Bits of news on the grammar school issue

Flying with wings, I favour grammar schools, too. Both my boys are at a superselective grammar school.

As for the not supposed to have an opinion , well it seems like a never ending one way street or monotone of posters, media getting airtime decrying selection !

At times it appears i am a lone voice putting forward selective schooling , or is it anyone favoring selection has been shouted down by the left wing establishment !

The consequence of which means on forums like this we have one 'world' view backed up by even posters that work in grammar schools !

Bertrand Being 'Autistic' irony and sarcasm don't compute ,so i was rather pleased that you believed at one time my posts were 'quality' .

I agree resources should be spent in early years, but what is early years. Is that nursery at age 3-4. If nursery is a half day, and would be useful to extend to whole day to bring on those who need extra help.

Donna is spot on. It's worth noting existing grammar schools are struggling financially (basic things like books) and unless they're in London they are also having problems recruiting teachers. They are very lucky that parents are more likely to buy books and pay for tutors but I doubt that's a great comfort to a teacher who just wants to do a good job.
The fact is that inequality starts in early years and the government would be better off investing in intervention at that stage and throughout primary if it really wanted to tackle it. The 11 plus will always be too blunt an instrument - you can't improve outcomes by making a system more divisive but allowing a few 'lucky' ones to escape. It's also far too early - the natural point for choosing pathways would begin around 14/15.
State education should aim for the best possible provision for the greatest number. It should be even better provision in areas of greatest need. Free school grammars will only appear in areas where people want to set them up - that isn't the basis of good policy and won't make any difference. It'll just benefit a few more people who pay for tutoring. I really think we're much more likely to see lots more religious schools than grammars.
Disclaimer - I went to two grammar schools. My dcs go to the local comprehensive. I teach with the Brilliant Club and in Further Education. I'm probably not supposed to have an opinion on anything!

I reckon Theresa May is under the mistaken impression she came from an ordinary working family, herself. Years of mixing with the publicly educated has addled her brain and she doesn't even realise that the majority of people in this country are beneath her contempt.

Would this contradict the government's claims that only rich pupils can access the top comprehensives?

The report is a bit baffling, to be honest. It's a clear example of policy-based evidence, yet it doesn't support their policy. Justine Greening is apparently going to argue today that grammars serve ordinary working families and not just the wealthy off the back of a report that shows even the highest attaining comps serve a greater proportion of kids from modest and low/no income families.
And she is deliberately excluding families on pupil premium who aren't currently receiving FSM from the definition of 'ordinary working families'.

As I've stated before the economic 'selection' comes before the test in my experience. Despite outreach from our school and attempts to get correct information out the students taking the exam are not hugely diverse. I would say the majority are state school but that there are more private school students percentage wise than the population would suggest.
When I sat my exam you sat it in your primary school, I think access was better then.

Can I just say I am disgusted at the 'quite rightly' comment?
We've discussed the social make up issue before. It is slightly more complex than just the tutoring issue. Many members of the general public believe you have to pay fees while you're at grammar!

Don't worry- anyone reading-"The majority of pupils in selective schools come from affluent families.

All that means is the highest tax payers are getting 'quite' rightly access to the best schools for their children !"- will realise instantly what "jumping the shark" means!

This is just a general question to those in the know. Are there any consultations that show the current year 7's containing info on the make ups of the schools since some grammars have recently opened up their intake (slightly).

No Taxation without representation phrase, generally attributed to James Otis about 1761, that reflected the resentment of American colonists at being taxed by a British Parliament to which they elected no representatives and became an anti-British slogan before the American Revolution; in full, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”.

In the case of the grammar school/selective school debate . The argument could suggest that the tax payers that wish for selective education are paying tax without representation.

them already writes for The Guardian in her spare time aged 20. It's amazing how comprehensive schooling opens so many doors....

It won't be such a good gig when they have to get on the 8.10 from Euston !

This thread is descending into parody.......

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

For those like me that had no idea what 'jumping the shark' means.

/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark.

Of course Ms Millar and hubby Alastair Campbell sent their own children to comprehensive schools. It didn't do the kids any harm at all - one of them already writes for The Guardian in her spare time aged 20. It's amazing how comprehensive schooling opens so many doors....

Flyingwithwings has finally jumped the shark.

Here's the pertinent graph from the consulation that shows even the highest attaining non-selective schools have fewer affluent families than grammars. The majority of pupils in selective schools come from affluent families.

All that means is the highest tax payers are getting 'quite' rightly access to the best schools for their children !

These families have paid via taxation, why should they not have greater representation in the better schools.

Also above average, below average incomes does not determine where affluence or advantage begin there is no magic line to be crossed in ether direction . The designation of above or below average incomes and is no more than a marker ,it is certainly not definitive.

The 'importance' or relevance of Fiona Millar's articles or opinions can be summed up by the begging bowl appeal by the GUARDIAN !

Nobody but people on this website read the tripe coming out of the Guardian or Millar's desperate attempts to influence the already converted !

Here's the pertinent graph from the consulation that shows even the highest attaining non-selective schools have fewer affluent families than grammars. The majority of pupils in selective schools come from affluent families.

I had a sneaking suspicion that this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2901945-DfE-finds-that-higher-parental-incomes-buy-better-educational-outcomes? Was intended to bolster grammar school proposals. I think Theresa May was hoping to show that grammars where stuffed with ordinary working families and was doing marvellously with them.

'In grammar schools, the consultation shows that 36% of places are taken by children from families with below-average incomes but not receiving free meals, compared with 53% of places taken by families with above-average incomes.
In non-selective secondary schools, there are 35% of pupils from these "ordinary" families, and 32% from more affluent families, a much lower proportion than in grammars.'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39577516

Bad luck Theresa.