Middle class access to grammars via tutorproof 11+ part 2

(1000 Posts)
boschy Thu 06-Dec-12 13:27:32

May I do this? only there were some contrasting views at the end of the last thread which I found interesting.

One was mine (sorry!): "I think fear actually drives a lot of those parents who are desperate to get their child into GS, so they can be 'protected' from these gangs of feral teenagers who apparently run rampage through every non-selective school in the country.

Because clearly if you are not 11+ material you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who likes nothing better than beating up a geek before breakfast and then going to score behind the bike shed before chucking a chair at the maths teacher and making the lives of the nice but dim kids a misery."

And one was from gazzalw: "If you had the choice would you opt for a grammar school or a comprehensive that has gangs?"

Soooo, do people really think that all comprehensives have vicious gangs, and all GS children are angels? Or that only those of academic ability adequate enough to get them through the 11+ should not have to face behavioural disruption of any kind? If you are borderline, or struggling but still work hard, should you just have to put up with disruption because let's face it you're not academic?

PS, re the knuckle dragging Neanderthals I mention above, should have said - "and that's only the girls" grin

Brycie Thu 13-Dec-12 23:36:06

Did you Volcan? I had fun at a few of yours earlier but forbore to say so. A culture of higher expectation can kick in very quickly - of course.

Brycie Thu 13-Dec-12 23:38:15

Oh I didn't lump them all together, exotic - I am beginning to though. I guess that's what teachers might call a learning curve.

LaVolcan Thu 13-Dec-12 23:40:39

Glad to be able to cheer you up Brycie.

Brycie Thu 13-Dec-12 23:42:42

Sadly the whole thing is rather depressing. Viva la selective with such drearily low expectations elsewhere.

LaVolcan Thu 13-Dec-12 23:48:17

Speak for yourself Brycie - plenty of high expectations where I live. Which is not surprising since the area is stuffed full of academics and research scientists.

exoticfruits Thu 13-Dec-12 23:52:28

Probably the same area as mine- high flying parents, all comprehensive and high expectations from parents and teachers.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 00:08:48

And there's the middle class, I'm alright Jack attitude. Shameless and proud.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 00:11:47

Does it occur to you that it's even possible to have high expectations of children who aren't your own kids, who don't live in your area, don't have high flying parents who are academics and research scientists?

I don't suppose it does. How revealing. Al that equality talk - guff.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 00:13:50

I'm not even suprised any more that you don't have a problem with the comprehensive system. Who would, when your local is packed full of high flying parents who are research scientists and academics and have high expectations of their children?

LaVolcan Fri 14-Dec-12 00:35:20

Brycie:

Does it occur to you that it's even possible to have high expectations of children who aren't your own kids, who don't live in your area, don't have high flying parents who are academics and research scientists?

Absolutely. I gave you a link to a good comprehensive on the Academically Selective Education thread. One which is in an areas which was a textile town which has over the last 30 years or so been hit hard by competition from the far east, and which also serves a large fairly impoverished rural area.

I got slagged off for that too, because it wasn't typical.

That same thread has also told us of good comprehensives in Glasgow, which wasn't the area which was populated by the university lecturers either.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 00:54:59

And is it typical?

LaVolcan Fri 14-Dec-12 01:23:13

With 2500+ comprehensives in the UK I couldn't possibly say what was typical. It happened to be one that I knew, when someone asked where all these fantastic comprehensives were. It's a good example of what can be achieved if the will is there.

exoticfruits Fri 14-Dec-12 05:17:34

Comprehensives are like all schools- the full range from excellent to dire - I don't see how you get a typical one. I could do you links to lots of excellent ones. As nearly 90% of DCs attend one, lots of them are doing very well at them.
Grammar schools are irrelevant to most of the population.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 05:31:12

So whatever is the point of highlighting one good one, or saying "I know a child at a comp working four years above is age in maths". Basing your case on a sample of one, as teacherwith2kids might say. It's the same as saying "well my child is doing alright" or "my comprehensive is packed with geniuses". Isn't that lovely for the children who won that particular lottery?

I'm surely those comprehensives doing well are not strangers to rigour.

exoticfruits Fri 14-Dec-12 06:33:33

I can't see where I based it on a sample of one.
It is equally lovely for the DCs who won the particular lottery of the grammar school place- and they are a mere 4%.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 06:41:12

That's not a lottery though is it. If you are bright enough and have been educated well enough you will get in. Unfortunately given state primary education, most state primary children don't reach that standard, haven't been well enough educated and therefore don't. The real misfortune is perhaps to have one's hopes based on the state primary system where one is taught maths in a history lesson and literacy in RS.

APMF Fri 14-Dec-12 06:41:33

LaVolcan: If you are referring to me, I hardly 'slagged' you off. Judging from your link, your 'typical' comp was housed in what looks like a former stately home. I merely expressed surprise that you considered this 'typical'.

exoticfruits Fri 14-Dec-12 06:54:35

I rather lose the will to live- it would be lovely if it were so simple that every child who was bright enough and had been well educated got a place- they don't.
I also fail to recognise all the weird practices that you insist take place in primary schools.
I will leave you to the debate. I am just thankful that we are down to a mere 164 grammar schools with a tiny 4% of DCs and they won't come back.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 07:19:57

Which weird practices would those be exotic?

Nothing I have described is weird. But just throw out a random insult why don't you - the last resort, as ever, when one struggles.

I think some posters believe that nothing could possibly be happening unless it's happening in their school under their own eyes. Isn't that rather a naive view?

Every child who is bright enough and has been well educated enough does. De facto, if you don't get enough marks, you haven't been well educated enough or bright enough on the day to pass at the required level.

What would be lovely is that if everyone who is capable of being well-educated, the bright ones and the slower ones, were indeed well educated. With a state education system in a wealthy developed country which had billions poured into it you'd think, you'd expect, that might be the case.

Again, sadly and depressing, it's not.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 08:22:52

Which is why, when push comes to shove, many anti-selective education idealists suddenly have an epiphany when their children reach seven, or eleven, and if they have the choice, decide that selective education isn't so bad after all.

It is ludicrous to suggest you "teach" literacy in any other subject than literacy. You don't. You use it. You may use measuring or graphs in another subject, but you will have been taught it in maths.

When you have a praised and admired and lauded lack of focus like this, you're going to get problems.

Brycie Fri 14-Dec-12 08:24:44

This thread will be full the next time I see it. But there's still room for a little more parent blaming, shrugging off disadvantaged children, and closing your eyes to reality.

APMF Fri 14-Dec-12 08:51:25

Most bright children DO get a place.

seeker goes on about how her bright DS had a bad day and failed the 11+. She later said that he was KS level 4 at the end of year 6. But L4 is the national average.

Wise MNetters have told me in the past that a GS child is expected to be level 5, with L6 being 'safe', at the age of 10 when the exam is taken.

If that is to be trusted then the system hasn't screwed another bright boy who should be at the GS. The 11+ is more equitable than a lot of anti-selectively like to think.

Although it appears otherwise, I am not picking on seeker. It's just that she is the most high profile anti selective.

Bonsoir Fri 14-Dec-12 08:58:45

Level 4 at the end of Y6 is not the national average - it is the expected level of attainment, and about 80% of children are at Level 4 at the end of Y6. Over 40% of children are at Level 5 at the end of Y6. So it therefore follows that Level 5 of itself is not a sufficient level to be of GS standard.

seeker Fri 14-Dec-12 10:02:47

"seeker goes on about how her bright DS had a bad day and failed the 11+. She later said that he was KS level 4 at the end of year 6. But L4 is the national average."

I have never said anything of the sort. You keep repeating this lie even though you have been corrected by both me and other posters. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

grovel Fri 14-Dec-12 10:09:32

bye

This thread is not accepting new messages.