To believe that we need to create two hundred more Grammar Schools for the Shires of England.

The thing is in real life I see social mobility happening in massive strides in DS grammar school every single day! These are immigrant families who haven’t got many assets who have pushed their kids and the kids are getting into elite Russell group unis and into professional careers. So it is social mobility happening right there in front of my own eyes every single day. These are the superselective grammars and grammars which are taking a distinct demographic mainly Asian and elevating them.

I think the discussion around underachievement by white working class on FSM is entirely separate.
Why are some kids on FSM/not professional uni educated parents achieving in eg London in strict schools and a competitive environment but not in some other parts of the country.

I think there are massive regional differences and the one size fits all lorded from the top and the DFE just is not working.

Also I don’t see why the failure to establish technical colleges everywhere as was originally intended gets blamed on grammar schools.

That’s not true. I genuinely wanted a better education for my children than I had from a comp. I wanted to make sure they had all the tools they need to go on to having a fulfilling adult life. There was absolutely no snobbery involved in my decision making.

I think part of the PP point especially around dyslexia and to some extent with the children on free school meal argument is that there are lots of children where a grammar school may be the best fit for them but they can’t get the required grade on the 11+ age 10 so they end up in a sink school with potentially a very different long term outcome.

The FSM point to me seems like it should be applied in the same way that universities can contextualise offers. They require lower grades from less privileged pupils because the level of teaching or support they may have received often means that they had to work much harder to get a lower grade than someone with better teaching and more support. Their lower grade does not fundamentally mean they aren’t as clever or that they wouldn’t be able to do as well as students with higher grades and they had the same opportunities. This ties back into to OPs point of having a school that’s the right fit for the child.

On the dyslexia front, I’m dyslexic and wasn’t diagnosed until I was in 6th form because I wasn’t at the bottom of the pile academically so my schools didn’t have capacity to put support in place or frankly worry that I was struggling. I didn’t sit the 11+ as I wasn’t in a grammar school area but I doubt at that age I would have passed it, especially without adjustments for dyslexia. But by the time GCSEs came round I’d caught up and got pretty much A*s in everything, despite not having time to finish most of the papers. I travelled out of area to go to a grammar school in a different county for 6th form. Socially it brilliant for me, I would of had a much easier time socially in school if I could have got at 11 but like I said I don’t think I’d have got in at that age, despite in hindsight being of grammar school ability in terms of intelligence and potential.

Now I live in a grammar school area and have a DC who is likely dyslexic, the impact of the grammar schools on the other schools in the area means that if he doesn’t get in he likely won’t have the opportunity to achieve the grades at GCSE that I got because of the level of teaching/disruption in the other schools. Again, even if the grammar school would suit him socially and in terms of intelligence and potential.

It’s a catch 22 isn’t it, they’re often great for minority of people who can go but over make things worse for the people who can’t.

Did you know that 11+ tests discriminate against children from a Pakistani background with the same SATs scores as those from a white background?

Also, we know that it discriminates against poor kids without having to resort to FSM measures (which you say the grammar parents simply aren't claiming) because we can look at the postcodes of applicants.

"Even with identical test results at the end of primary school, higher-attaining children from the poorer postcodes scored, on average, 20 marks less in the new Bucks test (the pass mark is 121 marks) than their better-off peers. The data suggests a similar bias against children from some BME groups, including Pakistani."

So fuck off with your 'verging on racism' when the test itself is racist.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils

The ethnic demographics in grammar schools speak for themselves. Those anti grammar don’t like it! It is verging on racism really. It does not suit the white liberal middle class agenda when you realise that grammar schools and a competitive education system with 16 plus selection in eg London serves the ethnic minority including poorer children there extremely well.

You know why it has priority admission for kids on FSM? Because we know the test results are heavily skewed by tutoring and grammar schools had to be instructed to do something about it.

Claiming that the reason is merely Asian families not claiming FSM doesn't make up for the huge disparity which is explained by the incredibly widespread tutoring.

"The latest BBC analysis found that in a quarter of the 160 grammar schools, fewer than 5% of children were eligible for pupil premium support - which is linked to free school meals and used as a measure of disadvantage.
In contrast, only 13 of the more than 3,000 other state secondary schools across all of England have such a low level of pupils from the poorest families."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64714201

https://foodfoundation.org.uk/press-release/outdated-opt-system-means-250000-children-missing-out-free-school-meals

DS grammar has priority admission for kids on FSM - they don’t have to achieve as highly as their counterparts.

There are families entitled who are not claiming, that is a fact. It is particularly prevalent amongst certain Asian families, go look it up.

I'm pretty sure that embarrassment around claiming FSM isn't the reason why FSM percentages in grammar schools are so low. We know that kids with the same SATs scores are less likely to get in if they are on FSM than not.

And let’s not forget that a lot of recently arrived migrants aren’t entitled to UC yet either! So not sure what the legal position is for those and the statistics and FSM.

@noblegiraffe - will have to wait to see the updated UC changes to FSM to respond accurately - as you know, FSM criteria have changed substantially from Sept 26. The head is emailing every other day telling people to claim if they are entitled to. Some of the cohort who are entitled to claim aren’t claiming as they find it embarrassing to do so, especially prevalent amongst some Asian families.

I live in north Oxfordshire and my daughter went to one of the two 6th forms in our town, she's just about to start Durham university.

A quick look on google says we have thirty comprehensive 6th forms and only four colleges.

My Dad went to Grammar school, my grandparents put a huge amount of pressure on him to pass his 11+ which his subsequently had counselling for.

Like why not take the clever kids and put them with other clever kids who can push them and make them succeed?

Like when my DS was in primary he was objectively the best at maths and science. No-one came close. At secondary yes he was in top set but there were children who were better then him and the environment was more academic. When DS was in primary there were kids who were working 3 school years below in terms of intelligence and attainment. Why should he have to go to school with them?

What percentage are on FSM?

My DC’s school is not full of rich kids at all! They are largely and predominantly hard working immigrant families. In fact if you look at the demographics in all the Outer London grammar schools you will find the same. DS is friends with a lot of kids whose parents are working blue collar jobs, things like corner shop owner, security guards, retail, NHS admin. They really aren’t all uni educated professionals, far from it.

All if that. The system was introduced to help bright poor children. Now the only kids who get the chance are those whose parents can afford tutoring. So the absolute opposite.

The system is divisive, and I speak as someone who benefitted from it on the days when it was national. I would never defend it nor condone it.

In addition, the entire contextual university system openly and transparently represents an admission that selection does work. That is why they adjust for a poor school environment in the first place. Parents aren’t idiots. If they can help it, they don’t want to wait until 18 for their child’s potential to be fulfilled.

Fact is socio economic factors, family background make a huge difference to outcomes, more than anything else. Most schools in this country operate by house price selection. Grammars are actually fairer. The fact the Government demanded we should move house and pay up again for stamp duty to access a good school is outrageous! Getting into the grammar schools was much cheaper.

Firstly, in DS grammar, a number of teachers send their DC to the same school, precisely because they know how good it is, including the teaching. @Anothermoomin - you have made offensive comments about the teaching in some grammar schools which you must now own! There are lots of brilliant teachers in grammar schools just like anywhere else. It is an easier working environment for some, that does not mean they aren’t doing their bit for the teaching world at large.

Secondly, there are children there who are bright and dyslexic and plenty of autism too who benefit from a quieter learning environment. The issue with dyslexia is a timing issue primarily - if all primary schools and the NHS diagnosed it earlier, then more of those kids who are bright would have gotten into the grammar school in the first place! You cannot blame the grammar schools for the failings of those who came before them. Adjustments are made for those where circumstances are known, including a push for FSM children who are bright.

Thank you for telling me what I think. This seems to be an issue with supporters of grammar schools you fail to the arguments and talk in pre rehearsed polemic.

It is import that we educate bright students well, I’d don’t think many grammars do that - I can’t talk for your child’s school. There is a tendency in grammars to assume the child will succeed and some of the craft of teaching is lost, this is why many dyslexics don’t thrive. Remember, many dyslexics are extremely bright. My children are bright, they didn’t do the 11+ and did extremely well out of the education system. I find it a little bewildering that some children are so sensitive that being in the same school building as children who are not clever will impact their education.

It is also important we teach ALL other students well and a grammar system often totally fails everyone else - this is clearly unfair and bad for the country. Supporters of grammars often fail to address this point as they are too concerned about the clever kids who usually are well looked after.

Putting the brakes on is what we do when we fail the students who want to follow vocational paths. Putting the brakes on is when we have to pay for the thousands of NEETs. Putting the brakes on is a system that only works for a small number of - that’s the very definition of a failing system.

If you think wanting an excellent education for all and spending my career helping bright students get to Oxford and medical schools, helping bright dyslexics and also working with students who want vocational careers makes me ‘one of those teachers’ then that reflects on you not me.

Yes fair point, I agree with you!

@Anothermoomin - you are still choosing to benefit a certain type of child though. My DS2 is academically gifted so are most of the kids in his superselective grammar, by that I simply mean they are going to be getting a string of 9s and A and A stars and most were reading fluently either before or in Reception. You think their level of intelligence is just a given and they need less teacher time and they will achieve those results anyway, don’t you? You think they are not worthy of as much attention as the dyslexic kids you have singled out.
And that is why people want grammar schools for very academic kids. So they too can learn at their pace and depth without being slowed down. DS school race through the KS3 curriculum and do a lot of wider in depth stuff that suits their cohort and deeper reading. And a lot of them are going to eg Physics clubs in year 7 and listening to Oxbridge grads come back in year 7
It is like people want to put the brakes on some in society to level them down to the average to not offend others. Average for all is best, least anyone else gets offended. People should be happy their kid is bright and shut up right. Their kid does not deserve any extra funds or attention or to reach their full potential because their full potential is going to be much higher than others. So let’s put the brakes on via the education system, in case they get any funny ideas.

I have come across teachers like you in primary even who have told all my DC directly that they don’t believe in grammar schools etc that they aren’t putting their own kids into selectives etc. That is fine, but it is a political belief fundamentally and others are allowed to disagree and have their own views.

Bloody hell this is hard work.

You passed because your mother coached you. If you were working class you would probably have failed. That is not fair. You freely admit you would never have ended up at a secondary modern and therefore you don’t care about those who do. You are happy for students with a similar educational profile as yourself to fail because they weren’t born into an affluent family. Can you really not see how unfair that is? Or can you see but you just don’t care?

My ‘class activism’ is becoming a teacher and working with dyslexic children to help them achieve their potential. I dislike the 11+ because it fails more students than it helps. It fails those with an educational profile that means they are bright but develop more slowly. You do not care about those students.

This thread has confirmed my beliefs about grammars, it’s nothing to do with a genuine concern for education it’s just thinly disguised snobbery and ignorance.

I can see the OP’s point. There are people who really want this sort of education.

There was a news story about a boy in the Isle of Wight who sat and passed the 11+ for grammar schools all over the country. The family said they were going to move so that he could go to whichever they chose. If there’d been a grammar school on the IoW then they wouldn’t have done this - I think at least one of the parents worked at the hospital so presumably they have skills the island needs.

It’s peculiar that grammar schools are available in Kent but not Sussex (say).

Yes.....Blackbird Leys isn't great 🙁
Definitely not how the OP thinks Oxfordshire is 😂😂