These scrums with parents trying to get kids into grammar schools – why do they exist?

Because people want the best for their kids. If the system is rigged then its natural to try and play that system to the advantage of your children. Thats only human nature

The problem isn’t with the people doing it. They’re just doing the best for their kids. Which is a natural (and admirable) human behaviour. The problem is with the system that seeks to divide children at the age of 11, and thenbestow a far superior education on a selected minority, giving them far better life chances, at the expense of ‘the others’

Raise the standards at the bottom rather than depressing the top end.

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

People at the lower end of the pecking order either don’t have the ways or means to drive standards up, because they have no influence, or connections, and people in power don’t listen to them, because they don’t have too. Or they’re working 3 zero-hours contract jobs, on minimum wage and just don’t have the time.

The effects on the non-selective schools in the area is huge.

Some become sink schools, where the lowest ability or those from poor backgrounds go.
If the non-selective has a 6th form, you can pretty much guarantee that those who get good grades at GCSE will go on to a grammar. Thus reducing the course choice in the non-selective, as they just cannot retain the students. Grammars will also take on those with the ‘middle’ grades, as 6th formers are worth more, so bigger 6th forms, equals more funding. So non-selective can miss out on a lot of funding, as students they have worked hard with, just leave.

Many of those who do go to grammar have just been taught to pass a test, and those with extra tutoring generally come from middle class backgrounds, as they are on the whole engaged with education. Those whose parents are not engaged, just go to the comps.

Pressure put on students to ‘pass’ this test is immense, yes I know many will say, ‘my daughter did it, and it did not affect them’. Students at grammar schools, particularly girls are the most likely to self harm due to the pressure. Not healthy.

Working in a non-selective school in Kent, we work bloomin’ hard with the students that we have (42% are FSM) but still are seen by many as a ‘poor choice’. It creates a two tier system, much of it is snobbery.

Luckily, we are no longer judged on % of A*-C, so people may start seeing non-selective schools in a different way.

You should be raising the standards of ALL schools, not just creating schools where standards will naturally be high, as they will have the brightest.

at the expense of ‘the others’

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

Binners for Education Secretary.

I assume you won’t mind becoming a tory for the betterment of the country?

The problem isn’t with the people doing it. They’re just doing the best for their kids. Which is a natural (and admirable) human behaviour.

Agreed

The problem is with the system that seeks to divide children at the age of 11, and thenbestow a far superior education on a selected minority, giving them far better life chances, at the expense of ‘the others’

Not sure that is what you stated earlier in the thread, but I will let you off.

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

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

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

Many a true word spoken in jest (again)

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

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

How do you get past the paywall?

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

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

and a much larger decrease in attainment for the poorer kids

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

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

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

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

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

What if they have no parents?

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

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

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

The only surprise is that anyone would be surprised

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

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

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

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

Its obvious the government dont give a crap about social mobility

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

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

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

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

Grammar poor schools are proved to lessen social mobility.

FIFY

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

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

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

or it means she knows how to attract the aspirational working class voter, just look 6 miles up the road to the one of the last five Grammar schools in Lancashire and wonder why that northern mill town constituency returns a Conservative MP and why the labour run LA’s don’t shut it down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the voting Tory bit….please!

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

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

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

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

As for the voting Tory bit….please!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed (largely)

Politicians are pragmatists not idealists

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

No ideology there. Nope, none at all.

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

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

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

Politicians are pragmatists not idealists

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

No ideology there. Nope, none at all.

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

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

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

Always handy as it leads to conflicting eyewitness reports

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

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

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

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

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

People on council estates can’t afford private tutors.

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

On the face of it this is true and has been for a while particularly here locally where the Grammar School I went to is located, but…

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

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

I think you’re probably right there rosscore.

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

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

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

Do we actually know what the proposed policy is now?

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

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

what about their kids? want them to go the same way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ensuring that all schools were good schools.

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

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

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

Wwaswas,

How though?

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

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