Forum menu
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
True schools dont cause injustice they can however be used as agents to redress it if we choose or agents to re inforce division if we choose.
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
Create and stifle
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
They should be given opportunity and choice not be deprived of it. Whether they choose to take the opportunity is up to them.Education success is driven mainly by parents (experience, motivation and interest) and pupils.
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.
anagallis_arvensis, I don't think THM's quote above is unreasonable (in fairness, that may not be the point you're referring too). Yes, the government should ensure the resources are there to do so and yes abd there should be advise about how to get to it but it is still the parents ultimate responsibility to act on this.
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.
They really can if we as a society choose to do it
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.
Yes private schools do best not due to selection and money but just due to these factors 😕 Clearly those thinks you mention matter but other things are just as important
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.
May I see the research you have done to establish this fact?
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.
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):
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.
The thing about the poorly educated they lack the skills to do this sort of middle class skilled stuff. No offence but some of the views i hear about what poor disenfranchised folk should do are written from a place of ignorance - I can see why you say it but its naive and wont happen.
I work with people who have to write down their own address, cannnot count on a clock clockwise etc.You want them to push their kids and access resources or seek help - from where exactly?- to do this themselves. Its naive in the extreme and reality shows this wont/rarely happen in the main.
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.
What is this - that some parents wont be bright enough to help their kids? You can call it naive but it is still true.
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.