Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

"I could never send my dcs to grammar school....

770 replies

winkywinkola · 12/07/2016 20:51

...because I think it's unfair on all those children who can't get in because they couldn't afford tutoring for 11+. But I will send them to prep and boarding school."

I was a bit perplexed to hear this from a mum at the school gate. Aibu?

OP posts:
Lurkedforever1 · 17/07/2016 18:19

two I've always thought the actual fsm data would be interesting, rather than just the averages. Everyone accepts there will always be exceptions to the rule, with the odd high achieving child on fsm. But too few in number to make any difference to the average achievement of fsm dc.

However I personally suspect the data would show something different. So on a scatter graph current figures would imply most dc are clustered below average, with a few at the bottom and the odd one at the top. But I think the actual data would show quite a few more fsm dc at the top, with the majority group clustered lower than the former chart.

Basically I think that there are a lot of fsm dc achieving lower than the average implies, and therefore not getting enough support. And a fair few higher achieving fsm dc also not reaching potential being missed, because it's wrongly assumed they are very rare.

I also think that in general terms it's down to the fact fsm dc generally get the worst of whatever is on offer.

teacherwith2kids · 17/07/2016 18:25

Lurked, IME it will also depend on wh a child is on FSM, and for how long that has persisted.

So a child who is in receipt of Pupil Premium because of a relatively short period of low income (e.g. unemployment; a move to lone parenthood where the main wage earner leaves the family; a previously employed parent becoming a carer etc) can be very different - and achieve very differently - from a child who is in long term receipt of FSM based not only on low income but also compounding issues such as poor housing; domestic violence; sudden bereavement; substance abuse. The overall community will also play a role in terms of e.g the expectation for unemployment / underemployment; general level of value for education etc.

beardedladydragon · 17/07/2016 19:06

I read an article in the Guardian which reported on an pilot study in allocation of secondary places. I think it was in Brighton. Places were allocated on a postcode lottery so there was a balance in the schools. The outcome was that nothing significantly changed. Those children who didn't achieve continued to not achieve even when in an outstanding school. The conclusion was that success in school was correlated to life outside of school not the school itself.

Lurkedforever1 · 17/07/2016 20:04

teacher agreed. Because of being a lone parent, dd started primary on fsm, and was officially still on the pp run on when she did her sats end of ks2. But I'll be the first to admit that in every other way she is different to the stereotype. And with her having attended a small primary, I can look at their data over the years and pinpoint the years when the fsm results were reflective of dc from historically deprived homes, and the years where they comprised dc who were just financially deprived.

I do still think societies general low expectations of pp kids are part of the reason why they achieve lower. Take sn, it's hard enough for mc parents to get a dx and support, let alone if it has already been presumed your low income explains your childs low achievement/ behavior etc. I've had clients, and their dc written off as understandably stupid because they are x,y,z, when they have actually got something as easy to dx as dyslexia. But nobody will take them seriously because the presumption is they are low achieving as expected. And don't even get me started about deprived homes where there is an sn like adhd. Most of my work involves people on low incomes, either on fsm or who would be with school age dc. And it never ceases to amaze me how many have intelligence that is not on a par with their level of education. And of course if you struggle with basic numeracy or literacy, your dc will be forever playing catch up.

goodbyestranger · 17/07/2016 20:04

Thanks for responding teacher.

I think it's fair to point out that DC who are in receipt of PP due to short term issues such as a sudden move to lone parenthood may well also have compounding issues such as domestic violence, which is certainly not restricted to any particular social group. I'm far from convinced about the neat division although I get the main point.

minifingerz · 17/07/2016 21:04

this is interesting

"Research shows that racial and socioeconomic diversity in the classroom can provide students with a range of cognitive and social benefits. And school policies around the country are beginning to catch up. Today, over 4 million students in America are enrolled in school districts or charter schools with socioeconomic integration policies—a number that has more than doubled since 2007.

Here’s why the growing momentum in favor of diversity in schools is good news for all students:

Academic and Cognitive Benefits

On average, students in socioeconomically and racially diverse schools—regardless of a student’s own economic status—have stronger academic outcomes than students in schools with concentrated poverty.

Students in integrated schools have higher average test scores. On the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) given to fourth graders in math, for example, low-income students attending more affluent schools scored roughly two years of learning ahead of low-income students in high-poverty schools. Controlling carefully for students’ family background, another study found that students in mixed-income schools showed 30 percent more growth in test scores over their four years in high school than peers with similar socioeconomic backgrounds in schools with concentrated poverty.
Students in integrated schools are more likely to enroll in college. When comparing students with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, those students at more affluent schools are 68 percent more likely to enroll at a four-year college than their peers at high-poverty schools.
Students in integrated schools are less likely to drop out. Dropout rates are significantly higher for students in segregated, high-poverty schools than for students in integrated schools. During the height of desegregation in the 1970s and 1980s, dropout rates decreased for minority students, with the greatest decline in dropout rates occurring in districts that had undergone the largest reductions in school segregation.
Integrated schools help to reduce racial achievement gaps. In fact, the racial achievement gap in K–12 education closed more rapidly during the peak years of school desegregation in the 1970s and 1980s than it has overall in the decades that followed—when many desegregation policies were dismantled. More recently, black and Latino students had smaller achievement gaps with white students on the 2007 and 2009 NAEP when they were less likely to be stuck in high-poverty school environments. The gap in SAT scores between black and white students continues to be larger in segregated districts, and one study showed that change from complete segregation to complete integration in a district could reduce as much as one quarter of the current SAT score disparity.
Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity. We know that diverse classrooms, in which students learn cooperatively alongside those whose perspectives and backgrounds are different from their own, are beneficial to all students—including middle-class white students—because these environments promote creativity, motivation, deeper learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills."

Margrethe · 17/07/2016 22:13

It's always a "sticky wicket" to argue based on US schools because there are very real differences between the US and the UK.

However this sentence stood out for me:

On average, students in socioeconomically and racially diverse schools—regardless of a student’s own economic status—have stronger academic outcomes than students in schools with concentrated poverty.

I think this is the problem in the US. It's statistically better for students to be in diverse schools than in schools with concentrated poverty. This raises the average kid's attainment. They don't address with stats how an above average, white kid in a non-diverse, non-poverty school is doing vs. how they would be doing in a more diverse school. They do go on to posit that, of course, diversity would give them benefits and to make the logical argument, but they don't back it up with stats.

Parents can sniff this stuff a mile away. It's why schools in the USA stay somewhat segregated. Parents by and large don't worry about what is best for the average kid, they worry about what is best for their kid. No one wants to see a narrowing of the attainment gap, if it is done through curtailing their own children's attainment.

teacherwith2kids · 17/07/2016 22:31

Goodbye,

I apologise - I typed my last post twice, and an 'or' got lost in the editing somewhere. It is long term and / or compounding features vs a single short period of low income alone I meant, but managed to make it sound as if compounding features could only make a difference if they were combined with long term FSM....

teacherwith2kids · 17/07/2016 22:33

"Parents by and large don't worry about what is best for the average kid, they worry about what is best for their kid."

Yes, I have noticed this often in these threads - those of us who argue for the 'overall societal good' or 'overall outcomes for all children' often find ourselves in opposition to those who want 'the best for their child' as a narrow focus.

Lurkedforever1 · 17/07/2016 22:46

I do think for you teacher, and others that statement is true. But I think that for some people, it's only true as long as it doesn't disadvantage their child. I'm not thinking of anyone in particular who has posted, more rl. Parents who know full well their dc will go to good comprehensives that suit their needs find it very easy to pay lip service to the greater good. As do parents who just don't realise not all comprehensives are equal to their dc's.

It's a lot easier to object to grammars if your own dc will get a good education, than it is for a parent in the position that a grammar is their only hope, despite not living in a selective area.

GetAHaircutCarl · 17/07/2016 22:49

There is no definite best system for all children.

Comprehensives may offer better outcomes for a certain section of children but it would be a statement of desire as opposed to fact to say they offer better outcomes for all pupils.

And morally there is no real higher ground in wanting better outcomes for group X than group Y. Someone always loses out.

BertrandRussell · 18/07/2016 01:11

Why would a good comprehensive school not be the best option for all children?

minifingerz · 18/07/2016 06:55

"Yes, I have noticed this often in these threads - those of us who argue for the 'overall societal good' or 'overall outcomes for all children' often find ourselves in opposition to those who want 'the best for their child' as a narrow focus"

Well said.

Re: 'bad' schools - it's unfortunate that for most parents on mn, a school can get a label of poor or inadequate on the basis that it takes in disproportionate numbers of disadvantaged children, and that its results will reflect this. It's a chicken and egg situation - "I can't send my bright dc's to a school where there are very few bright children" becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

My dc's school was considered one of the "worst" schools in the uk a few years ago - reputation for violence, poor results, disproportionate numbers of very disadvantaged children. Now m/c parents fall over themselves to get their children in there. What's changed? The head has gone out of his way to offer things that m/c parents value: good music teaching, streaming and setting, a wide range of languages (including Latin and Greek), separate sciences. And the m/c have come flocking. Result - the school has gone into an upward spiral with results improving year by year as the intake improves. He's received a lot of criticism for doing this, but it's dragged the whole school up. Have to say, there are still parents who pity my child for having to go there. I get a lot of 'couldn't you afford to go private?' and encouragement to try for a bursary.

Schools are communities and their character will primarily reflect the children and families who make up the school. Schools which are ghettoes for disadvantaged children will remain so as long as m/c parents who are engaged with their child's education reject them. But it's not inevitable, as evidenced by the changes in some schools' intake as their star starts to rise.

teacherwith2kids · 18/07/2016 07:29

"Someone always loses out"

In a 'with my head above the parapet' way, I do think that a system of good comprehensives (with admissions criteria designed as far as possible so that the label of good / outstanding can be attached, not on the basis of intake, but on the basis of the quality of school), supplemented with a few 'special schools' for those at both extreme ends of the ability, accessed through statementing and Ed psych recommendation, would disadvantage very few children indeed.

In a 'ducks head below the parapet' way, I do think that there is a moral difference between wanting better outcomes for large numbers of disadvantaged children, for those without the money to pay for coaching, for those who have not been able to access great primaries, for those who are poorly parented or have parents who do not care about education, and wanting the best possible outcomes for a small number of already-privileged, already well-educated, highly able children (I speak as the parent of two of the latter).

minifingerz · 18/07/2016 07:38

Get - extremely clever children do brilliantly in some comprehensives.

BertrandRussell · 18/07/2016 08:04

"Comprehensives may offer better outcomes for a certain section of children but it would be a statement of desire as opposed to fact to say they offer better outcomes for all pupils"

Ok- leaving aside individual schools, what is it about the comprehensive system that means it cannot offer "better outcomes for all pupils"?

CruCru · 18/07/2016 08:26

Gosh, this is an interesting thread.

Someone mentioned Brighton a few posts ago. Brighton is a bit of a strange place, schools-wise. There are a couple of comprehensives that are "desirable" and a whole bunch that people do not want. The postcode lottery has just made people a bit more jittery when applying to schools.

Tanith · 18/07/2016 08:37

State school didn't work for my DS. He's very highly gifted. Comprehensive would have seen him as a geeky misfit and he'd have been very unhappy.
In the private sector, he has thrived and is achieving his full potential.

My DD is also bright, but not as academic as DS. She remains in the state sector and is also very happy.

They are very different children. There is no one-size-fits-all where education is concerned and parents do the best they can for their child - or should do.

BertrandRussell · 18/07/2016 09:12

"There is no one-size-fits-all where education is concerned "

No, there isn't, I agree. But supporters of the selective system seem to think that two sizes fit all after one very cursory bit of measuring.........

Tanith · 18/07/2016 09:56

Not at all. There is the choice between private schools, grammar schools and comprehensives - all with their own specialities and ethos. Some areas have a wider choice than others (maths college, sports college, arts college etc.) but that's geographical and a different argument.

Yokohamajojo · 18/07/2016 10:33

I find statements such as 'we tutor because we value our children's education' baffling. Do people really think that we who don't tutor because we either can't afford it or other reasons, do not value our children's education? Hmm

BertrandRussell · 18/07/2016 10:36

"There is the choice between private schools, grammar schools and comprehensives"
Not for most people in most areas there isn't!

MintJulip · 18/07/2016 11:04

It's a lot easier to object to grammars if your own dc will get a good education, than it is for a parent in the position that a grammar is their only hope, despite not living in a selective area

Indeed.

The comprehensive " experiment" has been in place for a very long time now. Is it a success?

I have two near me that have been awful for a good 20 years - probably 30. Why?

Why in all this time are those two schools still dire? Why on earth are they not great comps? I suppose some posters who have availed themselves of the grammar system would say I should send my DC to these dire schools?

The gap in society is growing - why? Where is education filling in this gap, and arming all children with the tools they need in life?

I say enough with this failed experiment, get the grammars back in across the whole country, get primary schools to offer solid, holistic support for potential candidates and get children with academic promise into schools that can support them.

Give the others all the help they need to bearing in mind, you will still have a high proportion of extremely bright dc in comps.

MintJulip · 18/07/2016 11:05

TM is of course Grammar product, and its encouraging to see a swing towards bringing them back.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread