to really regret the whole grammar school thing.

[newrecruit]

DS1 is in year 4 (DS2 in year 1).

I went to a girls grammar school and loved it. So when we moved out of London one of the reasons we chose this area was the schools. I don't think we are super selective (don't quite know what that means)

However, I was explaining the schools to him this morning as we drove past one and had an impending feeling of doom.

He's bright but can't be arsed. Resists pushing and I am against tutor on principal. I don't think he'd suit an all boys school.

What have I done! We should have just moved to a comprehensive area with a decent intake.

Some parents are already talking about tutors and its 2 years away. I want to hit them quite hard.

Please pile in and tell me to get a grip.

But it doesn't state that those extra places were created to ensure that children who would usually get a Place don't miss out due to the new pupil premium qualifying criteria. Those places have been created due to financial pressures (it says so on the admission criteria). A school will get more funding for 120 pupils than it will for 93 pupils.

Yes all the grammar schools in Birmingham have expanded recently, not just the ones who have introduced the new admission criteria.

whatever5 are the test results in? Because you said that the lowest score for children not attracting the Pupil Premium was 235. Even as a parent of an applicant, I don't see that the school would tell all parents what the actual score of the Pupil Premium applicants is - it's far too invidious. Are you just assuming, because the eligible score is stated to be 215?

I'm still curious to know how you're privy to the financial circumstances of all Pupil Premium applicants. Birmingham is a big place.............:)

The school also says clearly that it will scrutinize the paper work for those claiming priority carefully. And bearing in mind that the financial circumstances of those claiming FSM is already scrutinized carefully, I doubt there's too much to worry about.

No extra places at ours.

Because you said that the lowest score for children not attracting the Pupil Premium was 235.

No, I actually said that 235 was the lowest score last year and that it will be very similar this year as the scores as standardised.
Anyway, I think this thread is a bit boring now so will leave!

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/sep/23/school-quality-gap-attainment-research

The British education research association are stating that background is more relevant to attainment than the school which a child attends. If that really is the case then getting economically disadvantaged children into grammar schools isn't going to increase social mobility or change attainment levels because background and home life are still the same.

Sits back feeling gleeful that she lives in an area without the divisive and corrosive effect of selective secondary schools.

"gleeful" Nice.

Sits back and feels thankful we have such a wide choice of good secondary schools in our area with something for everybody.

Lepetit
We have comps. They also have something for everybody, but without the stress or the tuition costs.
Not many people round here who are clued up about education wish they lived in a grammar area.

TalkinPeace - I would love to be able to afford to move back to Winchester.

Sadly schools in our area leave a lot to be desired (unless you make it into Grammar)

The winchester area schools really are superb.

Stripy
I could never, ever afford to live in Winchester. I live in the arse end of Southampton, but still have access to our lovely comps which cater for all in their different ways, without the stress of 11+ or "pay or pray" or any of the other hoops I hear about on MN that I was blissfully unaware of before.

Missunreasonable I think the grammars are probably basing their policy on the fact that it's been shown repeatedly that disadvantaged DC do disproportionately well in a grammar environment.

Given the catfight for places, it's not a surprise that the stereotypical MNer will be averse to the policy, as it clearly represents a threat.

Molio - that depends on what they are using to define the term disadvantaged. If we are talking about economic disadvantage then I would imagine those in Grammar do indeed do disproportionately well because a lot of them probably have motivated parents who have bothered to get their children 11+ ready and have made the sacrifices required regarding school transport and additional uniform costs etc.
if we are talking about other types of disadvantage (those without supportive parents, young carers, disabled children, children in care etc) then I'm not sure what the statistics would say.
Until research is able to provide statistical analysis which takes account of parental influence and motivation as well as family income level then we don't actually know whether financial disadvantage is that significant on its own.

Missunreasonable I'd suggest to anyone who suggests that financial disadvantage 'isn't that significant' that they try it. It's hugely important in terms of educational outcome. There's a mass of data to confirm it, stretching back decades.

It's a very good job that these policies aren't in the hand of MNers :)

I come rom a very large family, so does my husband. All of our siblings have children. Some are economically disadvantaged and have been on unemployment benefits long term, a couple are in low paid work, a middle income earner and one is quite wealthy.
Have I witnessed the economic disadvantage playing a significant role in harming the attainment levels of the children?
No, I haven't.
I have, however, witnessed several other factors playing a role on the children's attainments levels, expectations and work ethic.

Missunreasonable I don't think the fact that some of your siblings encourage their kids more than others is a reason to deny the drag of poverty on educational achievement as a general rule.

Anyhow, clearly we're in disagreement so I might also call it a day. As I said before, I expect increasing numbers of grammars will follow the Birmingham schools, since the current government is backing these reforms, as are the pressure groups within the system. If it antagonizes a few privileged parents who preferred a system weighted in the favour of tutoring, then I doubt many tears will be shed.

The research i liked to above is irrelevant as well I suppose?

I expect increasing numbers of grammars will follow the Birmingham schools, since the current government is backing these reforms, as are the pressure groups within the system

Which helps neither OP nor the kids unlucky enough to be segregated out of the grammars no matter what their background

Missunreasonable I don't see that the author of the research does anything to bolster up your argument, whatever it is. He says schools must do everything in their power to close the attainment gap and he wants value added re-introduced as a measure. Since the value added for FSM children is very significantly better in grammars than in other types of school, that must be a powerful argument for the reforms?

Well, agreed Talkin, obviously.

If you don't know what my argument is then you won't be able to see the link with the research.

Since the value added for FSM children is very significantly better in grammars than in other types of school, that must be a powerful argument for the reforms?
What proportion of FSM kids go to grammars ?
bearing in mind

• there are only 164 of them in clusters around the country
• vanishingly small percentages of FSM currently go to grammars

therefore is that conclusion statistically valid when applied to the FSM kids across the whole country?
It may well be that the FSM families with the gumption to get into a grammar would excel in any school rather than the Grammar making the blindest bit of difference.

Remember, correlation is not causation.

As far as I understand it your argument is that since this research appears to show that other factors affect educational attainment in greater measure than the quality of the school they attend, as rated by Ofsted, then there's no point the grammars trying to make a difference, even though all the research shows FSM children at grammars do disproportionately well. I have to say you're putting a spin on this research which it doesn't seem likely the author intended.

Talkin your argument can also be reduced to 'Why bother?'. It's very negative, even if you aren't in favour of grammars.

My argument is that the child's background is more relevant to educational attainment than the school that they attend. Children on pp at grammar do well because the majority of them come from backgrounds bothered enough about education to apply for grammar. It isn't being at grammar that makes a difference it is the children's parental influence. Parental influence is about much more than just their income level. A parent who can't be arsed about education isn't going to become more bothered if he suddenly has an extra £10k per year.

Molio
I utterly disagree with Grammars. That is not news.

But I genuinely would like to know how many FSM kids have done 5 or 7 years at grammars, getting FSM every year (rather than the specious 'in the last 4 years' set) - because I suspect the number is so few that the variance in their grades is within the standard deviation and therefore meaningless.

There really isn't much point pursuing this Missunreasonable, since what you say is mere conjecture in relation to grammars and even if you believe parental influence is the single most critical factor, as it may well be, that's absolutely no reason whatever for grammars to not do what they can, since what they can do is clearly significant.

As I said, I don't think MN is likely to be a forum overwhelmingly sympathetic to these reforms.

Are there really no good non-grammars in your area? (are they still called secondary modern?)

Are you sure?