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

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,

Ask Michael Gove - he refused to sanction new Grammar schools because of the evidence it limited social mobility - and yeah that's MICHAEL GOVE!

[i]Grammar schools do help the poor.[/i]

Well, they did in days gone by. My Dad got an assisted place (including school uniform), and went on to good things.

Many others did too, this guy came from nothing (single Mum on a council estate):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/5620743/Bring-back-grammar-schools-to-rescue-next-generation-says-David-Davis.html

The current system IS biased against the poor, but there is no easy answer - although playing politics with childrens' education HAS proved to be costly IMO.

To me it seems that the problem with standard comprehensive schools as opposed to grammar and private schools is disruptive kids, not necessarily dim but well behaved kids. Grammar schools and private schools have the luxury of not only selecting pupils but also kicking out the ones that are disruptive. There is always the fall back of the local comp.

Now we do not tolerate disruptive adults at work or bullying at work so why do we tolerate it in schools. Is that the real crux of the problem and therefore the reason for the underlying need / want of grammar schools.

We know some poor people did and do benefit but on average they still disproportionately help the wealthy

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.

You can do s THM does and say we gave them the opportunity its not out fault they did not take it but that is just to punish the kids for the parents failings, I am not comfortable with this and would rather we try and redress the advantages that come with rich well off involved parents so that each child gets an even chance of success. the evidence supports the view that grammar schools do not help us achieve this

I guess I will never understand how we can remove the onus from the parent to educate, it is their child and so they should form the main point of education, This isn't a class or a wealth based comment, it's based on what is needed. You may view this as naive, I would argue that accepting that this won't happen is even worse.

Every public service is under huge budgetary pressure, the difficult question to answer is do you use more of that money to try to educate those who don't want want to be educated or do you spend it pushing those who do? Because realistically, you can't do both.

Lunge, maybe we should sterilise those without 5 c's or above at GCSE?

We removed the onus form parents when we made all education compulsory - would you return to a point where we had no schools as we al home educated? If not you have removed the responsibility from parents and placed it in the hands of the state.

accepting this as something that won't change is worse.

Realistically we can do both and clearly we should help those who need it most and that is those who "dont want to be educated"

We dont use health to treat the healthy we use it to treat the ill and we should use education disproportionately to help those with the greatest need not to entrench the advantages of those who already have advantage.

As for resources we have them the issue is how we deploy them.

May I see the research you have done to establish this fact?

Well already knowing a few and having met & spent time with most of them I didn't feel the need to get too scientific.

Then there's the two that I've taxi'd around a few times because their families do not have a car & their free bus passes don't work on a weekend. At least 3 others have free school meals and assistance with the cost of uniforms & school equipment. Yes there are a few nu-money with their Evoques & X5s but they are way off being the majority - funnily enough, it's those that stand around in groups chatting at school events rather than cheering/encouraging their kids like the parents of the others.

Edtited due to lack of scientific research.

Grammar schhols are a good idea but further fracturing the education system doesn't make sense, when academies have a negative effect on state schools in their area, grammar schools will only amplify this
Added to the faith school expansion, selection and further dividing society by class, culture, religion etc is what its all about

Lunge I am with you on this. A child's ability is only part of the reason for success. Much of it comes from the ethos at home, and the value that is placed upon education. Of course grammar schools will perform better, they cream off the top, but generally these students have stable home lives, and whose parents invest in their education.

I teach at a small school in a socially deprived area, 35% free school meals. The biggest problem we face is engaging the parents to 'buy-in' to their child's education. I also teach in Kent, so we do not have the higher ability pupils in the school, which makes our job extremely difficult. We find recruitment as a result difficult, because we are judged on results, so teachers will want to go to high performing schools where they are pretty much guaranteed these. This then impacts the local non-selective schools, because we struggle to recruit teachers that could otherwise improve these schools (however in my experience teaching in the grammar schools is not as good). So I find the system extremely divisive.

Grammar schhols are a good idea

Maybe and they may have been good in the past but currently they are not helpful for the reasons I have already posted and as described by MrWhyte.

I agree with MrWhyte (teach at the same school). I grew up in Staffordshire and was no where near any type of grammar system. Went to the local comp but picked the better one out of choices available.

I don't 'get' the grammar system as it all feels very alien to me. However I can see why parents are attracted to it and why teachers want to work in schools where you get the smarter kids from the area.

To me it all feels a bit like a way of making sure we continue to slow down social mobility and separate the haves and have nots as soon as possible. I may be reading way to much into all this but on one hand you have the academy program which is designed solely to reduce the amount of money LEA's have to use to keep schools going - as a way of reducing costs to government (nothing at all to do with standard of education) and then this which is a way of keeping the old boys clubs schools going and strong.

If you are going to increase the grammar school system then brilliant go for it, if the brightest of the next generation get to work with peers of equal ability from a younger age and really strive forward then that is amazing. Three things have to happen though IMO.

1) Jobs for those who will not end up being university level have to be made better and more attractive - this means the government actually investing in things like apprenticeships and not just paying lip service to them.
2) Judgments on schools who don't get the top 15% (academically) have to be different as we do so much more with our young people - keeping them is school is a phenomenal task in some instances. Yet I am not a good teacher because my class did not get 60% A*-C?! Come on some of these kids are young carers because their parents are too smacked up to raise them.
3) Speaking of parents there should be some way to seriously monitor what is gong on at home with people, especially the most vulnerable students so they can at least have the chance to succeed. Though that requires putting more money back into social services and I guess they don't think that is worthwhile as it keeps getting cuts.

Sorry I started with a simple 'I agree...' and got quite agitated by the end.

Agree AA, they only work if there is support for those outside the grammar system and that leads into mrwhytes post, intervention has to be early and consider the whole family, but that kind of long term multi discipline approach is very expensive and Sure Start was pretty much the first victim of austerity

I started high school the year after the grammar system ended in our area. I went to a modern comp, as that is where my older brother went, a school that was designed to churn out factory fodder, there was no expectancy or inspiration to achieve academically.

The old grammar school on the other hand even when it wasn't allowed to use selective admissions still continued to achieve better results and send many more pupils into higher education.

It wasn't arbitrary selection at 11 that made the difference it was the quality of the school. And if entering further education is to be used as a yardstick, the expectation that is the normal path to follow.

t wasn't arbitrary selection at 11 that made the difference it was the quality of the school.

So whyvwas the other one shit?

We removed the onus form parents when we made all education compulsory - would you return to a point where we had no schools as we al home educated? If not you have removed the responsibility from parents and placed it in the hands of the state.

Speaking of parents there should be some way to seriously monitor what is gong on at home with people, especially the most vulnerable students so they can at least have the chance to succeed. Though that requires putting more money back into social services and I guess they don't think that is worthwhile as it keeps getting cuts.

Nobby yet more anecdotes and skewed samples wont negate the overwhelming research which counters what you experience.
I am not saying there are no poor children at grammar schools i am just saying that disproportionately well off kids will be there
This is what the research shows.

This is what the research shows

All I'm saying is my personal experience doesn't tally with much of this research - a lot of which I believe is undertaken with specific agendas and floats over the surface of the issues. Too often these debates are dragged into (almost) party politics rather than socioeconomics.

By default, many grammar schools are in fairly affluent areas so you would be safe in assuming the general demographic of the students. This, however, is changing as far as I can see locally with all 4 grammar schools casting their net much further - Jr's year group has boys from Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Middlesex and various bits of London. Clearly this is the schools attempting to bring in the very brightest of each year group by promoting in areas that do not have grammars of their own.

Whether this is good or bad for education and social mobility remains to be seen.

I'd like to see some worthwhile research into parental involvement in the education system - reckon it would shock many and possibly convince the overwhelming numbers that seem to think it's the school's responsibility to educate their kids, both academically and morally, that they still have a responsibility.

All I'm saying is my personal experience doesn't tally with much of this research

I wonder which is the bigger sample, your direct experience, or the academic research?

a lot of which I believe is undertaken with specific agendas and floats over the surface of the issues.

You're surely not arguing that you don't have an agenda

Not at all - if you knew me, my background & my family you'd get that.

All I'm saying is my personal experience doesn't tally with much of this research - a lot of which I believe is undertaken with specific agendas and floats over the surface of the issues.

A really helpful clarification that makes me realise just how much weight I should give to your ability to handle date and express opinions on the subject .

Not at all - if you knew me, my background & my family you'd get that.

So you're arguing a premise based on a tiny sample, and you admit you have an agenda. Ok.

My limited education taught me one good lesson - we are all entitled to our opinions and encouraged to express them. I've not once suggested my experience is anything other than that.

Nor have I suggested that it is in any way more relevant than this research that you keep going on about - it's just different.

If you feel the need to insult me then carry on.

Edit: And no, there is no agenda.

My limited education taught me one good lesson - we are all entitled to our opinions and encouraged to express them. I've not once suggested my experience is anything other than that.

And I am trying to place your experience in its very limited context. If you feel that constitutes an insult, I can only assume that you feel insulted a lot of the time.

That wasn't aimed at you ransos.

This is a great thread with some really good opinions coming up. Naturally education is a contentious issue as we all have an investment in it at some level and have been through the system ourselves.

Can we buck the trend of threads on internet boards everywhere in the world though and keep things objective and not resort to personal slagging?

Yes someone has an opinion, yes it is different to ours but that is to be expected. Also if we are to mention or quote research for those of us in education it would be useful if a link or an author name could be included so we can read up on this.

I am not trying to belittle or stir the pot but this is something I am really interested in and would like this thread to keep going as an informed discourse not a playground spat.

Thanks.

Can we buck the trend of threads on internet boards everywhere in the world though and keep things objective and not resort to personal slagging?

This.

There is absolutely no excuse for grammar or private schools. They are elitist and the source of a divided society. It is impossible to tell what a child or person is going to go on to achieve in their life until they have achieved it. The argument of holding children back is a valid one, but it is an argument against grammar schools. Grammar schools prevent the majority from achieving their true potential. People that want grammer schools want a society of exclusive not equal opportunity. Make all schools good and let children do their best in that environment. Anything else buys in to the flawed market distortion of Darwinian Theory. More recent research in to behaviour amongst humans, shows that groups that work together and for each other are more successful. Children can flourish at any age so to put a cap on when society will recognise this is rediculous. Society should be more focused on the glass floor as opposed to the glass ceiling. Their are many midddle and upper class children that are prevented from failing by a system that props them up. This is the truth that many fail to recognise. We do not have a meritocracy at all, its a fallacy and a lie that masks the true nature of our hegemony.

My limited education taught me one good lesson - we are all entitled to our opinions and encouraged to express them. I've not once suggested my experience is anything other than that.

Nor have I suggested that it is in any way more relevant than this research that you keep going on about - it's just different.

If you feel the need to insult me then carry on.

Edit: And no, there is no agenda.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to an opinion on the way you have made it and the evidence you use to support it. Anecdote/personal experience and claiming bias in scientist is no substitute for actual facts and actual research which refutes your opinion. Your claim you are not biased is bizarre seeing you are so biased you even want to claim that the scientists have an agenda whilst denying you have one.

If stating what you are doing is seen as a personal insult then so be it but the facts and your opinion dont match.
I have "insulted" your thinking and you conclusions and i have stated why these are flawed. They are flawed and therefore so are your conclusions

So whyvwas the other one shit?

why is any school poor?

oh I forgot, it's Thatcher's fault

Grammar schools are very attractive to the aspirational working class, which is why the left hates them yet will fight to get their kids in them or go private

oh I forgot, it's Thatcher's fault

Grammar schools are very attractive to the aspirational working class, which is why the left hates them yet will fight to get their kids in them or go private

I suspect the irony of complaining about a sweeping generalisation whilst making another one, is lost on you.

i'm a leftie, i don't hate grammar schools.

i just think they're a bad idea: they're a public expense, for the benefit of a few, to the detriment of everyone else.

As a leftie, it's not how i think public money should be spent.

So if the grammer system allowed transfers at, dunno, maybe 13 and 16 for those who developed late would that be the answer to some of the sticking points?

no. because the emphasis is still on helping the top 5% (10%, whatever).

stretch the gifted, by all means, great. But we never hear a peep about extra help for everyone else - especially those who'd benefit the most.

We HAVE heard that those not quite cutting the mustard are beyond help / need to work harder / have crappy parents / etc.

which is hugely insulting to the majority of us, who'd be left with depleted schools. with apparently no-one to blame but ourselves.

So if the grammer system allowed transfers at, dunno, maybe 13 and 16 for those who developed late would that be the answer to some of the sticking points?

Or you could stick everyone in the same school, but divide the classes according to ability. That would be a comprehensive solution.

By default, many grammar schools are in fairly affluent areas s

Whys that then?

Grammar schools are very attractive to the aspirational working class, which is why the left hates them yet will fight to get their kids in them or go private

No the left doesnt like them because they have a negative impact on the education of the vast majority of pupils living in the areas blighted by them.

stretch the gifted, by all means, great. But we never hear a peep about extra help for everyone else - especially those who'd benefit the most

There is a huge push in the primary education curriculum right now to get everyone to a minimum standard, a standard that to high achievers is a walk in the park. This means teachers are spending more and more time with low achievers and less with the more gifted. This is resulting in a almost zero difference to average achievement but a much narrower breadth of levels, basically, you have more "average" achievers.

Is this good? I guess it depends if your child is a low achiever who has been brought up to a better standard than expected or a a high achiever who has not achieved as much as they could have.

Sadly, you can't please both sides, certainly not with the size of classes at the moment and the funding challenges, so you decide where your priorities lie, pushing the lower up and neglecting the high fliers or push the high even higher and neglect the lower levels.

THM's post up there tells us all we need to know about his views. **** the poor I'm allright Jack.

Given that it points to nothing of the sort, you are merely demonstrating your own prejudice as per. Out of interest ever sponsored a student? What next, it's evil go go beyond the curriculum??

At least my parents' generation were able to seize the opportunity that grammars schools gave them. Gave them a life long passion for education which they fortunately passed on. Not least, the advice that you "read" for a degree.

The obvious question remains unsaid, why do successful and well-educated people often desire good education for their children. Now there's a causation for you! 😉

Sadly, you can't please both sides, certainly not with the size of classes at the moment and the funding challenges, so you decide where your priorities lie, pushing the lower up and neglecting the high fliers or push the high even higher and neglect the lower levels.

shirley the priority would be to increase funding then? 🙂

but quite frankly you statement doesnt wash, because parents really can fill the gaps for the high achievers

we just had a teach your child how to read and write class at our primary school, it was very well attended (by a broad range of parents), they gave us loads of info on the curriculum and methods they use and how we can use it at home

Whats wrong with asking people to invest in their child education? I'm not talking financially, but I am talking emotionally

Nothing lunge, it should be encouraged. It's THE most important driver.

teamhurtmore - Member

(a minority of) my parents' generation were able to seize the opportunity that grammars schools gave them...

fify.

what about everyone else? equally well looked-after?

You can lead a horse to water....

But no, I was lucky and have followed their example as hopefully will my children. I prioritise education over other things....too important to leave to others alone. Imagine relying on folk who downplay reading outside the curriculum. Why have government's determine what you should learn. Bizarre concept....

but quite frankly you statement doesnt wash, because parents really can fill the gaps for the high achievers

because, imo you can focus on the stragglers and help the parents to push the high fliers, so everyone gets the best out of education

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

Class and wealth aren't the same thing. You keep conflating them. It makes your argument confusing. Please try and decide which it is that you are railing against and go with that.

teamhurtmore - Member

You can lead a horse to water....

that's quite an unpleasant thing to say.

Why have government's determine what you should learn. Bizarre concept....

you're the first to suggest it.

It's also very insulting to lower (sic) classes to suggest that parents can't/won't prioritise education. It's not a class issue per se.

because, imo you can focus on the stragglers and help the parents to push the high fliers, so everyone gets the best out of education

I guess I struggle to clear the idea of "education for all" with prioritising any level of kids about another.

The truth may be unpleasant, but hard work is the second most important factor determining success. That and motivation. Without either, you have a problem whatever type of school, background or class.

You can lead a horse to water....

It's also very insulting to lower (sic) classes to suggest that parents can't/won't prioritise education. It's not a class issue per se.

Can you back that view up with a reminder of class and academic achievement- why do you think more folk achieve from the higher classes if its not a class issue ?
If it was not a class issue we would see no bias so that is just an incorrect statement. Obviously you would not lie but you are very very wrong on this point. I am surprised an educated educationalist like yourself is unaware of this fact. Very surprised actually.

A better question is how can we redress this imbalance rather than deny it exists. The answer is unlikely to be by having grammar schools where the selection is skewed to the extent that even fewer working class folk do well. You know this so dont pretend you want grammar schools to help the working classes as its not very believable.
I am not sure facts can be insulting - well possibly in your hands they can be 😉

We all know that class is a factor in educational achievement as is parental income as is parental educational status. Its not just about hard work but no one, I assume, will deny that is also important.

Redressing the imbalance is what matters and we dont do that by insultingly pretending it is not there.

It must be so hard being trolled with the facts 😛

Why have government[b]'s[/b] determine what you should learn.

...by having schools teach grammar? 😀

Sorry. Hard to resist given the context.

teamhurtmore - Member
The truth may be unpleasant, but hard work is the second most important factor determining success.

im genuinely confused, what is the first?

John 😀

1. Parents

nah. 1st is a montage

but do parents not consitute background and class?

Without either, you have a problem whatever type of school, background or class.

do you mean the value parents at home place on education? because irrespective of class or not, if home places no value upon education, you are less likely to attain the results at school?

The truth may be unpleasant, but hard work is the second most important factor determining success. That and motivation. Without either, you have a problem whatever type of school, background or class.

Skirting the 'nobody expects the spanish inquisition' gag, I'd say access to opportunity is the most important factor. All this 'hard work' stuff is bollocks. I'm (relatively) successful but have never worked hard but have had good access to education, resources etc. To claim that somebody on minimum wage their whole working life busting their hump cleaning/digging/wahtever hasn't worked hard enough is mince of the highest order. I reckon they're likely in that position because they don't know how to get on to courses/can't fit change into their lives/aren't aware of what's available.

You Tory boys make me want to puke.

Sorry, I lost interest in contributing too much more to the thread once it got a little too insulting and circular for my tastes.

I will pick up this one though....

they have a negative impact on the education of the vast majority of pupils living in the [b]areas blighted by them[/b].

Kent - as said above, has only 6.5% FSM in the county - one of the lowest. Whilst I can buy the fact that good schools draw in house buyers of a certain type into their catchment I don't think that extrapolates to a whole county. A county with so few folk (comparatively) in FSM poverty can't be getting everything wrong educationally. Generations of grammar education in the county doesn't seem to have generated a rotten underbelly of above national average proportions from the 90% who don't get into the grammars of the county.

As I've said before I'm the product of grammar education, had a generally positive experience but recognise the negatives of the system. Like numerous other complex issues the answers are rarely as polarised between right and wrong or correct and totally flawed as many here like to profess. It would make the debating on here (which I guess is just a mirror of society itself) so much more intelligent if contributors were able to be more objective and less self righteous in their convictions.

I fail to see your point THM. The simple fact is more affluent parents are able to to better provide the resources that aid passing the 11 plus even when standardised for similar academic achievement so a high achieving kid from a poor family has worked hard, had parents support him as best they could but he's beaten in the 11 plus by a kid who has achieved the same in school but his private tutor has helped him pass the 11 plus. I fail to see how either parent hasnt tried their hardest to support their kid. I also fail to see how anyone could see this as fair.

So Grammar schools make places wealthy?? I'm lost.

...anyway this discussion is actually about the reintroduction of secondary moderns. Evidence is that these reduce social mobility.

If you're middle class (as in real middle class, hah) this is obviously a good thing.

The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others. Most people don't want this for their kids (I personally tend to a more phlegmatic view, fwiw, as you would if you had my bloody kids.)

Oh, and no more of this "grammar schools supported social mobility in the 50s and 60s". This time of economic growth, and change from a predominantly blue to white collar economy, used the output of the schools but this change was not driven by this output...

Well Im confused

I think we are all saying that the attitude of the parents to education are the primary factor in a child's attainment

Children from poorer backgrounds* do worse at school

so it seems obvious that parents from poorer backgrounds care less about their kids education

* lets be honest poorer=lower class, right?

so ultimately grammar schools are pointless, apart from a few rare cases

So Grammar schools make places wealthy??

I not implying it makes them wealthy. More that if an area was so 'blighted' by them for so long why has there not been the production of a large morlock like underclass of generation upon generation of poorly educated serfs?

As I have said, I'm not a total advocate by any stretch but [i]blighted[/i] a pretty emotive word.

Kimbers. The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars.

lets be honest poorer=lower class, right?

Can be, but not necessarily. Plenty of working class people around with stacks of cash though. Probably less common, but it is possible to be upper class and skint too.

We're saying children from poorer backgrounds do worse where there are grammar/secondary modern schools, than where there's less social stratification.

The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars.

The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars

There does seem to be evidence to back this up. Since I don't have the ability to review or analyse data I did look for the widest ranging study on selective education I could find. This seems to be a good start with a considerable amount of previous studies being reviewed as part of the research: [url= http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf ]http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf[/url]

Their conclusions surprised me, especially reference to selectivity:

Fourth, we have identified what seems to be a significant issue of social selectivity occurring across all types of school. While it appears to be relatively straightforward to understand how this can occur for grammar schools, it is rather more puzzling to see it evident in supposedly non- selective schools.

I not implying it makes them wealthy. More that if an area was so 'blighted' by them for so long why has there not been the production of a large morlock like underclass of generation upon generation of poorly educated serfs?

ever been to Bacup?

or you could take the view that it made people socially mobile and they left the area leaving the underclass

The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others.

To claim that somebody on minimum wage their whole working life busting their hump cleaning/digging/wahtever hasn't worked hard enough is mince of the highest order.

Who is making that claim?

The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others.

is not relative downward social mobility of the middle/upper class what you want?

Who cares what I want? An honest answer I suppose would be yes, as long as it's others' kids who are doing the downward thing.

Though actually I think feel this rather less than what seems to be the accepted norm in some circles ala 'I'd do anything for my kids, trample over anyone...' I genuinely do expect to see mine being downwardly mobile relative to me and my wife. I don't relish the prospect and I get bugger all bragging rights over everyone else's neophyte doctors/lawyers/bankers. I try to console myself that ours seem healthy, happy, well-balanced and independent (albeit not bloody financially.)

Surely what we should all want is an equal chance of success for all
What this debate should be about is the best way to achieve this

It seems that selective schools disproportionately help the better off and therefore it seems unlikely they achieve this goal

ang on, how does that work? I thought entry to a grammar school was based on achieving a certain level.

Stat schools do Sats at the end of KS2 to asses kids. Grammar schools get the kids to sit the 11plus. The two are, I am told i've never seen them, very different. You need training to pass the 11 plus even when doing very very well in sats. This is why many private primary kids get into grammar as they dont do the sats and just teach to 11 plus. It is also why better educated and/or richer parents have the resources to help or buy help for their kids. This is why poorer kids with less educated parent even when the brightest and tp achieving struggle with hetting grammar school places.

You need training to pass the 11 plus even when doing very very well in sats.

Neither Jr, his cousin nor their 2 friends had any kind of additional coaching or tuition.

Oh well thats that proven then. Wpuld you like a 20 min lecture about normal distribution and probability?

Much of the 11 plus has zero relevance to the subjects assessed via SATS. Fairly abstract puzzles using words, numbers and symbols make up the bulk of it in most cases. A good vocabulary and a bit of numeracy will help, but a lot of it is simple pattern recognition rather than anything academic.

Not proven, just that your statement is not necessarily correct.

Just as a snapshot, only one of the 6 kids from his school that passed the 11+ had tuition so, whilst he was not part of some great research programme, from my perspective the view that additional training is needed and that's why poorer kids are disadvantaged is untrue.

I expect my anecdotal experience is irrelevant to the argument yet nobody has produced anything to evidence some of the viewpoints repeated on here.

The simple fact is more affluent parents are able to to better provide the resources that aid passing the 11 plus even when standardised for similar academic achievement so a high achieving kid from a poor family has worked hard, had parents support him as best they could but he's beaten in the 11 plus by a kid who has achieved the same in school but his private tutor has helped him pass the 11 plus.

To be fair a_a has been making this point more coherently than others are still struggling to for about four pages on and off now, and it's the bit I'm admittedly surprised to find the evidence supports - I know that the plural of anecdote isn't data but my own experience mirrors some others explicitly stated on here as well - kids who weren't tutored passing while the tutored ones didn't. Maybe not all schools are doing this the same way - the one I know about (because my child got in) assure us that the tests are designed to test aptitude, which isn't something you can tutor into someone. Maybe that's rubbish, maybe not all schools test the same way, I don't know.

But, setting all that aside, if the premise is true and kids from more affluent backgrounds with the same level of educational attainment at 11 are getting into grammar schools ahead of their less affluent peers and this is because of the buying in of extra tuition, then surely the problem that presents isn't that the academically selective education that follows is fundamentally bad, or discriminatory, it's merely that the manner of selection is faulty and they need to look at that and work out how to adjust for "richness" -

It's the same problem they're wrestling with at universities - Oxford know that, all other things being equal, the kid from Eton will apply with higher predicted A-levels, and probably a richer smorgasbord of extra-curricular stuff than the equally bright kid from Shitsville Academy. It's a known issue, but a real one, and if the same thing is an issue at 11+ (and a_a has provided a link some pages ago to a credible source suggesting it is) then it needs to be taken seriously. But I don't hear anyone suggesting that it's wrong in principle for universities to academically select their intake? No difference, imo, with grammar schools - none of this seems to be an argument against the principle of academic selection, more that the practice of it currently isn't fair or equitable.

Surely what we should all want is an equal chance of success for all

Well that's what we'd all like.

But since the reality is some kids are academically better than others it makes sense to group & teach them by ability.

Nobody objects to selection in the workplace. Nobody objects to selection at University. Nobody objects to selection (streaming) within individual schools.

ely the problem that presents isn't that the academically selective education that follows is fundamentally bad

Thats true. I expect we either need a shit load more grammar schools or none at all.

ut since the reality is some kids are academically better than others it makes sense to group & teach them by ability.

Which happens in every school every day