to ask would you send your eldest Dc to a grammar school?

[var12]

Hypothetical question... if there were grammar schools in your area and your DC1 was offered a place, would you accept it?

Bobochic that doesn't actually make sense on any level and I'm fairly sure you know it.

"Oh yes Var, would you like to try and take me on there? Seeing as you can't put together a decent argument for grammar schools I'd love to see you try in economics."

Actually I think var's reason for supporting grammar schools sounds very valid. You don't agree with it smallfox so that makes it "not decent". I'm off now, this thread is going nowhere!!

Also, in order to make efficient and accurate decisions we need to divorce the "my child" feelings.

As we know that grammar schools favour the middle classes, at the cost of excluding those from poorer backgrounds, and even those from lower middle class backgrounds. Encourging a grammar school policy merely entrenches privilege and continues the theme of the lowest able from wealthier backgrounds surpassing their more able from poorer backgrounds.

It maintains the status quo, and finding funding to continue with this, whilst also cutting funds to other schools, and changing the goal posts in terms of attainment again, is not an acceptable outcome.

Government of the privileged, for the privileged, by the privileged in order to maintain their privilege.

Good for you Els, at least you buy your privileges, you don't expect them to be state funded to the detriment of everyone else.

"Ells.

But the argument being used to justify the creation of more grammar schools is that they improve social mobility, when all of the data proves that they don't. People then come and offer the "it works for me" which brings about the fallacies that have been pointed out.

Properly funding all schools would benefit the entirity of society, following the current policies of cutting funding to state schools, whilst finding extra funding for grammars isn't going to work".

That's part of the argument, with many posters' stories on here bearing it out, at least in part, and in part is better than not at all right? But the other part of the argument is that brighter children aren't currently being served well in comprehensives with many posters, including vars, citing their first hand experience of that.

"Everyone uses the "my child" argument for whatever school system suits their own family best. You are one of the most vocal "my child" posters out, Bertrand."

Not sure how you make that out. My children couldn't be a more perfect fit for grammar school if they had been printed out from a pre prepared spec! Right down to fine detail- dd had long swishy hair and ds has a posh boy flop. They have standard middle class names and they even both play slightly obscure musical instruments.

Oh Ells, what a shame, Var's reasons for supporting grammar schools are just my child.

You don't think the thread is going anywhere cause you can't sustain your argument.

I note that no one has commented on the data relating to grammar schools posted above. Funny that.

"Good for you Els, at least you buy your privileges, you don't expect them to be state funded to the detriment of everyone else"

Indeed I don't, and I am happy to pay the taxes that enable others to benefit from the state system that I don't use. I am also incredibly grateful to the grammar school system for enabling my dad to succeed sufficiently that my children's education doesn't have to be the burden of the state.

"But the other part of the argument is that brighter children aren't currently being served well in comprehensives with many posters, including vars, citing their first hand experience of that."

That's perception it may not be reality, as I said everyone has the brightest children at home.

So therefore if they aren't being served well by comprhensives which at the same time as facing funding cuts face higher and higher pressure on academic targets, especially with the 5 A-C and progress 8, wouldn't the best thing do to be able to fund these schools properly so that you can give all the children the same attention.

Much cheaper and cost effective than a whole new set up of grammars.

Also Var is working on the assumption her kids would have got in, they might not!

Also, your children do bear some state burden, private schools are after all tax exempt.

"Oh Ells, what a shame, Var's reasons for supporting grammar schools are just my child.

You don't think the thread is going anywhere cause you can't sustain your argument"

I CAN sustain my argument smallfox and do can var and many others - you just don't agree with them!!

I think a state school that selects on anything other than distance is wrong.

With my 'thinking of the greater good' hat on, i think grammars are wrong and only help those kids who would likely get there anyway.

With my 'want the best for my child' hat on I would probably send them to a good grammar school over a comp.

I am just not one of those people who can make a principled stand that might disadvantage my child

SO can var not do!

Also, your children do bear some state burden, private schools are after all tax exempt.

What are your figures to support this?

I pay 30k for my children to be educated in non-profit making schools. I save the state 10k in secondary school education by educating privately. I cannot believe that the private school is saving as much as10k per year on my kids by having charitable status, so I am still saving the state money by educating my kids privately.

"With my 'want the best for my child' hat on I would probably send them to a good grammar school over a comp.

I am just not one of those people who can make a principled stand that might disadvantage my child"

I don't actually believe there are any of those people out there. And if there are then more fool them in afraid!

Neither can I merry

Those that I know who have their children go to outstanding ofstead schools. Would they change their mind if they didn't ? probably

No, it isn't that I don't agree, its that your reasoning is flawed, as previously pointed out, repeatedly grammar schools favour the already privileged, proved with data.

The continually repeated failing to stretch points have been addressed and you still keep going on, as have the facts about how unrepresentative of the communities that they serve that grammars are.

I don't just not agree with your arguments, they're just not valid.

"Also, your children do bear some state burden, private schools are after all tax exempt.

What are your figures to support this?

I pay 30k for my children to be educated in non-profit making schools. I save the state 10k in secondary school education by educating privately. I cannot believe that the private school is saving as much as10k per year on my kids by having charitable status, so I am still saving the state money by educating my kids privately"

This. And also not all private schools have charitable status

Ah but they still cost the tax payer something, its not totally exempt.

Also, taxation isn't a pay in get out system, you don't get a plus tick in book for not sending your kids to private school.

This new funding that is being found for grammars - the only reference I can find in the BBC article is to £50 million pounds, which is an absolute drop in the ocean compared to the £85 billion total education budget for 2017 - it would hardly build 2 schools.

Is this right, does anyone know? Because if it is, this suggests to me that the concerns about money being diverted from other areas are generally unfounded, BUT also that one reason for this policy is that it is a very cheap way of making a major reform to the system.

"No, it isn't that I don't agree, its that your reasoning is flawed, as previously pointed out, repeatedly grammar schools favour the already privileged, proved with data.

The continually repeated failing to stretch points have been addressed and you still keep going on, as have the facts about how unrepresentative of the communities that they serve that grammars are.

I don't just not agree with your arguments, they're just not valid."

Then we'll agree to disagree! I'm off to collect my privileged child from school then prepare for work tomorrow to pay for it.

"Ah but they still cost the tax payer something, its not totally exempt.

Also, taxation isn't a pay in get out system, you don't get a plus tick in book for not sending your kids to private school"

I don't need a plus tick in book (whatever that is). As I said I'm happy to contribute financially to society.

Ds1 was advised that he was suitable to take the 11+ but decided that he didn't want to.

Ds2 we were advised that while he was clever he probably wasn't grammar school material and that we should reconsider taking the test. Ds2 wanted to sit the test, he did and has now just entered yr 10 at the grammar school.

dd sad to say has no interest and realistically no chance of passing so didn't sit the test which was last Saturday (Berkshire)

Depends on the child really the eldest DC chose to go to Grammar school over 20 miles away and it was the right thing for him. Youngest bright enough at subjects she enjoys but she opted for local comp with good reputation close by that 95% of local friends would be attending.

I think the £50 million is what they have committed so far.

Not what will be committed once it starts.

If we'd only stop reorganizing schools and spending more and more money on it there would be more available for the actual teaching.

I might have a better understanding of fixed income markets than you, smallfox. TBH, I think I probably do.