[Closed] Grammar Schools, again.....

Right lunch break. Read 1/2 the first page. No one seemed to mention that it goes further than the poor kids just not getting in. The evidence is pretty clear that most ( those not at the grammar) do worse when at schools with a grammar in the area than they would in a non grammar area. The few ( those at the grammar) do a bit better than they would in a Comp.
Clearly they make social mobility worse for the vast majority but do make things better for a few.

Indeed. But this is where theory and reality part company. The problem is that its sharp elbowed, vocal and literate middle classes (like the whiney cockbags on here ) that apply the pressure to education authorities/heads that drive up standards and keep them high. Once those people have opted out, either though going private, or through selection, they have little interest in the standards of 'the rest'.

Many a true word spoken in jest (again)

At the end of the day, the biggest determinant of a child's educational success is their parents. The rest is just noise. Hence kids can and do excel in different environments.

Back to work now, this is too much of a distraction! 😀

How do you get past the paywall?

........... guess 😉 (actually my institute pays)

the FT analysis shows that there is a very marginal gain for rich children in counties with grammar schools

and a much larger decrease in attainment for the poorer kids

Out of interest, do you give the stradivarius to the kid who can play the violin well or to anyone chosen at random?

The kid who plays the violin well has probably been having lessons.
The kid who's talent is revealed late should also get a chance.

Are grammar schools better funded? Seems unlikely with things like the pupil premium giving schools added finances to deal with those at the bottom of the curve.

The grammar that I went to used to bolster their funds with termly donations from parents, so potentially.

At the end of the day, the biggest determinant of a child's educational success is their parents

What if they have no parents?

I don't think you can view this policy in isolation. Grammar schools are proved to lessen social mobility. Alan Millburns latest big investigation into social mobility concluded this, as well as many other studies.

We have a new prime minister who has said she wants to increase social mobility. She made it the centrepiece of her agenda. But as with all politicians, don't listen to what they say, watch what the do.

And her first policy is to reinstate a policy that its well known is socially divisive, and advantages the better off. So I think its safe to assume the direction of travel of our 'new' government. And its to creating further inequality, and widen the already substantial divide between the haves and have nots.

The only surprise is that anyone would be surprised

The grammar my eldest went to was in effect a private school paid for by the public purse, had no problem with raising £1m in parental donations (c2000) including 2 x individual donations of £50k because a lot of the parents saw the school as saving them from going private. No way a sec mod school could match that level of donations.

Some hugely sweeping statements on here and some pretty obvious chips on shoulders to boot!

Isn't it amazing how, when someone wants to do something positive for a change, that some people look for every opportunity to decry it! I thank that if new Grammar schools are targeted in poor areas, then the benefits to the poorer families children will be there for the taking. Okay, some people might try and take advantage, but that is for the powers that be to ensure they put forward a test that doesn't allow tutored pupils to win against brighter untutored pupils. It can't be THAT difficult.

FWIW I never went to a GS and failed dismally at school, so I have no agenda.

Its obvious the government dont give a crap about social mobility

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37250916 ]This year the proportion of students entering Oxford from State Schools is the highest for at least 40 years.[/url]

Why the Tories have chosen to push this forward despite having no manifesto commitment to it (rather the opposite, in fact) and thus no voter mandate to do it is a sign of how little they value parents input.

It's ideological, not for the good of children.

The answer is obvious, if grammar schools are better, then make all schools grammar schools.

[s]Grammar[/s] [b]poor schools[/b] are proved to lessen social mobility.

FIFY

the arguments around grammar schools are noise, the numbers are small, they aren't going to be 1000's, unless we are going to say that we are going to have a monolithic single way of being educated some variation allows for local parental choice

the other realty is that the money follows the poorer pupils, who by all accounts are going to the non selective sector. The question is why with all these extra resources following poorer pupils social mobility isn't being achieved (or has the impact of the extra money not had time to hit the stats?)

And her first policy is to reinstate a policy that its well known is socially divisive, and advantages the better off. So I think its safe to assume the direction of travel of our 'new' government. And its to creating further inequality, and widen the already substantial divide between the haves and have nots

Rockape63 - I don't think many people are arguing against the principle of it. But like a lot of principles it doesn't work in practice. It has been proved over and over and over.

This is being driven purely by ideology, not results, or reality. If this were targeted at poorer areas to raise the educational standards of the disadvantaged then who would argue with that

But if the government were serious about doing that then it wouldn't be falling back on a system that has been discredited, as it achieves anything but that. It entrenches divisions at the age of 11, and hands a huge advantage to a minority. A minority that will be disproportionately inclined to vote Tory, I'd imagine

So its not really that cynical to assume that this is being driven by pandering to their core vote, who are the ones we all know will end up benefitting from this. Not kids on council estates.

When you've given it the big one about increasing social mobility, this is a deeply cynical move

It entrenches divisions at the age of 11, and hands a huge advantage to a minority. A minority that will be disproportionately inclined to vote Tory, I'd imagine

That's all well and good, but can't hide the fact that there are winners and losers in all walks of life, whether they've been well educated or not. I think TM wants to ensure she is putting her money where her mouth is and making an effort to help bright kids in poor areas. Sure its no help to the dim ones like me, we have to do something different to pull ourselves up the social scale.

As for the voting Tory bit....please!

The sooner we give trades the same level of reverence, the better.

I think TM wants to ensure she is putting her money where her mouth is and making an effort to help bright kids in poor areas

By instigating a policy that has proved repeatedly to help middle class kids at the expense of kids (bright or otherwise) in poor areas?

Its certainly an interesting way of going about it. She'd never get into a grammar school herself showing that kind of aptitude.

As for the voting Tory bit....please!

I reckon its a pretty safe bet that the people standing to benefit from new grammar schools won't be rushing out to vote for Corbyn. Mind you... who would?

I think thats a major factor here. She's throwing red meat to her own core voters while she's not got any opposition worthy of the name. Grammar schools are up there with leaving the EU when it comes to Tory MP's getting themselves worked up into an orgasmic frenzy. Why do you think that is? Because they'll help benefit kids on council estates and create a more level educational playing field?

This is being driven purely by ideology, not results, or reality.

No, this is what drives the news flow and the false narrative that surrounds it.

Politicians are pragmatists not idealists (and they largely react to events rather than lead them.) Even Fatcha was a pragmatist - her ideology was largely a myth and she abandoned much of it - eg, pure monetarism, monetary targetting etc. Ditto Austerity George who quietly abandoned austerity, helping the UK economy to recover as a result.

But still the myths of Thatcherism and Austerity live on - mainly from critics of the Tories as they are easy labels despite being false ones.

The sooner we give trades the same level of reverence, the better.

Agreed (largely)

[i]Politicians are pragmatists not idealists[/i]
[i]
In 2011 the former Tory leadership candidate Michael Portillo admitted that Cameron and the Tories had lied to the public about their intentions towards the NHS: "They did not believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do because people are so wedded to the NHS."[/i]

No ideology there. Nope, none at all.

Grammar schools are up there with leaving the EU when it comes to Tory MP's getting themselves worked up into an orgasmic frenzy. Why do you think that is? Because they'll help benefit kids on council estates and create a more level educational playing field?

Funny, I thought the Cabinet was largely split on the whole thing? Despite what you think (I'm sure there are a small minority or self serving Tory MP's) genuine Torys want to see everyone in our country given the chance to do well...they just don't like the types who can't be bothered too much. I think Grammar Schools in poor areas will give some that chance.

As for not being aimed at benefitting core Tory voters, Its simply more of [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/26/george-osborne-didnt-want-to-build-houses-that-produce-labour-voters-claims-nick-clegg_n_9324920.html ]this mindset[/url]

[i]Politicians are pragmatists not idealists

In 2011 the former Tory leadership candidate Michael Portillo admitted that Cameron and the Tories had lied to the public about their intentions towards the NHS: "They did not believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do because people are so wedded to the NHS."[/i]

No ideology there. Nope, none at all.

I think you'll find Portillo didn't admit any such thing....you've even quoted what he said FFS! He explained that like every political party talking about what they are going to do and not going to do, they didn't explain any details. Pretty much par for the course I'd suggest!

And...I'm not defending it, as ALL polititions dodge questions and fudge answers continually, which is one of the reasons they are so unpopular.

we didn't have a car all the same colour until about 1995

Always handy as it leads to conflicting eyewitness reports

I think some people on this thread have a strange idea what constitutes middle-class in this day and age. Paying for tutoring for your kids because the primary education system in this country has failed them in one way or another does not make you middle-class.

Some good points on this thread, from both sides of the fence.

As for not being aimed at benefitting core Tory voters, Its simply more of this mindset

Quite probably true, but almost certainly brought about by the abolishment by Blair/Brown of our borders, to allow a few more million labour voters into the country. (apparantly!)

binners - Member
On the third hand, if there wasn't a really good school nearby I'd probably consider private schools.
A lot of comfortable middle class families move to areas with Grammars, and pay for additional tutoring for their offspring to pass the 11+. This then saves them money on school fees for a similarly advantageous education for Tabitha and George, so they can then spend the saved cash on Range Rovers and private number plates.

People on council estates can't afford private tutors.

That pretty much sums up the problem with the system, as the stats back up. They just become colonised by the middle classes and further entrench social division in the same way private schools do

Since the Gurhkas arrived and who's parents are not in any strong position to tutor their kids, you won't believe the high number of their kids in Grammar school, but then they have a different attitude to education than our own and round here the equivalent of council houses are Military other ranks housing.

If they open any more Grammar schools I'm willing to bet there will be more 2nd generation immigrants kids from the more eastern regions in them than there will be from benefit streets or council estates peopled by the entitled indigenous species.

I think you're probably right there rosscore.

Which raises another interesting question. The lowest achievers educationally are poor white families (the much maligned 'underclass'). Its what we do about them. Because the answer to that particular issue certainly isn't more grammar schools. That'll just make the situation worse

But as all (relevant - sorry Jeremy) politicians now recognise - the electorate are in no mood to keep on with an open-ended commitment to paying benefits to people who are unemployable due to low educational standards So they're going to have to do something

Roscore - In line with what you say above, I have great sympathy with lack of educational access based on wealth, for hard working aspirational families. My sympathy for the Jeremy Kyle watching, celebrity infatuated, self entitled class get a lot less.

Do we actually know what the proposed policy is now?

So far all I've seen is a report on a photo somebody took of a document somebody walking onto 10 DS had.

My sympathy for the Jeremy Kyle watching, celebrity infatuated, self entitled class get a lot less.

A lot of comfortable middle class families move to areas with Grammars, and pay for additional tutoring for their offspring to pass the 11+.

Which works up until many of said children end up in the secondary modern because they are unable to pass the test. Mrs T saw the danger of alienating her core vote with the re-introduction and kept well away.

As has been said above the middle classes would be better served ensuring that all schools were good schools.

Which raises another interesting question. The lowest achievers educationally are poor white families (the much maligned 'underclass'). Its what we do about them. Because the answer to that particular issue certainly isn't more grammar schools. That'll just make the situation worse

Ahh, but is more grammar schools hurting their chances, or just making everyone else better? Or conversely, if there were no grammar schools would the high achievers achieve less? The latter also improves social mobility because if you make the top tier worse by default some will overtake them, but that clearly isn't fair?

But as all (relevant - sorry Jeremy) politicians now recognise - the electorate are in no mood to keep on with an open-ended commitment to paying benefits to people who are unemployable due to low educational standards So they're going to have to do something

As someone currently on JSA, I have no ****in idea where this comes form, if anyone could explain to me ho to get more than £73/week out of the system that would be great, thanks.

As has been said above the middle classes would be better served ensuring that all schools were good schools.

How? Given that schools are funded based on the kids in them (poorer kids = more funding, with exception of the small minority of private schools where parents are expected to contribute), the only difference is the kids themselves and their parents.

[i]ensuring that all schools were good schools. [/i]

This, if people thought that their children would get a good education at the local secondary all of these issues woudl disappear.

Anything that perpetuates the idea (and actuality) that parents have to fight to get their children into a 'good' school highlights the failure of governments of all parties to make all schools 'good'.

there was lots of talk ont he radio earlier of coaching lower income kids, paying for private tutoring etc to get them through an 11+. Why not just put the same resources into their education without opening a grammar school they have to attend of they want to succeed?

Wwaswas,

How though?

I don't think anyone gets into politics or becomes a head teacher and thinks "these kids parents are poor, better give them a 2nd rate education".

Grammar schools apparently work for the above average. What would you propose would turn the other 75% round?

Del - Its a tough one, but at the end of it all, parents need to be invested in their childrens future. I want my kids to go to a school where the parents give a damn about what happens there, and avoid as many as possible that don't.

[b]binners dantsw13[/b], so what can we do to help them? If their upbringing is being sat infront of the plasma tv to while away the day, watching the likes of the kardashians or<insert current reality sleb phenomenom> then that inevitably will be their aspiration.

I think we have to face the fact there is always going to be an underclass badly brought up by it's parents and without a forced route to an alternative (prison/reformschool/national service) which makes me sound like some right wing a-hole, I'm actually not, but do despair at the UK syndrome, poor immigrants are not like it. What do we have to do?

What would you propose would turn the other 75% round?

I want my kids to go to a school where the parents give a damn about what happens there, and avoid as many as possible that don't.

Skimmed some of the above, but wanted to address this:

Its obvious the government dont give a crap about social mobility

This year the proportion of students entering Oxford from State Schools is the highest for at least 40 years.

1. 40% of OxBridge places went to state-educated kids. But 95% of kids are state-educated. Hardly a shining beacon of equality. (Number from memory, but about right.)
2. This year's uni entrants were the last ones to [i]not[/i] do the Tory government's reformed A levels, instead sitting the Curriculum 2000 A levels introduced by Labour. They started secondary when Labour were in power, so got most of their education under a Labour government's system.

The grammars in my area (Skipton) have a bizarre entrance policy - they deliberately limit and fix the proportion of kids from the actual catchment who can attend, and base offers to kids from further away on the mark achieved by the last local pupil above the cut off.

So rather than offer education (or at least choice) to more local kids, even if they achieve a respectable mark, they tart out the places to families up to 40/50 miles away. Kids from Ripon and the other side of Bradford end up getting places.

Backfired badly in the year my son took the test, as the local comp had been put in special measures and the tutor arms race went nuclear as a result. Average scores from Skipton kids in the test were so high they couldn't find enough qualifying out of area candidates to fill the remaining places and ended up short of numbers.

My lad made it by one mark...

Also, can we delete the posts of anyone spelling it grammer? Unless they were educated in a grammar.

Also, can we delete the posts of anyone spelling it grammer?

Elitism!

[img] [/img]

Surely Grammar schools are just an extension of setting? Competitive sport? At what point do we accept that life is a competition? One of the reasons I work hard is to give my family options and opportunities. I do believe in opportunities for all, but my main priority is my kids.

I do despair at the underclass we are creating in this country, but at the moment, whatever system a lot of kids end up in they show no interest towards.

Elitism!

I went to a shit primary school, a shit secondary school, and Durham University. It's not elitism, it's standards 🙂

Surely Grammar schools are just an extension of setting?

Except, most schools that stream pupils for ability don't fix the groups at age 10 based on a nonsensical intelligence test, then leave them languishing there even if they show the capacity to improve later in childhood.