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.

Molio
Could you link to the raw data set that shows the numbers of children involved in the study on which you are resting your views?

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.

But how is it significant? What is it that they are able to do which counterbalances the effects of coming from a truly disadvantaged background (not just eligibility for pp which I think most people will agree doesn't really identify long term financial disadvantage). How are they making the system more fair by offering a few lower scoring places to kids who are eligible for pp when most of those kids probably come from backgrounds which place a high value on education anyway?

Why don't they (as I stated above) do more work with primary schools and offer more familiarisation sessions and encourage parents to apply for places at the grammar schools. Simply making places available isn't addressing the issue of uninvolved parents or children not being prepared. I am aware that this still doesn't address the child's background issue but it might trigger a few parents who previously hadn't considered grammar to realise that they can encourage their children to do more and to aim for things previously not considered. It might help the children whose parents can't / won't provide preparation to be prepared and stand a chance of passing 11+. It might help identify the children who really deserve those pp places and might benefit from them.

DISCLAIMER - I haven't RTFT past page 4 as I have to crack on with some work, but....
We are waiting for DS1's 11+ results at the mo 3 weeks and counting. We are in Bucks, and he has had 1 hour a week of tutoring in year 5. Nothing too arduous, and it hasn't felt like an effort to do it, at all. So, yes, everyone tutors, but it's hardly subjecting them to hours and hours of extra work.

Miss do you seriously suppose that grammars aren't already doing those things too? Of course they are, and have been for years. Unfortunately the tutoring culture surrounding the schools has acted as a huge deterrent to those people who should apply for their children but feel they can't afford to, as there's 'no point'. Hence the current multi pronged frontal assault. If it shakes up the well off who have seen grammars as a cheap alternative to independents, then so be it.

Talkin just look up all the Sutton Trust data or google generally - probably your most reliable bet.

"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?"

There were no children attracting pupil premium of any kind in the last two intakes at my dd's grammar school. Most grammars have a statistically insignificant number of children on FSM. And those that do are likely to be either exceptional- they will have had to overcome so many disadvantages to get there that a few GCSEs are unlikely to prove a problem OR to be the children of parents who for whatever reason are on very low income but who are not otherwise disadvantaged- I know a grammar school child who is the the child of two struggling artists- hardly representative of the FSM cohort as a whole!

Molio
I have just looked up on the DFE performance tables.
In Buckinghamshire last year there were 81 FSM kids at Grammar schools
there were 154,165 FSM kids nationally

www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=LA&superview=sec&view=aat&set=5&tab=71&no=825&sort=ks4_13.ptfsmcla&ord=asc
therefore ANY conclusions drawn on such a data set are even less valid than the random opinions of AIBU at 9pm on a Friday.

A few more in Kent
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=LA&superview=sec&view=aat&set=5&tab=71&no=886&sort=ks4_13.ptfsmcla&ord=asc
but still utterly un representative of FSM kids or even normal kids

It is a really small group, but the evidence does suggest they are the ones for whom a grammar education makes a significant difference to their educational outcomes (it only seems to make a marginal difference if at all to other groups). So enlarging that group and seeing if the effect still holds (rather than saying it's so few it's a statistical blip and not worth bothering with) seems like an excellent idea. People are always arguing grammars are a mechanism for social mobility and this is a way of potentially actually making that happen (to more than a token few). I'm sure these children will be monitored and if they don't make good progress the scheme will be scrapped, but if it does work, then imo it could provide some justification for the continued existence of grammars.

frogsinapond
but 81 pupils whose only common factor is FSM is NOT a valid sample.

Unless all other variables have been reviewed
eg were they just on FSM that year after daddy's company went bust
or the level of education of the parents - children of graduates do better than children of those with only GCSEs regardless of income
it is NOT valid evidence - its anecdote.
I cannot extrapolate from my DCs to the whole of their comp because the cohort is mixed.

1. Disadvantaged children don't get into grammar schools
2. Wholly selective LEAs do no better than wholly comprehensive ones.
3. Children in grammar schools do very very slightly better than top set children in comprehensives, but children in the bottom sets of secondary moderns do worse than comparable children in comprehensives, while children in the middle do similarly well.
4. Grammar schools do not and never have done anything to aid social mobility.

If you were an alien looking at those statements, what would they tell you about selective education?

Talkin and Hakluyt are so bitterly opposed to the concept of grammars that nothing grammars can do will ever be good. Indeed I suspect that if the grammars succeed in shaking things up a bit from a social point of view, Talkin and Hakluyt would hate it, since it will undermine at least a part of what they say to justify their opposition.

frogs I agree. This really quite sustained push from grammars across the country is the recognition that the culture of tutoring is deterring meritorious applicants who could really benefit from a grammar education from applying. Of course it will be anathema to those who don't want additional competition pipping their DC at the post for a grammar school place. All that tutoring gone to waste! The new tests and the outreach and the various new admissions policies are supported by The Sutton Trust, the DfE and the GSHA. The HTs have made various public statements about why they want their schools to be properly open to all and why they're doing what they're doing. This has been rumbling along for years and it's great that the status quo is actually now really being challenged in a practical way.

In the olden days grammar schools were good for social mobility. My dad came from a very working class background in Sheffield - father a railway worker, lived in a council house. Nothing wrong with that, of course, he had a lovely upbringing.

He went to the local grammar - and went on to be university educated and a highly paid engineer, travelling all over. He moved to London/the South East - married my mum and I had a very 'middle class' upbringing.

I know I'll probably flayed alive for mentioning class, but meh - that's what happened. It doesn't seem to happen now - more like, the middle classes have their dc tuitioned to the hilt to get the grammar places. I don't know what the answer is - I used to believe grammar schools were good for social mobility. Now, not so much.

Looking at those statements I would say that it appears that the grammars are seeking to address 1. and 4. in a joined up way and that opponents of grammars won't like that.

To 2. and 3. I would say that top set kids have as much right as any other kids to do as well as they can, and that opportunity appears to be greatest in grammars. You're essentially saying that the lowest group should be prioritized over the highest group whereas I would suggest that one should instead re-model the provision for that lowest group in a way which best fits their needs.

TalkInPeace, Family background factors (including parental
education) only accounts for about 6% of the attainment gap between young
people from rich and poor families.

Differences in parental (8%) and young people’s (15%) attitudes and behaviours captured at ages 14 and 16 together explain roughly one
quarter of the gap. And the young peoples attitudes at least are influenced by their peer group and school expectations.

My dh was the first in his family (rural working class & very poor) to go to University. He got a 2:1 in politics from a Red Brick university. He went to a grammar school towards the very end of the grammar system in his county. I went to a comprehensive school from a more comfortable middle class family where all of my cousins went to University, all 11 of us. I also got a 2:1 from a Red Brick university. I'm sure we all achieved that because of our family backgrounds as much as anything.

But neither dh nor I want to see a return to the grammar/secondary modern system as it was in the 70s.

We prefer fully comp for our children and think it could benefit all other children, way beyond what other more narrow minded people (sorry, there's no other way to say it) are able to imagine.

My dad maintains to this day that he wouldn't have had the same outcome at the local school (a secondary modern I assume) - he says it changed it whole life.

I live in a Grammar school area, and have a ds in the grammar (others are still primary aged) but I think I would prefer comps overall. I find the grammar system very divisive overall - I don't like children feeling they've 'failed' at the age of 10.

But when we were looking at areas around London (other than Kent) to live without grammars - the competition to get into the best comps seemed to be equally cut-throat tbh.

It isn't addressing 1and 4 because it only takes pp eligibility into account and does nothing for children who face much bigger disadvantage due to things like being a young carer, having a parent with a long term severe illness or addiction, being from a low income but not pp family (who are probably more disadvantaged due to working long hours and still having no money).

I'm not a huge fan of grammars either Molio, (I also think other systems are flawed in different ways). But as we have some remaining grammar schools, I think tweeking the admissions to provide better outcomes for more disadvantaged dc can only be a good thing.

My life was completely transformed by the fact that there were no grammars in my area.

My family is mainly made up of criminals, child abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics and life's drifters. I would not have been taken to an exam for a grammar school. Even if I had passed the exam my parents would not have wanted to send me to adifferent school than my siblings, they would not have wanted to pay bus fares or buy the more expensive uniform. I would have gone to a secondary modern.

As it happens I went to a comprehensive where I was taught by skilled teachers who spotted that I had a brain and a lot of drive. I ended up, thanks to those amazing teachers, going to one of the best universities in the world and my life took a new turn. I am now a good mother with a secure and happy life. My life could have been exactly the same as the rest of my family and a local grammar school would have set me on that path. A lack of grammar schools created social mobility.

Purely anecdotal of course.

Philoslothy a lack of grammars or a lack of old style secondary moderns?

Miss as you've already indicated that you aren't aware of what grammars are doing beyond this change to admissions, your comment is skewed. You're simply isolating one factor.

Mintyy it's actually very narrow minded of you to think that supporters of grammars are not capable of developing a system which would better benefit all - just not necessarily within the same building. At the moment what we're seeing from government is a drive to straitjacket kids into academic qualifications which may well not suit their talents. But why?

DD1 is being tutored in Y5 because passing the test well will give her more options of schools than only just passing. And she enjoys it! She doesn't struggle with academic work and actually likes the one to one attention and being stretched.

It's not to say she will go to the superselective if she passed with flying colours and was offered a place. We are looking at four schools in the next month or so, one is a non-selective academy, one is a non-selective (apart from some on the basis of religion ) free school, one is a grammar and one is a super selective grammar. Two are all girls and two are co-ed.

if I had lived in a grammar school area I would have attended a secondary modern. I would not have benefitted from on house tuition that enabled me to shine at university interviews, I probably would not have done A levels - because the secondary modern would probably not have had a sixth form.

Molio
Why are you so anti comps?
Why do you think it is so bad that children of differing abilities and talents share the same campus at least until they are 16?

The "selection" tests for Grammar schools to not 'select' for sport, art , music, drama, languages so the children who may excel at those and enrich the whole school are separated.
How can that be for the good of all?

How do those kids who excel at sport enrich my kids(who would never in a million years be picked for a school team)?

In our area the sporty kids go the out of catchment comp with the amazing facilities which is only right.They need the facilities they have to offer.

Said grammars seem to do just fine as regards sport.Some kids can be good at more than one thing.

What if they are sporty and musical but not academic?
Or musical and not academic?
Or incredible at art and sport?
Or highly mathematical but dire at English?
Does the 'sporty comp' also do triple science and decent MFL - for those who are sporty and academic?