The Politics of Grammar Schools

Our grammar wants more poorer local kids there who would need little transport so busing in out of catchment kids is unlikely to be a priority.

Can't believe Talkin doesn't find kids being prevented to choose the comp they want "odious".

Or, perhaps it's the fact that LEAs allow super selectives to exist,allow kids to qualify for them, but then place barriers between some kids (but not all) and actually taking up the places they have won that is odious.

I meant to say state primary school

What is MC TalkinPeace. I don't think you and I will move in our positions on this debate. I purposely set out my stall to put both dc into grammar school to enable them to get to the best university possible and therefore also the best career possible. They are not self motivated enough to do well in a comprehensive. I have seen that from their state private school. It has been a mix of their abilities and my pushiness that has enabled dc1 to get in. It is doubtful whether dc2 will get in. I will therefore put dc2 into an independent school in the next town. I do not feel guilty for paying travel costs for dc1. I am a parent, and I will gladly make the sacrifices. It's a no brainer to me. Whilst I feel sorry for those who cannot afford to do the same, beyond feeling sorry for them there is nothing that I can, or want, to do to help them.

rabbit
London was not covered by bus deregulation
so schooling in London is insane because distance is no object

in the rest of the country, school buses have to comply with VFM
ie its insane to provide a free bus from outside one school to another one

BUT
the fact that those parent who can spends thousands of pounds per year per child have a choice of state schools that poorer families in the same street do not is odious

Talkin you are continuously ignoring the fact that most parents who are fortunate enough to get their kids into out of catchment comps(like you) if the catchment comp isn't good enough pay exactly the same.

It is a far,far bigger problem.

Basically if you can't afford property in the best catchments or failing that transport to it the poorer kids are lumbered with the poorer schools.

For some getting their kids into a local grammar they can drop them off at,cycle or walk to is easier than to a desirable comp.

Not all superselectives require that sort of travel expenditure! And surely the cost of trains and buses is the fault of the government or the local government, not the schools. In London, transport is free for kids. In other places, it isn't (and it's often shit) - that's not a school's fault and it's no reason to label a school odious.

"sacrifices"
PAH
half the country has take home pay under £23k per year
before food
before mortgage/rent
before heat and light
before clothes

£1800 a year per child on transport to the school of "choice" is so far into the land of MC first world problems its unreal

TalkinPeace the costs will rise if dc2 is fortunate to get in.

Tbh, I would not expect an out of county lea to pay for my child's travel costs. But, there are some means tested allowances that provide some relief to those who can prove that they need it.

Sorry Hak, partner and I

TalkinPeace

We make sacrifices to make this payment. Some things for partner and me have had to go to accommodate this.

So the "superselective" is utterly financially selective regardless of how bright the children are

I could not afford £1800 a year per kid and I'm in the top 20% according to the IFS

superselectives become more odious the more I discover

No we have to pay close to £1800 for train and local bus. For the catchment grammar in our lea, travel costs would be covered by the lea.

portico
Super selective is a grammar school with no catchment
Do they provide free transport to the school for every child over 3 miles away, no matter where they live?

I expect that selection is best for a few, but I don't see why the majority have to have a system to their detriment to allow for it.

Mehit. No one is forced to enter for the exam. Btw, my taxes pay for comprehensive school. Why cannot they also be allowed to pay for grammar schools.

We did not choose a local catchment grammar in the same LEA. It is a school that achieved very good gcsse results. Upon closer analysis, turned out many resits were undertaken. At A'Level the sixth form becomes a comprehensive and the numbers double to 300. It is alarming the drop in performance. I questioned the head about this on an open day. His reply, "If you don't like it, there are other schools". That was all I needed to opt for a super selective.

The super selective works because only one or two a primary school get a place, and some of the highest achievers don't even bother to apply.

I expect that selection is best for a few, but I don't see why the majority have to have a system to their detriment to allow for it.

Super selective is a grammar school with no catchment.

Catchment selective is a grammar where selection in first round of offers is made on those live in the grammar school's designated catchment meeting the minimum automatic qualifying score.

Super selective. Catchment Selective

Can we find a way of distinguishing between super selectives and "ordinary" grammar schools? Because they are two different debates- and much cross purposing can happen.

That's true rabbit.

Selective schools offer a terrible education for the majority!

I don't understand why you think that grammar schools provide the best education. They do for some, not for others. The same is true of the comp model.

Define ability:
SO,
the best education is open to those who run the 100m fastest on their 11th birthday
OR
the best education is open to those who can swear in the most languages on that date
OR
the best education is open to those who can pick the lock to the safe that holds the exam papers the fastest
OR
the best education is open to those who can do 16 fouetees on the spot on their 11th birthday

ALL
are valid mechanisms to define future ability

choose which one the state supports