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

What is the definition of wealthy now? Any family not claiming FSM or entitled to UC? Is that really the definition of wealthy now. Those who can survive themselves by working?

Or maybe wealthy is not entitled to child benefit without paying some of it back? In whole or in part? I mean what level have we stooped to if supporting yourself by working together and independent of State handouts now makes you wealthy!

Here you go
https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/news/children-from-rich-families-much-more-likely-to-secure-grammar-school-places-as-they-reap-rewards-from-private-tutoring

Of course FSMs matter. If you have money, you have more choices.

You might not choose to move to a grammar area, you might not choose to get a tutor for you child, you might not choose to pay a cleaner or gardener to free up time so you can spend time listening to your child reading or taking them to sports clubs or music lessons, days out to museums etc. You might not choose to have holidays in France or Spain or places your children get to hear and practice their language skills that bolsters their performance in school. You're less likely to be balancing more than one job just to pay the rent and electricity bill, so you have no time or money for anything else.

Of course free school meals matter in attainment, why poorer areas are less likely to bring up the highest attained. But who gives a fuck about people who have been dealt a poor hand in life?

Tiffin School has FSM 3.38%, Attainment 8 79.1 and English/Maths at 5+ of 98.3%

Michaela has FSM 38.41%, Attainment 8: 77.6 and English/Maths at 5+ of 97.4

So I'm not sure the idea that kids on FSM just aren't clever holds up. The 11+ is supposed to measure potential, not prior attainment.

Sorry but I hate to burst your bubble on cleaners and gardeners!
The vast majority of parents at DS grammar school drive shoddy cars if they even have one, send packed lunches of Indian food, recycle the school uniform, either have huge mortgages or rent and send their kids on long commutes and spend the whole year saving for one trip home back India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nigeria/Hong Kong or China and instil values of hard work and sacrifice in their children. So that they have a chance at a better professional life with some dignity. But how dare they, eh? And to have actual teachers poo poo their efforts for daring to support themselves sometimes in tiny flats etc - I think I have heard it all now!

They are still able to drive cars, which is more than the parents of some kids on FSM will manage.

Exactly - you have very bright children, couple in the majority of cases with supportive parents who can afford (either easily, or through making sacrifices elsewhere) tutoring and who prioritise their children's education. These are the obvious conditions for fantastic results.

My daughter really wants our local girls grammar, and of course we will support her to acheive something she really wants, despite our views on the matter.

Our local non selective state school gets results which are fairly close to the grammars. This school is likely to have much better teaching, to get these results without those creamed off by the grammars.

Yes, but in a massively different landscape from now. When grammar schools came in, the village school went from 5/6-12/13 after that you either went to private school until 15/16 or, if your family couldn't afford that, you went to work (probably down the mines, into mills, or service for rich families). Grammar schools, came in so that children who were academic but poor, could carry on with their education and not have to go to work when they were barely a teenager.

Now ALL children have to be in school till 16. There are plenty of mixed ability secondary schools and all children, from the lowest ability to the brightest have the opportunity to go to school until 16/18. Children who are clever can access appropriate learning opportunities in most secondary schools. My son for example, is clever and goes to the local secondary school where he is happily in top sets along with other people who are as bright or brighter than him. He and these peers are getting as good an education as those in lower sets are, therefore there is no need for him to be in grammar school.

many SEN kids are highly capable academically. They just need a nurturing educational environment.

I don't think anyone is saying that children on FSM aren't clever. They are suggesting that they don't get the same access to tutoring, and sometimes their parents may not be as aspirational and encourage/support them to try for grammar. Everyone gives the example of the immigrant Asian family to contradict this, but what about other demographics?

My daughter (aged 10) had several friends round - I overheard them talking about what they wanted to do when grow up. The ones with professional parents - 'teacher, vet, animal photographer, zoologist, Olympic gymnast. The ones with parents who don't work, or work in low wage roles said 'hairdresser, beautician, work in a nursery'. One of the girls in the 2nd group is very bright, I asked her in passing if she was doing the 11+ (we are in Bucks). She said no, her mum wants her to go to the same (poorly acheiving) secondary that she and all their family went to.

Parental aspiration and a positive example has a huge impact on children's achievement.

I disagree. A child who hasn't been tutored and still passes, even at the lower threshold, is likely to be brighter than many children who had been coached for several years in a private prep - they would have natural ability.

My daughters 11+ mock scores went up from 60% to 80% in 2 weeks of intensive 11+ summer school, so the impact of years of prep at private schools must be huge.

I feel they should go 1 step further and have a higher threshold for children coming from private preps.

@Bushmillsbabe - in a grammar area don’t the teachers suggest grammar at parents evening to the able children? Does the secondary conversation not come up in year 4/5 if the kid is exceeding across the board? We are in a predominantly comprehensive area but our school checks and emails about deadlines. Some parents forget to apply!

I don't think anyone is saying that children on FSM aren't clever. They are suggesting that they don't get the same access to tutoring

Well yes @Bushmillsbabe , that's the point. The 11+ is supposed to select clever kids but it selects tutored ones.

And in my teacher voice I note you dodged the question, failed to read the quote and totally failed to respond. 0/10 do better.
All the proponents of grammar schools seem to fail the basics of debate despite their education.

No one has “poo pooed” their efforts. Quite the reverse. You read what you expect to read not what is actually being said. You respond to arguments that haven’t been made. It is well known that immigrant parents often have a very different attitude towards education and when studying demographics it is the white working class that is often the least supportive of education. As teachers we know that.

Here’s the thing - just because parents think that doesn’t mean we, as teachers, shouldn’t push for more. We want ALL our students to achieve. I want a comprehensive system where all can achieve even if their parents have no interest. The students who don’t get tutored deserve the best education and the chance to succeed, as well as the students with engaged parents.
It is the grammar schools who want to abandon a whole tranche of students, I want to help everyone achieve their full potential.

Everybody wants their local school to be a good school.
Grammar schools don't achieve that.

The comprehensive system hasn’t worked. Almost a third are failing their KS2 SATs and more than a third are failing their English and Maths GCSE. It’s baked in. Only 8 in 100 are turning it around. No amount of good intentions and denials of the reality are turning the stats around.
And Michaela isn’t taking the kids who have failed their KS2 SATs and keeping them at Sixth Form. Their ethos is so pretty clear it’s self selecting!

So anyone who actually wants to help the bottom third. You would stop with the denial and ideology and would demand a reverse grammar system for the bottom third. You wouldn’t dump them in with the rest hoping for the best when the stats very clearly tell you the opposite.

And Michaela isn’t taking the kids who have failed their KS2 SATs and keeping them at Sixth Form

Have you got data to show this?

The comprehensive system hasn’t worked. Almost a third are failing their KS2 SATs and more than a third are failing their English and Maths GCSE

Incidentally, this isn't true. Getting a grade 1-3 at GCSE isn't failing, it's a Level 1 pass. In the olden days of O-levels and CSEs, getting a CSE wasn't called failing an O-level.

Yes they do. And they ran an online info session a couple of times - one daytime and one evening to support parents who aren't familiar with the process.

But they cannot force a parent to allow their child to even take the test, or support them to prep for it. And Bucks state schools are not permitted to support children with 11+ prep, not sure about other areas.

DD's friends mum knew about it. She just didn't want her daughter to go to a grammar as 'that school isn't for our family, we all go to X school'.