To wonder how much parental support their is for grammar schools? schools

[BarbarianMum]

Yet another speech from Teresa May this morning claiming that grammar schools enjoy widespread parental support. As a product of the comprehensive school system and parent of 2 boys going through the same I'm really puzzled by this. Do these schools (and the secondary moderns that go with them) really appeal to the majority? FWIW I don't think either of my boys would have any difficulty getting into one and I still don't think that they are a good idea. So what am I missing?

We should introduce another stream to the NHS. For the healthiest 20% who need the least support.

The most able 20% need no less support than average students They can still have dyslexia, ASD, behaviour issues (believe me, I know about the behaviour issues), etc., and, of course, even without those additional needs, they still need just as much support and encouragement and input from teachers to achieve their best as the average ability students do. It's really not analogous to healthcare in this respect.

In fact, one of the problems we have with education in this country is that in some comprehensives, the high ability students get far less support than the average ability ones, because the system is all about %ages getting Cs and the bright kids can be safely ignored on that count.

I find the suggestion that MN is left leaning risible. It's very right of the other parenting website I use not Netmums or Bounty before you ask and definitely right of centrist me.

I am lucky enough to live on the border of a grammar area and a comprehensive area. I have one child in each system. The reasons why I wanted 1 Ds in grammar is probably not typical. He has asd and is bright but vulnerable. He is socially safer in the grammar where his brilliance in computing and science earns him social currency and he is not bullied despite being very unusual, the kids accept him. He also gets more support there than he would in a comprehensive. Despite his brilliance in some areas he has very real difficulties in communication and really struggles in essay based subjects. However in a comp where there would be many children with more severe issues around learning and behaviour and I don't think they would take ds's needs as seriously in consequence. It is also smaller and more traditional which suits Ds.
My other child is at the local comp. This is not a secondary modern (other LA) and has a cohort of able kids who chose not to try for grammar or didn't get in etc. It is more vibrant with better facilities than the grammar, less sheltered. However in terms of the standard of his work (he is in higher sets) the work is on a par and I think aspects of their teaching, such as their structures and encouragement of reflection, are better. But there is no doubt that 'all life is there' and he has been exposed to much more in terms of attitude and behaviour than my other son. Luckily this is fine for him as he is much more robust and doesn't have my other son's learning needs.
So in my case the choice of grammar, weirdly, is not about excellence - the comp offers that. It is about access to support. I expect that is a pretty unusual reason for that choice.

sandyholme - you're one of those people who really don't understand people whose politics aren't all about self interest.

Working class Tories despise and are baffled by educated m/c professionals who raise their voices in support of policies which support the poor rather than m/c interests. You have to frame them as 'patronising' and 'champagne socialists' because there is no place in your value system for that kind of behaviour. I think you're genuinely morally offended by them.

Probably because it's patronising mini (if you hadn't guessed I'm a wc tory)

So as a Tory, would you say that supporting the rights of the poor is patronising if you're middle class? So let's see how well things work out in this country when only the poor care about the poor. That'll work

And what'll you say about the poor who care about the poor? Would you denigrate that as self-interest? Would you try and smash the unions so that the poor weren't allowed to advocate for the poor?

It's middle class flight that's exacerbating the issue with schools not people like me.

My own dc are in a top flight grammar school. It's the only way in our area they'd have been able to have even half a shot of an education suitable for their potential.

You (group not individual) can move into an area with a good school. I, and others like me, cannot. Do not presume you know the issues we have unless you too are having them

And yes I'd do away with unions because most of them are run by self serving arseholes who ultimately lead a company to closure

The unions were created by the poor for the poor. How else do you expect the poor to get their needs met if the middle classes all just say "fuck the poor, I don't care"?

And yes I'd do away with unions because most of them are run by self serving arseholes who ultimately lead a company to closure

Any facts you'd like to share on this?

By the way, if you enjoy any protection to do with redundancy, health and safety or breaks from work to eat, etc. thank a union.

Thats why they were created however tell me how much union bosses earn...they're more like private industries these days

I work voluntarily as a union rep. Lots of work no extra pay to help vulnerable colleagues. Self serving asshole that's me.

Holiday pay, sick pay etc these rights were not given to us by benevolent employers. If you have these rights thank a Trades Union activist.

And read up on your history.

Thats why they were created however tell me how much union bosses earn...they're more like private industries these days

Not sure how this supports what you assert about the destructive power of the unions.

Oh god, I'm sorry for bringing the unions into this thread

That's OK, it wasn't you, it was Puzzled, and I had to bite.

"Probably because it's patronising mini (if you hadn't guessed I'm a wc tory)"

Why? How?

I'm a privately educated m/c professional. If I raise my voice against child poverty and the housing crises am I being 'patronising' because I'm not poor and I own my own home?

Do you actually think people are morally AT FAULT for not constantly acting out of self interest?

Puzzled, I live in a very deprived area and my dc's go to a comprehensive school with double the national average number of dc's on free school meals.

I know plenty of people who wouldn't touch my dc's school with a bargepole. Their kids go to super selective grammars or private. Despite 40% of all GCSE grades at my DC's non-selective school being at A or A*, and kids going on to do medicine, law, going to Oxbridge, Russell group unis, the school is still considered 'not good enough' by parents whose belief is that any school which has poor low achieving children is simply fundamentally unsuitable for their own offspring.

Do you actually think people are morally AT FAULT for not constantly acting out of self interest

This reminds me of a book I have about 'life' - from the selfish gene where we consider ourselves and our own self interest through to acting in the overall interest of society as a whole.

You could argue that looking out for each other makes the society a better and safer place with all the benefits that come from that - rather than self interest that benefits the individual but also comes at a cost to the individual.

It's a massive discussion.

"You could argue that looking out for each other makes the society a better and safer place with all the benefits that come from that"

Yes you are right.

I don't want to live an a culture where many people are insecure employment, or living in dire poverty, or failing in education, or experiencing family breakdown, ill health, engaging in crime and being the victims of it. But that's the direction this government and their policies are taking us - housing, health, education, employment, social care. :-(

I live in an area with a mix of Grammar, Comprehensive (and recent Academies) and private schools. The 11 plus is not covered at my child's junior school (a state one), you have to opt in to take it. Yes, some do tutor for it. The exams were today in our area, some 2,150 children taking the test for 950 places - so yes, I'd say it was a fairly popular option and I am in favour.

I am not sure that a grammar school would be a good fit for my own child, there are some good comprehensives to choose from and yes, we have stayed in a house which would give us a good chance of getting in to the best comprehensives. Equally, there are some schools (one of which is an Academy) that I wouldn't consider at all. I would agree with PP that have commented that house prices are a factor in this.

I would also agree that children take it when they are 10! Not many children have a birthday in the first week of term so I'd be interested to know how many are actually 11 when they take it here!

The problem is that grammar schools are not necessarily selecting the most naturally intelligent children. More often than not, the children who pass the 11+ and gain a place have received private tuition paid for by middle class parents. The poorer kids are already at a disadvantage because they don't get any extra help.
Almost every kid at my primary who sat the 11+ had a private tutor at home. Only a few of them were in higher sets for maths/English, they were coached specifically for the exam.
More effort should be made in raising up the ordinary schools.

What depresses me is that this seems to be a move backwards, rather than forwards. I am not anti-selection (despite being a raving leftie former trade union officer - seems to be a lot of us about on this thread...) but I want to see more emphasis on ensuring that all children reach their potentials. For me, there is a problem with the language of the 'top' so-many per cent, which automatically means that all of the others are 'below' them and so in some way inferior. Also, I believe this needs to be thought about in terms of what will benefit society as a whole. I fully understand the instincts of parents who want to push their DC to get into grammar schools because they believe that it will provide them with better opportunities in life (and this seems to be generally true); but, as a society, we should want to ensure that all people are encouraged and equipped to contribute in ways that best suit their abilities and aptitudes, rather than focussing solely on the academically able. Don't get me started on the demolition of further education that has been going on under this government !

the selfish gene where we consider ourselves and our own self interest

Interestingly, that's not what "the selfish gene" means, though you'd be forgiven for thinking it is, given the way the phrase has been misconstrued (in fact, it's been misconstrued so much and so often you might say its meaning has changed, like "literally" now means "metaphorically" in everyday usage ). The selfish gene is an idea that says that when we think of evolution, we need to think on the level of individual genes, because genes are the thing that carry the information and instructions that get the gene (via the organism) selected or not selected. So in this gene-centric way of looking at evolution, it's the gene that "wants" to survive (a bad way of putting it but I can't think of a better one at 8am), and qualities that the gene has can either help or hinder the organism that it's in, the organism that must reproduce in order for the gene to survive. Read the book! It's great, and really easy to follow. And also where the word meme came from

I'm so sorry for another derail…

Of course, if the book starts at the level of the gene and works upwards through individual organisms through to the level of a whole society, then my sincere apologies for thinking that you didn't understand the original meaning of the phrase