To Think this is a new low in "social Mobility".

[smokepole]

Just browsing the updated DOE performance tables, "Weald of Kent" Grammar in Tonbridge has officially 0.0% FSM in its 1134 pupils. I am not picking on them in particular , because I would not be surprised to see
Borlasse's in Marlow the same or others, but I just think this is "quite a startling statistic"

This is surely a new low in "Social Mobility" I thought grammar schools were typically about 2% FSM but 0.0% sends out a terrible message.

I thus therefore fail to see the point of all the angst

My angst is that children whose parents are not supportive - which is frequently mentioned as a big problem....are being held back from applying to grammar schools.

Loads of rage and angst over how unfair it all is, middle class parents sharp elbows and then we discover, primary shcools are activly holding such pupils back.

i posted article about oftsed saying comps are failing brightest pupils....

Since this system isn't even available countrywide I think the sooner it's abolished the better.

The best comps aren't failing pupils,far from it.

Many,many more children have parents who don't/can't get them into the best comps.Interesting angst doesn't go in that direction.

"Middle class sharp elbows" is a tedious and ridiculous phrase as the m/c band is huge and contains many incomes that are far from huge.Being sharp elbowed should be encouraged,the sharp elbowed are those that get their kids to the 11+ level.Schools can do all they like but the fact remains good readers and mathematicians are often in bed on time so learning every day in school,not in front of XBoxes day in and out, exposed to advanced literacy and with parents who ensure tables are learnt and books read.You don't need money to do this and there are many families who do it on very little.You need to be a good level before you even consider studying for the 11+ so the above is crucial as is a decent primary which many are excluded from.

Also the myth that being m/c guarantees places is in itself damaging as many on very low incomes who do the above won't bother even trying when they could.

Finally there are lots of things my kids don't /can't have that others in other parts of the country do.It's life.

Phineyj. That's what the Performance Tables Statistics say ?.
possibly the DOE have misprinted the statistics or maybe the "Calibration" of converting IB in to A level results does not work very well.

The reason the C+ average caught my eye , because traditionally Tonbridge Grammar has shown a B+ average or 240 points plus at A level .

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11284656/Ofsted-warns-state-schools-are-failing-their-brightest-pupils.html

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/13/state-schools-pupils-ofsted-chief

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/13/state-schools-pupils-ofsted-chief

40% of comps not challenging most able...

Being sharp elbowed should be encouraged,the sharp elbowed are those that get their kids to the 11+ level

of course i think the gov are trying to encourage parents but the point is, some parents dont care and schools need to step up and help those pupils

Since this system isn't even available countrywide I think the sooner it's abolished the better

we either abolish all private schools and grammars or have more gammers.

I'd be happy to see all private schools abolished but at least they're available countrywide - just not to people who can't afford them.

Grammar schools lingering on in small sections of the country are archaic and in my opinion should be abolished.

Grammar schools do very well and many children benefit from attending them, so the idea of abolishing them makes no sense to me.

There seems to be a lot if angst here about schools having to do more, but what about parents? I don't think it's ok to just accept that some parents aren't motivated enough to support and encourage their child's education, and say that schools should compensate, or even be shut down because of them.

Not likely Sooty,Sutton have acknowledged they're here to stay.

Knitted that is my point exactly,you're talking about 40% not all.

Many state comps will be challenging their brightest but they won't be in areas where housing is cheap and affordable for all but still the angst is aimed elsewhere.As I said I expect this is because several MNers like being able to buy their way into the better schools and would rather this was glossed over and the focus put elsewhere.

I also suspect many of these posters don't like the idea of missing out on anything and have some weird view that a couple of bright kids ending up in grammar dilutes the top set experience their kids enjoy in the comps.

Oh and Sooty all sorts of sporting and sports facilities are available in some areas but not in others.Best get rid of them too to make it fair.

arts

I don't think it's likely that grammar schools will disappear. I do find it frustrating that it seems so impossible to develop a consensus of evidence on what the impact of their existence is, such that they exist in some parts of the country and not others, it seems insane that we haven't just worked out if it's a good thing or not (I have an equal frustration over whether fluoride should be added to the water or not!).

What I don't like about the grammar school situation at the moment is the blatant disconnect between what everyone (Grammar School Heads included) say is the point of them (creating opportunity for those with the most academic potential) and the reality. And that the solution seems relatively straightforward (primaries encouraging and supporting pupils who that potential). But that inertia, the reluctance to get to grips with the fact that this is the bloody educational system here so can we please make it work as well as it can please, and the self-interest, means that nothing changes.

It's great to hear there are some schools doing that Miele72, just wish it wasn't 'going against the rules' in many LEAs to do so.

It is great that some schools are using their PP to help children with the 11+, but there will still be children excluded from help they may need if schools do that.

The pp isn't directed at children who need more support to achieve their full academic potential, it's awarded to children whose parents have the right income and as a result can cause further disadvantage.

I think that some 11+ preparation should be offered to every child in a grammar school area as part of their primary provision, which would not restrict it to PP. But without that in place, at least Miele72's school are doing something. Yes it would be great if all parents were equally as supportive, encouraging and had enough money to buy a couple of 11+ books, but we shouldn't do nothing just because other things are not perfect. Start with what is doable!

Maybe adding in % applying and passing the 11+ on to school stats and a feed into a Ofsted ratings would make it a higher priority

This suggests that the number of children going to grammar schools reflects successful schools. My children went from the primary school to the comprehensive because their primary schools served them wll and their comprehensives would serve them even better. Their lack of attendance reflects strengths in the comprehensive system rather than a weakness.

Absolutely, if we are going to give some children extra help for the 11+ then it should be given to all children.

There is only so much that can be done about unsupportive parenting, but if the state is going to step in and start providing extra, I'm very uncomfortable with that extra only going to certain children. All it does is provide even more disadvantage to others, but this time it's worse because it's not something that is beyond the control of the government, it is them actually creating it.

I would hope that any school that is using pp money to run 11+ preparation sessions is also opening it up to any child who shows the potential to pass the 11+, and does not restrict the classes only to children that get onto a certain list.

I agree tiggy, this is why I hate the whole concept of the pupil premium. It's incredibly unfair and it should be completely scrapped in my opinion.

Just give the schools the funding and them decide which children need the extra support.

It wouldn't be about deserving or non deserving though, it ought to be about identifying and then meeting children's needs.

I appreciate that there is a gap between the achievement of children who are eligible for FSMs and those who aren't, but there are just too many exceptions to the rule for it to be anywhere close to 'best fit'.

There are plenty of children who qualify for FSMs that don't need extra support because they are capable and they have good support from their parents, then there are plenty who don't qualify that genuinely need all the help they can get for a multitude of reasons.

The pupil premium is just government discrimination in my mind, and the losers are children.

I completely see what you're saying, and if know I do get a very big bee in my bonnet about PP, and that is because I know too many exceptions to the rule, and too many children who don't achieve as well as they could even though their parents do have enough money to feed and house them well. I also get irate because traveller children who as a group probably need the most help don't get awarded any extra funding, despite in many cases being far more in need than a child who gets FSMs.

The PP, as you say, is targeted at a distinct group of children who have been shown to suffer disadvantage overall. But that group of children are lucky enough to have been measured in the first place.

Have there been similar studies about children who have a disabled parent, or children who have a sibling with sen, or children whose parents have had messy divorces and difficult relationships, or children who have had a sibling or parent die, or children who simply have lower academic intelligence than others, and what about the children who are just over the threshold for being eligible for FSMs?

Maybe there have been studies done on them, I don't know. But there is more than one way of being disadvantaged (or two, if we think of LAC as well) and those children are equally deserving of this small amount of money that does make a difference.

It's easy to say that all children who struggle should be supported to achieve their potential regardless of their home life, but it doesn't happen. If a child achieves well enough then they can easily be overlooked. Do we do anything in primary to look at what a child's potential is compared to what they actually achieve?

I should probably start another thread to air my complaints about PP though, it's not really relevant to this one!