it is a comprehensive, kids who started out in bottom sets have risen to the top as they develop, difficult disruptive kids are supported not only by the staff but by their peers. The only thing that is missing is 10 or 15% more of the smartest kids (like my DD) who are presumably at grammars or private schools that would round off the academic strata and provide more challenge and stimulus for the top teir that already exists at the school.

It's a no brainer in my view that we really don't need more grammars we need to integrate the existing grammars and uppers more to work towards all comprehensives which if they have the mass power of the parents of the grammar school children who care about their childrens education (ie most people on this site) working to make them succeed they would have the potential to become amazing inculsive schools achieving the best for all their pupils, this would have the result of attracting more and more private school parents to send their kids to these schools creating a positive feedback loop of greatness and we would extract the maximum as a country from our most valuable resource - our youth.

Merry Christmas to you all.

the most sensible post I have heard on this matter, could not of put it better myself

Thank You