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.

One of my partner's relations did some Reasoning type intelligence tests - the kind that have multiple choice in - as an adult. He'd not encountered them before. He decided that he wasn't sure how they should be understood at all. So with the first one he decided to go for accuracy. He thought really hard a) about all the questions and b) about all the possible answers before committing pen to paper. With the second test he decided to take the opposite approach and put answers down very quickly indeed -hardly thinking at all. In the second test his score was high, but on the first test he got a score that was low in a borderline sort of way, suggesting the possibility of Special Educational Needs. This relative of my husband's is a distinguished academic and author who for many years was a Fellow at an Oxbridge college.

nteresting teacher, I did mention earlier I think which schools the anti grammar went too because I dont think they went themselves to the bog standard comp, I think they went to slightly better schools themselves

Same old same old. Not me. Thoroughly mediocre comprehensive.

In the past. Not in the present, which is the epoch in which I have children at state comprehensive.

Beyond, I dunno, why can't schools completely change the life chances of abused children, who ciome to school unfed and unwashed, who live out on the streets until parents get home from work at 7 or 8 to let them in, who live in famlies where substance abuse / prostitution is the norm, who arrive at school without spoken language because they have never been spoken to, who have never seen a book, whose parents are barely out of childhoopd themselves or are absent through imprisonment or early violent death, whio have SEN through violence-induxced brain damage r foetal alcohol syndrome?? I am bnot exaggerating - I have taught all such children in a very ordinary village primary, where other parents would have been uttery unaware of the life circumstances of some of the pupils. I cannot tell you how little a teacher can do to reverse those massive early and continuing disadvantages.

Right, word, and given the argument that state comprehensives are 'patchy' etc etc, what do you want to see them doing for the non-SS children, so that they're less patchy?

And who has the power, the wherewithal and the drive to push their children to the front of the queue? The middle-classes

Mini, are you telling me, that all these children of poor immigrants who do reslly well are suddenly middle class or those from china, or afica and so on?

All of them are suddenly middle class?

when do you become middle class, do tell,
I would not say we are mc at all, and yet I intend to help my dc as much as I can throughout school?

does someone wave a wand at mc and bestow special powers on them

Through a series of circumstances, I went to highly selective private on 100% scholarship, siblings went to very very tiny not-great rural comprehensive. I and 1 sibling send our children to bo standard comprehensivesm, other sibling sends children to specialised vocational school due to an exceptional talent.

(Despite our different schooling, my siblings and i have almost identical Oxbridge degrees - as someone said a long way upthread, actually, schooling ISN'T what determines the educational outcomes for the vast number of children.]

Well said beyond. I too would like to know at what point being bothered about the education of ones own children morphs into being middle class.

teacherwith2kids Thu 25-Sep-14 18:38:01

I know all that teacher and lived some it.

I cannot tell you how little a teacher can do to reverse those massive early and continuing disadvantages

I see.

Thats all we hear trotted out, never ever the teachers job. Teachers cant do anything.

But the children of the rich should instead come in, I suppose and try and turn around the lives of these children?

What about other people in a school there to help these disadvantaged children? As I said the costs to society as a whole would be far greater than having to cope with them in later years getting into trouble.

schooling ISN'T what determines the educational outcomes for the vast number of children.

so whats your problem with grammars then?

I didn't say I can't do ANYTHING. I can, and did, stretch every sinew, feed, clothe, protect, report and nurture those children. But what was wrong in their lives could not possibly be repaired within the school walls alone. We could, and did, create a safe haven. Introduce them to books and language. Feed and clothe them. Involve other agences. Love them, in many cases, ensure they saw doctors, dentists, police and SS. But the task of 'undong' those first 5 years, of 'making a child anew' is not necessarily within a teacher's grasp.

Thats great teacher but its hard to say whether you think these children are causing general problems or not in the class.

Gramars are jusrt unnecessary. They make the chance of 'making a child anew' even more remote, by putting barriers of selection and separation and 'perceived privilege' in the way of those children who could, given the whole time between 5 and 18, make enough progress to completely change their lives.

nit oh gosh a long list. But for a start.

I would like proper rigorous flexible setting.
Strict discipline ( with disruptive children quickly removed to a well resourced PRU attached to the school where possible ).
I would like triple science available in all secondary schools and choice of MFL.
I would like Latin to be offered in all schools.
I would like close monitoring, especially when DC take their options with each child being given a full understanding of the implications.
I would like far more sport ( I think it's crap that at local tournies some state schools never turn up).
I would like SN provision to be consistent and transparent . I think it's outrageous that school schools are great at this and others diabolical.
I would like schools to stop putting kids in for 13 GCSEs.
I would like schools to stop putting kids in for GCSEs too early .

I'm on a roll now!

"Mini, are you telling me, that all these children of poor immigrants who do reslly well are suddenly middle class or those from china, or afica and so on?

Actually, a lot of them are. There are middle class people in other countries you know! It's not that easy or cheap to emigrate. And also the sort of people who are prepared to uproot themselves from all they know and go halfway across the world to try and find a better life are also likely to be the sort of people who will move heaven and earth to get their children what they perceive to be the best education they can.

Word, given that ALL of your list are available in local comprehensuives (yes, including Latin, also offered at local state primaries), could you explain why you think that we also need some selective schools?

Ok, I'm on board with a lot of that. It's just I'd say: let's make sure all schools can do that before we take their very brightest children away. And let's acknowledge that many, many schools are doing most of that. As my dd said this morning about the report on low level disruption ' what, they think there are loads of teachers who think talking in class is great and don't do anything about it?'.

My dd did end up with a lot of gcses because she did Latin early and because a lot of the stuff the NC make them spend some time on, they gave the option of doing it and getting a GCSE out of it or just doing it (RE, ICT etc).

I think most schools could be better about offering MFLS.

I think it's hard with the sport, because by its very nature there are postponements and cancellings, and children have other stuff on when a match is suddenly announced (IME) and I'd be inclined to think that's why dome some schools don't show rather than because they're shit.

I am never sure about this 'putting them in early': I know LQ for example is very pro this, and thinks not doing so is one of the reasons state comprehensives are crap. And perhaps I'm remembering wrongly, but I thought you were in favour too?

(And personally I wouldn't like more than the two periods a week of PE lessons they already get)

I'm with you on all of those, Word.

Still don't see why you have to put clever kids into a different building to do it,though.

Qhat is very strange is that in some parts of the country the state thinks selective state schooling is good and in other parts not. Eg in about 1970 in Newcastle the 11+ was abolished and only comprehensives (and private schools) have prevailed. Whereas children in Bucks have had grammar schools. Why in one nation where we all pay the same rates of tax does the state think there is something special about the genes or brains of Bucks' children that they get grammar schools but thinks children in Newcastle should not have selective state schooling. I cannot see any justification for the differences.

No, and gicven that statistically the areas with comprehensive schooling do better tjhan the areas with fully selective schooling, it is a very striong argument for the abolition of all grammars, wouldn't you agree, Greengrow / Xenia?

children who could, given the whole time between 5 and 18, make enough progress to completely change their lives.

So the teachers and school cannot do it, without the rich or those one or two per class who might get 11+ staying behind, this is crucial is it?

Failing to see it. And failing to see if teachers cannot help childen YOU claim are pretty fucked by five, one or two high achievers can.

goodness if you think all the top intellect is really creamed off one would think even better for those left behind without the super bright children showing them up?

top of the bottom as it were not bottom of the top?

I just don't see why you need to have selective schools at all, that's my point - and as I have 2 children well into 'superselective ability' range, you might expect me to think that they should be educated separately....

IF the 'school for the less able when tested at 11' gets

a) far more money

b) all the best teachers, including those able to fully extend those who bloom late or miss the cut off by a miniscule percentage

c) all the best facilities

d) experts on tap to work with all children with social or educaonal difficuklties

then I might think that was a good idea ... but sadly money, prestige and expertise tend to be focused n the 'school fior the top'. Either way, I simply think segregation at 11 is wholly un-necessary.