[Closed] "New" Grammar Schools... Thoughts?

The rules are clearly being bent over o get this through.

I don't personally have a problem with selection provided the option to be selected is open beyond age 11, to support any late bloomers. I believe - on purely anecdotal evidence - selection combined with bursaries as it used to work offered more chance of social mobility than the current system.

Various people will be along shortly to shout me down.

I don't personally have a problem with selection provided the option to be selected is open beyond age 11, to support any late bloomers. I believe - on purely anecdotal evidence - selection combined with bursaries as it used to work offered more chance of social mobility than the current system.

My instinct tells me that you are right on this.

You can't have Grammar schools without Secondary Modern Schools. You can call them comps if you like, but if you have schools based on selection, then you have schools for those who aren't selected. Lots of people say they want to bring back Grammar Schools, very few of them say they want to bring back Secondary Moderns, but its the logical outcome of their desire.

I went to one - it worked for me. I guess that's the problem! It's fair to say the kids I went to school with came from the full socio economic range, but there was definitely more middle class kids there than the general population of the area. It was also a really tough environment academically - keep up or die on your arse was the general mentality.

Those that 'miss out'; those that get in because they were coached half to death; the late developers that would have benefited from the academic heavy atmosphere but did not show the ability early enough. It's a minefield.

I'm into the concept of smallish secondary schools where every teacher knows every student. Small schools can't be good at everything which makes the grammar school concept a good way to specialise in academia in a smaller school (with other schools specialising in learning support, vocational learning etc - secondary moderns in old money).

On balance I'd probably come down in favour but only if the other schools in the catchment were equally good but at developing other talents and I don't think that kind of utopia will every exist. Sadly.

my eldest goes to a state selective Grammar school.. she worked her backside off to get in.. we re not middle class .. we live in rochdale im a plumber and the mrs works for tesco.. dd1 wanted to go so she would be rid of the kids in her class who shouted swore and threw things at teachers.. dd2 is equally keen to get in.. shes 10 year 5.. this term they have been learning!!! three and four times tables.. only 4 in her class can do 30 questions on 3 times table in less than 5 minutes..

if able and enthusiastic kids are in another enviroment it gives those more challenging kids more one to one time with teachers.. win win all round.

if you have schools based on selection, then you have schools for those who aren't selected

If you have jobs based on selection, then you have jobs for those who aren't selected.

What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability?

Evidence is pretty clear on balance Grammar schhols are not helpful.

I went to both and don't understand why grammar school results are so, so poor.

For those that still exist, they must surely be letting down the brightest and best of each generation...?

What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability?

middle class parents dont like their kids mixing with kids from council estates

Just out of interest have you got any links to that effect AA? i'm undecided at the mo.

Probably help a lot that Michael Fallon is the Sevenoaks MP.

I went to both and don't understand why grammar school results are so, so poor.
For those that still exist, they must surely be letting down the brightest and best of each generation...?

Just checked the GCSE results of the one I went to (all boys, girls school down the road, mixed 6th form)

At least 5 A*-C grades - not dropped below 99.6% in the last 5 years.
Percentage of grades that were A* or A - not dropped below 80% in the last 5 years.

They seem to be doing OK by their charges on that score at least.

Also sent a minimum of 6 students (Max 10) to Oxbridge each year too out of a year group circa 115- again, if you value those things.

I went to a Grammar School in an area about as deprived as you get with a majority of bright kids who most definitely weren't "middle class"

I now live in a town with a comprehensive school that will have a far higher proportion of middle class by virtue of the town it serves

but don't let that spoil your class war diatribe

let's be honest, they'll be dominated by kids whose parents can A) afford the coaching, and B) afford to buy a house in the catchment.

in summary, they'll be schools for the rich, paid for by the public.

There'll be the occasional pop-n-crisps kid who's held up as an example of social mobility.

mind you, this isn't hugely different from the current system, otherwise school league tables wouldn't affect house prices.

At least 5 A*-C grades - not dropped below 99.6% in the last 5 years.
Percentage of grades that were A* or A - not dropped below 80% in the last 5 years.

There are so many ways in which those statistics can be manipulated that it renders them basically useless.

Evidence is pretty clear on balance Grammar schhols are not helpful.

obvious there is no effect in the evidence of the small numbers which are geographically isolated creating catchment bias

my old school had the advantage of being in an area which was a dump and for the most part still is.

There are so many ways in which those statistics can be manipulated that it renders them basically useless.

I'm a teacher - there is some sucking of eggs in that statement 😉

let's be honest, they'll be dominated by kids whose parents can A) afford the coaching, and B) afford to buy a house in the catchment.

you can buy a house in this catchment

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-51327137.html

and a semi for the larger family
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54362558.html

I'm a teacher - there is some sucking of eggs in that statement

Well in that case you should've know better than to present such obviously dodgy statistics 😉

Just checked the GCSE results of the one I went to (all boys, girls school down the road, mixed 6th form)
At least 5 A*-C grades - not dropped below 99.6% in the last 5 years.
Percentage of grades that were A* or A - not dropped below 80% in the last 5 years.
They seem to be doing OK by their charges on that score at least.
Also sent a minimum of 6 students (Max 10) to Oxbridge each year too out of a year group circa 115- again, if you value those things.

As I said, so very disappointing...

You can't compare 1 No. grammar school to 1 No. comprehensive...

You have to compare the grammar school against the entire area / region that it creams off the best kids from.
I went to a grammar in Plymouth, one of the few authorities that have maintained grammar schools. DHSB always used to get the best results in the West Country, and pretty much still does.

BUT, they are getting the best results by taking the best 5-10% of pupils from the entire city of Plymouth (and beyond).
Do those pupils get higher or lower grades than they would have achieved anyway, irrespective of educational establishment?

The remaining schools fall somewhat short of DHSB, but they do so without the top decile of pupils. DHSB takes the very best and provides them with good to excellent grades. The remaining schools take the poor - average - good students and turns them out with poor, average or good grades...

The proof? At sixth form (where I transferred to DHSB) a significant proportion of the DHSB intake is from "those other schools", whose students have achieved excellent GCSE grades. A proportion of the "brightest and best" DHSB 11+ intake are "let go", their grades not good enough to get in to their own sixth form - i.e. let down. The brightest students NOT GETTING the best grades that they personally might have been capable of.

gwaelod - Member

What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability?

middle class parents dont like their kids mixing with kids from council estates

POSTED 10 MINUTES AGO #

That's precisely what the current system promotes.

Selection based on the parents mortgage , not the child's ability.

you can buy a house in this catchment

I think you'll find the type of folk who want to get their offspring into these type of schools, have very uncompromising standards when it comes to housing and who the neighbours are.

Its class war innit.

let's be honest, they'll be dominated by kids whose parents can A) afford the coaching, and B) afford to buy a house in the catchment.

in summary, they'll be schools for the rich, paid for by the public.

There'll be the occasional pop-n-crisps kid who's held up as an example of social mobility.

This.

A [s]grammar[/s] glimmer of light......

The proof? At sixth form (where I transferred to DHSB) a significant proportion of the DHSB intake is from "those other schools", whose students have achieved excellent GCSE grades. A proportion of the "brightest and best" DHSB 11+ intake are "let go", their grades not good enough to get in to their own sixth form - i.e. let down. The brightest students NOT GETTING the best grades that they personally might have been capable of.

I see that as actually quite encouraging. As I said in my first post some folks flourish later. One of the (huge) disadvantages of the 11+ testing is kids getting locked out of the grammar system because they were unable to prove their academic credentials at such a young age. To hear stories of those that missed out first time around getting a second chance at A level is really positive. That those that have not taken full advantage of their place academically don't necessarily get to keep their place because of some test sat 5 years previously is also no bad thing. Has the school failed them - maybe, hard to tell without knowing the individual stories.

When I finished the 5th year (yr11) not all those in my year stayed - some went off to 6th form college. I don't recalled them being booted out - it was more that they had made the decision that the very academically orientated (and quite limited) 6th form curriculum would not suit their future ambitions.

That's precisely what the current system promotes.

Selection based on the parents mortgage , not the child's ability.

I went to the only secondary school in town. Selection was purely on ability.

I see that as actually quite encouraging. As I said in my first post some folks flourish later. One of the (huge) disadvantages of the 11+ testing is kids getting locked out of the grammar system because they were unable to prove their academic credentials at such a young age. To hear stories of those that missed out first time around getting a second chance at A level is really positive. That those that have not taken full advantage of their place academically don't necessarily get to keep their place because of some test sat 5 years previously is also no bad thing. Has the school failed them - maybe, hard to tell without knowing the individual stories.

Yes, that is encouraging for those that don't get in at 11, but it is also telling about those that do...

When I joined the sixth form (too long ago to be directly relevant, but the concept, and stats? still apply), DHSB were taking 11 year olds with 120-140+ IQs. Half a dozen or so were getting 9 As at GCE level. BUT, the bulk were getting the same 7-8 A-C grades that the top set from my comp were getting.

The difference, the brightest at my comp were probably IQ 100-110 or so. Rather than being the failing comp vs the shiny grammar, our top set were arguably out-performing (or at least squalling) much brighter pupils that went through the grammar system.

So my central question remains, if the grammars are taking the very, very best, why aren't they getting even better grades than they are?

Just out of interest have you got any links to that effect AA? i'm undecided at the mo.

No. Lady of radio 4 this am said data shows grammar school kids do a bit better than similar kids at comps but kids not at grammar schools in areas that have them do wirse and theres more of them.
Also middle class kids with same ks2 sats scores as working class kids do better in the 11 plus and are more likely to get in the grammar school so they dont help social mobility either.

Grammar schools are great my son went to one in Kent .Wish they were around when I was at school as I would not have had to mix with the CSE taking morons and bullies

To hear stories of those that missed out first time around getting a second chance at A level is really positive. That those that have not taken full advantage of their place academically don't necessarily get to keep their place because of some test sat 5 years previously is also no bad thing. Has the school failed them - maybe, hard to tell without knowing the individual stories.

and there's the rub, there would have been no second chance in a secondary modern.

Every education model is a compromise and in every system some will win and some will lose. A lot of this is down to your philosophy and what you want from an education system. Do you want to push the high level kids higher and accept that some of the low level kids may get left behind? Or do you push the lower kids up and accept that the high kids may no reach their potential due to lack of support?

Grammar schools are clearly aimed at the former.

Grammar schools are clearly aimed at the former.

So is streaming kids within the same school.

that have them do wirse and theres more of them.

Molesworth lives KO!!

So is streaming kids within the same school.

Some would say this is a bad thing as it stops the mobility as kids develop at different speeds. Other would say this is good as it means the higher level kids can concentrate on pushing on without disruptive influences.

Given that parents are the main determinant of kids performance, perhaps that is where the education needs to start?

Correct, but grammar schools take it a step further by taking the higher level kids away from the lower level kids and throwing the kitchen sink at them. You're also removing the ability to move between being higher and lower.
Some would say this is a bad thing as it stops the mobility as kids develop at different speeds. Other would say this is good as it means the higher level kids can concentrate on pushing on without disruptive influences.

I'd say there is a little more to it than that.

By collecting together enough 'bright' kid it makes it financially viable to run say a Latin GCSE class which 'might' be a great thing for academically ambitious kids. To gather enough of the right sort of children together that might benefit/enjoy Latin you would have to have one of those huge comprehensives. I'm personally against the 2000+ pupil mega schools which might be the other way to make the logistics work whilst others disagree.

To mind this latest wheeze, of sneaking the odd new one in here and there as an "annex" of an existing one is the worst of both worlds - if there's going to be grammar schools, there should be sufficient to accommodate all the kids who would benefit / qualify for one, or there should be none.

The situation now, with a few, but not many around the place means the lucky few get the benefit, and a larger number of kids who are there or there abouts don't. Maybe I shouldn't care, my lad got into the massively, massively oversubscribed one, and his classmate, of very, very similar ability and aptitude didn't quite make the cut, so "I'm all right Jack", but it does seem mighty unfair.

What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability?

Not the same thing, a couple of factors at play here.

Let's think about facilities. My lad's mate is at the local academy now, previously "high school", previously "comprehensive", previously, as it happens, "grammar school". They've got a sports hall, they've got a library, they've got science labs and IT suites. They've also got a construction bit, where the kids who aren't going to go to university can learn how to lay bricks etc. The grammar school my lad is at serves a narrower client group, so they have no need for the brick laying stuff. All other things being equal, that is more £ they can spend on science labs, IT suites etc etc.

Let's think about talented, motivated teachers. I'm all for sweeping generalisations, but I realise this isn't a universal, there are plenty of talented, motivated teachers who are driven by a social conscience, are committed to giving their best to most disadvantaged etc. BUT whichever way you cut it, selective grammar schools who can offer teachers the opportunity to be teaching exclusively to kids above a certain 'level' and those who are capable of engaging and learning, have their pick of very able, talented teaching staff wanting to work there.

middle class parents dont like their kids mixing with kids from council estates
...Selection based on the parents mortgage , not the child's ability.

...you can buy a house in this catchment

...I think you'll find the type of folk who want to get their offspring into these type of schools, have very uncompromising standards when it comes to housing and who the neighbours are.

...let's be honest, they'll be dominated by kids whose parents can A) afford the coaching, and B) afford to buy a house in the catchment.
in summary, they'll be schools for the rich, paid for by the public.

...There'll be the occasional pop-n-crisps kid who's held up as an example of social mobility.

In my, admittedly limited, experience this is pretty much cobblers. The grammar school my lad goes to is in a far from affluent part of town. Those who want to play catchment monopoly can, and do - there's lots of affordable cheap rental housing around - I know one family who moved there specifically for catchment reasons (then their kid didn't make the grade on the exam, oops), but it's not at all common or typical. The family in question are very, very much not "rich" or even "affluent", in fact I reckon most on here would consider them "poor" and woudn't envy them their back-to-back terrace, even if it is located very close to a very high performing school.

There are some posh / rich kids. There are plenty of not posh / not rich kids. There are lots of white kids and lots of kids of asian heritage. Pretty much the panoply of the area's population you'd expect at any school round here are at my lad's school.

The group of kids you don't see though, are the the disruptive, the violent, the unable to conform to the standards of behaviour that should be expected in a school ones. If those kids are disproportionately from one socio-economic strata of our society rather than another, then blaming the school for being for "rich kids" is confusing correlation with cause. (You also don't get, and this is an advantage over many fee paying private schools, the thick-but-rich ones...)

Yes, there's coaching being bought, but the schools (or at least the one I know) aren't stupid, and our one has put a lot of time, effort and money into working with academics to design their tests in order to test for [b]aptitude[/b] (which you can't really buy) rather than the kind of knowledge / technique stuff that you can buy.

Just to know that nothing is new, here's an excerpt from the Yes Prime Minister episode "The National Education Service" (broadcast in 1988).

Bernard Woolley (BW): "That paper the Party Chairman had suggests the comprehensive system is breaking down."

Sir Humphrey Appleby (HA): "Bernard, I never thought to hear such language from a loyal member of the Civil Service!"

BW "Comprehensive education ought to be validated."

HA "Of course, but not invalidated."

BW "But if it was introduced to improve standards..."

HA "Whatever gave you that idea?"

BW "You mean it was to get rid of class distinction?"

HA "Precisely!"

BW "So that all children..."

HA "Children? Who mentioned children?"

BW "I just..."

HA "The Department of Education never mentions children! No, no, no, no, Bernard. It was to get rid of class distinction in the teaching profession. Improve the living standard of teachers, not the educational standards of children. Bring the NUT teachers up to the salary level of their rivals in the National Association of Schoolmasters in the grammar schools."

BW "But the..."

HA "When there is a Labour government, the Education Department says
comprehensives abolish the class system. When there's a Tory government, they say it's the cheapest way to provide mass education.

To Labour, we explain that selective education is divisive and to the Tories we explain that it is expensive.

That way, we have a happy relationship with the NUT and we educate our own children privately."

To mind this latest wheeze, of sneaking the odd new one in here and there as an "annex" of an existing one is the worst of both worlds

Yes bloody awful fudge - why cant Morgan be open about it? Nothing to be ashamed of......

But Mrs Morgan said this was a "genuine expansion" of an existing school - describing it as "one school, two sites" - and it "does not reflect a change in this government's position on selective schools".

No really...

Not the same thing, a couple of factors at play here.

Let's think about facilities. My lad's mate is at the local academy now, previously "high school", previously "comprehensive", previously, as it happens, "grammar school". They've got a sports hall, they've got a library, they've got science labs and IT suites. They've also got a construction bit, where the kids who aren't going to go to university can learn how to lay bricks etc. The grammar school my lad is at serves a narrower client group, so they have no need for the brick laying stuff. All other things being equal, that is more £ they can spend on science labs, IT suites etc etc.

Disadvantaged kids (who are less likely to do well academically) attract a pupil premium, thus increasing the total funding available. So the bricklaying you're talking about doesn't necessarily reduce funding for science labs.

Let's think about talented, motivated teachers. I'm all for sweeping generalisations, but I realise this isn't a universal, there are plenty of talented, motivated teachers who are driven by a social conscience, are committed to giving their best to most disadvantaged etc. BUT whichever way you cut it, selective grammar schools who can offer teachers the opportunity to be teaching exclusively to kids above a certain 'level' and those who are capable of engaging and learning, have their pick of very able, talented teaching staff wanting to work there.

my kids grammar school has a very narrow elitist catchment area denying many the opportunity to attend the place.. thankfully Rochdale is included in the united kingdom and thus within the catchment.. just.

when i drop dd1 off in my van there are a lot of yummy mummies in mercs and blacked out range rovers but its balanced up by taxi drivers plumbers vans etc.

at the high school she would have had to go to the population is 100% white british/irish/polish heritage at her grammar half are british muslims and a liberal mix of chinese and white british and other europeans and a kid from Bermuda..

they proper make em graft shes upstairs now doing her homewrok but they play hard too she represented the school in 5 different sports last year..

most of the argument against seems to be more class war than classroom based.. have and have nots influence our every decisions every day why not education..

[i]What is wrong with comprehensives, and setting pupils by ability? [/i]

Nothing.

FWIW I was the first year in my area where the Grammar School was been phased out to become a Comprehensive, we stayed at Middle School for two more years. Our Comprehensive was a Grammar School in all but name. But this was the mid-70's, when you still got the cane etc.

We ducked out of it with junior, by paying.

my kids grammar school has a very narrow elitist catchment area denying many the opportunity to attend the place.. thankfully Rochdale is included in the united kingdom and thus within the catchment.. just.

when i drop dd1 off in my van there are a lot of yummy mummies in mercs and blacked out range rovers but its balanced up by taxi drivers plumbers vans etc.

at the high school she would have had to go to the population is 100% white british/irish/polish heritage at her grammar half are british muslims and a liberal mix of chinese and white british and other europeans and a kid from Bermuda..

they proper make em graft shes upstairs now doing her homewrok but they play hard too she represented the school in 5 different sports last year..

most of the argument against seems to be more class war than classroom based.. have and have nots influence our every decisions every day why not education..

I'm glad it's working for you and your kid - as I said, it worked for me too.

My worry is the child that is just as well behaved and just as deserving of a good education as your daughter but just not as bright. As long as the kid up the street from you who matches this description is also really satisfied with the school experience they are receiving at the alternative to the grammar your daughter goes to then happy days all around.

Just heard on R4:

'Kids on free school meals are half as likely to get into a grammar school as their classmates'

This isn't cool.

I'd be happier to hear about more grammar schools if it was wrapped up in a package to help ALL children, rather than just an opportunity to ditch the poor kids.

Grammar schools do help the poor. There are many reasons why poor kids are (and indeed not so poor kids) are, unfortunately, more likely to be disadvantaged than others other than schooling - try looking at the parents for one of many reasons. Unfortunately some kids don't stand a chance from the second they are conceived. Schools can't be blamed for all the problems kids face or be expected to fix them.

Grammar schools do help the poor

All the evidence points to this not being correct.
The point about good teachers concentrating in schools with better off parents and thus grammar schools is also true.

I refer to my point on the last page. Kids who perform highly in ks2 sats are more likely to pass their 11 plus and get in a grammar school if they are from better off families as thise families can pay for tuition

'Kids on free school meals are half as likely to get into a grammar school as their classmates'

This isn't cool.

I'd be happier to hear about more grammar schools if it was wrapped up in a package to help ALL children, rather than just an opportunity to ditch the poor kids.

I refer you to my point earlier about confusing causation and correlation. Grammar schools don't reject kids because they are poor.

That there is already enough of a correlation between relative poverty and poorer educational attainment by the age of 11 to make that statistic be true (and I'm not disputing it) doesn't immediately suggest that arrangements for secondary education are where we should be focussing if we're concerned with equality of opportunity.

Edlong the point is if you compare kids with like for like educational attainment the rich kids are still more likely to get in a grammar school.

Go here click on the grammar school link and listen to the lady.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z/clips

Correlation, causation, etc. Understood, got it.

If we're able to predict with reasonable accuracy (and we are) the likelyhood of a child not being selected for grammar school, based on their eligibility for free school meals. Then there's something rubbish going on. I want to hear about efforts to fix that. What are we getting? More Grammar schools, that'll help. Oh no, wait, the other one.

It seems to me a bit like private health care: ditch the tricky stuff - placing further strain on the NHS, with no plan or provision to help pick up the pieces.

The point about good teachers concentrating in schools with better off parents and thus grammar schools is also true.

Err, I think I might be the one who's come closest to making a point that sounds a little bit like that one, but I'd suggest it's the kids, nbot he rich parents that are the attraction to the teachers? That causality / correlation thing yet again...

It's an easy argument for those who want to turn it into class warfare but it doesn't stand up. Selective education is great for those who are doing well up to and at the point of selection. Some of you who are (correctly) pointing out that there is a correlation between relative affluence / poverty and who those kids are, are then making a very fallacious leap of logic to blame that selective education (which hasn't started at that point, the selection comes first...) for this correlation.

There are, to the best of my knowledge, no academically selective primaries in the state sector (prepares to be corrected...), and yet this differential in attainment is already starkly apparent at age 11....

apologies a_a - I'm at work with no sound available - I may have to come back to this later when I've caught up...

I'm not blaming selection for the differential in attainment, I'm saying selection doesn't help close that gap. A gap largely predictable from the wealth of the parents.

Grammar schools don't close that gap, surely the whole point is that they further widen it.

Grammar schools don't reject kids because they are poor.

Yes, they absolutely do...

It's another unintentional / indirect bias thing... As per the R4 report today, in areas like Kent where there are still grammar schools, there is a thriving industry in tutoring for the 11+ exam.

Paid for tutoring inevitably leads to a bias towards those families in a position to spend that money on their primary age offspring. Whether middle class families could / should be allowed to invest in their kids future is a different debate, but let's not pretend that it doesn't encourage selection by wealth as well as / instead of selection by ability

The problem with "closing the gap" is that whilst it would be ideal if it was done my pushing the bottom up you also push the top down so stopping some high attained getting as high as they could with more focuses education. Whether this is a problem or if it matters is a very difficult question to answer.

Grammar schools do help the poor.

They also disproportionately help the well off and the middle class even if i accept that as true - and its not really true its just your usual MO of empty political rhetoric

Schools can't be blamed for all the problems kids face or be expected to fix them

I dont have a problem with grammar schools per se
What i have a problem with is that grammar schools make all the other schooling even worse as they attract the best kids, the best teachers and the most resources and this can lead , often unintentionally but almost inevitably, to a very tiered system where those not at grammar school are prepared for little more than life down the pit.

Grammar is only OK if it used as method to improve everyones outcome and not just the most able/most affluent. It almost definitely wont be used for this purpose

the best kids, the best teachers and the most resources

The best kids - I guess, if you define best as most academically able. Despite being significantly smaller in number than the local secondary modern we also turned out sports teams made of physically bigger lads and kicked their arses pretty much every time too.

The best teachers - maybe. Certainly those that get a buzz out of pushing very able kids would gravitate to selective schools. I know I'm a better 'value added' teacher when in front of very able students - not everyone is though. Some are way better than me at teasing out ability from those that struggle. Different challenges in some respects.

The most resources - no, not that. Each child comes with money attached. X number of kids at £Y per student equals £XY no matter how able the kids are. In fact there is extra cash for children with learning difficulties and on the free school meal list so arguably the average expenditure per child would be lower at a selective school, especially if the selective school ended up with fewer low socio economic group students in their ranks. Admittedly they might find it easier to hook up with local business for sponsoring projects and initiatives I guess.

If we're able to predict with reasonable accuracy (and we are) the likelyhood of a child not being selected for grammar school, based on their eligibility for free school meals. Then there's something rubbish going on. I want to hear about efforts to fix that. What are we getting? More Grammar schools, that'll help. Oh no, wait, the other one.

the answer is targeting deprived areas and creating a Grammar school in the catchment

Authorities like Kent distort the stats as the number of kids on free school meals in the County is only 6.5% as compared to Knowsley on 19.2% (dodgy Gov stats c2009)

I'm an ex grammar school pupil and have no experience of comprehensives so I'm not able to give a balanced view.

Oh hold on, it turned comp when I was in the 6th form and instantly turned shit.

Whether middle class families could / should be allowed to invest in their kids future is a different debate

A debate about one of the most important investments any parent can make? What's to debate?

A we going to ban parents from investing in their kids future now?

its not much of an investment.. dd2 will take the exam NEXT october.. she has a weekly tutor @ 25 quid a week ( term time only) she teaches how to take the exam not what 5x6 is.

on top of the 25 quid a week for 40 weeks we buy the bond books at 5.77 each inc. postage she gets through one a month

over a year thats a total of approx £1070 a big lump but at 20 quid a week its more managable to raise it we ve dropped the sports from the sky package, mrs works 4 hours a month overtime at tesco, we swapped the gas and leccy provider and saved 20 quid a month, and i dont go to the football as often.. no great sacrifices but they add up

historically my mum ( now 75) lived in a posh part of town in a big house as a kid. she got into the local grammar, became head girl and got a place at the royal college of Art unfortunately she was unable to take it up as she,her 3 brothers and mum and dad lived in the servants quarters..

The idealist in me believes that all schools should be raised to outstanding.
I went to a comprehensive with sets based on ability and did OK. My kids now go to a local comprehensive and are doing really well. Any caring/involved parent will always pick the best school available in the area for their kids and do what they can to support their kids. That's only natural.
I valued me (and my kids) going to a school with a cross section of society rather than a rarefied semi-elite.
The real problem is that many parents are rubbish and set no expectations and boundaries to their offspring and give them no support or inspiration to value education. Kids in the UK really need to see how kids in India and China value education to see how lucky they are to have a good quality state system.
If I was education secretary I would put extra money into schools to support FSM kids to get to the same standard and expectations as their non free school meal fellow pupils. The gap in attainment is really a national shame.

I valued me (and my kids) going to a school with a cross section of society rather than a rarefied semi-elite.

social elite? in Bacup that's an oxymoron

Grammar Schools in deprived area's create social mobility

but I forget that class war needs the working class to stay working class

me of you who are (correctly) pointing out that there is a correlation between relative affluence / poverty and who those kids are, are then making a very fallacious leap of logic to blame that selective education (which hasn't started at that point, the selection comes first...) for this correlation.

Selective education has a negative correlation with the academic achievement of those who do not take part in it itrespective of prior academic achievement. That seems pretty clear to me. Obviously we can never move betond correlation because we cant do experiments.

Grammar Schools in deprived area's create social mobility

your kid got through but a disproportionate % of the grammar school kids will be middle/upper class
Given the disproportionate number and the disproportionately low % of lower class kids in these schools how have they helped social mobility?

BY all means be pleased your child is mobile
Dont pretend this means the majority of the working class are.

your kid got through but a disproportionate % of the grammar school kids will be middle/upper class

in Kent maybe, at 6.5% on FSM they are hardly representative

in Rossendale.... really?

Yes in rossendale and everywhere else- why do you think your local will be special or different?

Whatever we think of it academic achievement is linked to income and a disproportionate number of children will be middle class / higher socio economic groups at a selective school

Yes even in Rossendale

FWIW you would need to be proving it is skewed towards poorer children for your point to have been correct.

Grammar Schools in deprived area's create social mobility

No the very clearly do not. Look at how large the catchment areas tend to be too. That doesnt help.

Governments can't engineer social mobility and schools cannot deliver it, so a flawed premise.

Education success is driven mainly by parents (experience, motivation and interest) and pupils. They should be given opportunity and choice not be deprived of it. Whether they choose to take the opportunity is up to them.

100% agree

Education success is driven mainly by parents (experience, motivation and interest) and pupils.

They should be given opportunity and choice not be deprived of it. Whether they choose to take the opportunity is up to them.

But there's the rub - that opportunity should be accessible to all... In a [i]functioning[/i] comprehensive system, it would be available, whereas in a [i]functioning[/i] grammar / secondary system it would not be.

they should be given opportunity and choice not be deprived of it. Whether they [s]choose[/s] have parents who can coach them through the test or have the ability to pay a tutor or go to a private primary school to take the opportunity is NOT up to them.

Interesting views as ever here, but a thought from me:
What is wrong with asking people to invest in their child education? I'm not talking financially, but I am talking emotionally. Should we not be actively removing the view that child's education is solely in the classroom and moving to a view that what they do at home is as important if not more so? Yes, there are occasions where the parent may not be in the best position to do this but in that case should it not be the parents responsibility to find someone who can help? It would be very easy to make the resources available at local libraries, in fact, they may already be there, but it has to be the parents who push the child to use it.

I guess this is a reflection of my political leanings in that I believe the government should provide the resources but then we should take responsibility to use them.

What is wrong with asking people to invest in their child education?

Nothing at all its great. However parents can do that without Grammar schools which harm the education of those who dont have well off or well wducated parents.
THM's post up there tells us all we need to know about his views. **** the poor I'm allright Jack.

Education success is driven mainly by parents (experience, motivation and interest) and pupils. They should be given opportunity and choice not be deprived of it. Whether they choose to take the opportunity is up to them.

It's also not about how well educated the parents are, if they're not educated themselves they need to find someone who can guide them and use those resources.

Governments can't engineer social mobility and schools cannot deliver it, so a flawed premise.

If we stopped eton taking "toffs" and sent working class kids there instead your argument is that they would not benefit form this and become socially mobile as a result. Your claim is the flawed one though its debatable how much it can achieve

Education success is driven mainly by parents (experience, motivation and interest) and pupils.

They should be given opportunity and choice not be deprived of it. Whether they choose to take the opportunity is up to them.

The crux of the issue is that private schools and grammar disproportionately give this choice to the wealthy. They help most those who need the least help as they are the ones with the experienced motivated and interested parents. We know what class of people will take the "help" most.

@ lunge again all that does is put opportunity there for the middle classes . Working class folk dont go to libraries. You can blame the parents if you want[ some merit it his view to be clear] but do we have to harm the children's chances because of their parents or do we want to give ALL children an equal chance or only the children of ,generally, wealthier parents

We cannot correct all ills with education but we can try rather than just entrench advantage and call it "opportunity"

Education success is driven mainly by parents (experience, motivation and interest) and pupils. They should be given opportunity and choice not be deprived of it. Whether they choose to take the opportunity is up to them.

Jesus I'm glad I live where i do. One school end of.

It must be wonderful watching middle class whiny cock bags buy up the good 'choices' in an area whilst people on lower incomes get to 'choose' to send their kids to the shit schools.

Yes, they absolutely do...

It's another unintentional / indirect bias thing... As per the R4 report today, in areas like Kent where there are still grammar schools, there is a thriving industry in tutoring for the 11+ exam.

Paid for tutoring inevitably leads to a bias towards those families in a position to spend that money on their primary age offspring. Whether middle class families could / should be allowed to invest in their kids future is a different debate, but let's not pretend that it doesn't encourage selection by wealth as well as / instead of selection by ability

Nobby Jr attends a grammar school in Kent & the mix of his classmates' social and economic backgrounds is no different to my old comprehensive in Croydon.

The report you mention (if it's the one I heard) is fundamentally flawed in that it didn't actually follow through to the numbers that actually made it. My own experience is that 6 of Jr's primary school classmates passed the 11+ and we were aware of at least 9 who had some form of tutoring - only 1 kid fell into both groups.

As a governor of his primary school, the most obvious influence we saw on the development of the kids and their academic advancement was their parents. The kids that did well (often in spite of circumstances) tended to have to have parents who turned up at parent's evening, school events etc and showed a genuine interest in their child's education. Far too many think their involvement simply consists of getting them to school on time.

AFAIK, 'streaming' in the same way as when I was at school is not permitted - it still happens on a subject by subject basis in the local academies but it doesn't appear to be as obvious as it once was.

I don't know what the answer to our education problems are but the insistence that it is partly a class thing strikes me as nonsense, especially with my background.

the mix of his classmates' social and economic backgrounds is no different to my old comprehensive in Croydon.

The denial that it is partly a class thing strikes me as you having your head in the sand. Outcomes and socio economic factors are always linked and always have been. The children of the better off perform better than poorer peers. It clearly is a class thing [ though other things are also factors]
Again can I see the research you have done to support your claim?

Respectfully anecdote and personal opinion is no substitute for actual facts and evidence.