To think most of the people bemoaning grammar schools are hypocrites

[pleasemothermay1]

That's just it's really I don't mind people who have the courage of there conviction but I have no trux with champagne socialists

Like jc or Diane Abbott or Tristan hunt

Who's children all went or will be going to grammar or private

Even bloody James o Brian moaning about grammars when he rountinly says he wouldn't rule out private for his girls 😕

Yes mini but the Sutton Trust also says that the least well off do disproportionately better in a grammar school setting. Which is why the Sutton Trust backs them and backs (sometimes financially) their access initiatives.

And no Bert, I'm not going to 'link', the reports are readily available.

I'm happy to take on board that my DDs would also have done very well academically at a proper comp.

However, I genuinely don't think it would be as positive a learning environment for them, as they're having at their grammar.

At their grammar there is virtually zero bad behaviour or disruption in lessons. Teachers don't have to resort to crowd control. There's no fighting in the playground and the police are never called into school.

" all the lefties were arguing for tuition fees "

Someone who argues for tuition fees is not a lefty.

Bobo I have to confess that 'knowing of' Peter Lampl, I'm surprised at allegations of a disguised agenda.

There is no disguised agenda.

I went to Grammar school in the 1980's and there was lots of bad behaviour and crowd control needed. Lots of kids who passed the eleven plus but weren't that interested in working hard - recall a few boys in our class who frequently scored single digits on exams.

"RedHelenB - it has been demonstrated time and again that similarly able DC perform less well at GCSE in a non-selective school than in a selective school."

The evidence that I've quoted in my post doesn't suggest that there is a big difference.

In any case - 'selection bias'.

Children who attend grammars overwhelmingly come from families who hugely prioritise education. There are many high achieving children who choose not to sit for selective schools whose parents simply don't have the same level of engagement.

My own dc's are like this. DD in top sets for everything at school despite being the youngest in her year, but without any input from us. I never listened to her read or did any writing with her at home, or tutored her in any way. She didn't sit the 11+. Never even occurred to me. Her performance at secondary stank - not because she's not clever or because her non-selective secondary was shit (plenty of other clever girls went on to get strings of A*'s) but because she didn't have a work ethic or prepare for exams. She was on the books as a 'high achieving child' at the end of primary, and no doubt people like you would look at her educational outcomes and say 'see - look how children in comprehensives underachiever, but her results reflect the fact that she is the type of child, and we are the type of family, who don't focus on academic attainment in the way that parents who put their child forward for the 11+ do, not the quality of her education in secondary.

"However, I genuinely don't think it would be as positive a learning environment for them, as they're having at their grammar.

At their grammar there is virtually zero bad behaviour or disruption in lessons."

So the argument for grammar schools is that we should protect high achieving children from the bad behaviour of other children?

What about protecting low and middle achievers from the bad behaviour of other children?

Or don't they count?

Don't all children want and need a decent learning environment?

Why do you think clever children need this more?

I'd have thought that being clever, they probably cope better with disruption. You know - better focus, more independent in their learning.

Why on earth should clever kids be naturally immune from the effects of disruption?!

Why should there be any need fir grammars?

Where I live (everyone lives in their own personal bubble after all) the comp system is working. The comps work for top set (like a mini grammar within a comp), middle set (you can move up to the top sets if you work harder) and bottom sets (smaller classes in bottom sets). Then around 80% goes onto 6th form.

Again, a very good 6th form it is.

So why the need for grammars? Why not improve comps? The comp system can work really well.

There are many hypocrites when it comes to education but many Labour politicians are the worst and people forget Labour introduced tuition fees.

If the problem is that many average and high attaining kids are not meeting their potential due to a proportion of badly behaved kids and their crappy uninterested parents why don't they create more specialist schools that the kids who don't give a shit can go to rather than cream off the brightest at grammars?

All the socialists I know were completely against selective education until their DC got to around Y5. Then they found some very important reason why they had to move house close to an exclusive comprehensive or started going to church more or found a private tutor or found a private school that could do something no other state school in the country could do (still not sure what that is though).

Very few of them ever admit the truth, everyone is equal, but their children are more equal than others.

Yes they are hypocrites.

BTW - the belief that ability is 'fixed' in all children and can be measured by testing at 11, is roundly refuted by many psychologists.

Some of the pro grammar lobby need to have a look at Carol Dweck's theories about mindset:

mindset

Everyone in education will know Dweck's work mini.

minifingerz - I don't want my DC to be educated alongside DC like your DD - clever but with no work ethic and unengaged parents.

"Why on earth should clever kids be naturally immune from the effects of disruption?!"

Well, my ds has always got pretty short shrift from me on the (rare) occasions when there is disruption in one of his classes.

I remind him to check his privilege. Obviously not in such blunt terms.......

"Why on earth should clever kids be naturally immune from the effects of disruption?!"

They're not.

I just don't understand why the grammar lobby's concern about disruptive behaviour is only in relation to how it affects the learning of high achieving children.

mini I think all schools should enforce far better behaviour on their pupils. But that is never going to happen effectively, and across the board, is it?

So I am just hugely relieved my DDs are at a school where bad behaviour and lesson disruption aren't an issue.

"Even people like chukka who benfifitted grately himself from grammar education"
Did he????

"minifingerz - I don't want my DC to be educated alongside DC like your DD - clever but with no work ethic and unengaged parents."

But the structure of the entire education system shouldn't be designed to prioritise the wishes of a certain sector of parents to isolate their children from their peers whom they deem 'unworthy'.

Children come in all shapes and sizes. My dd experienced severe mental illness while at secondary school that hugely impacted on her ability to engage with her education. I appreciate that you don't want your child to mix with children whose illness or special needs, or possibly children whose experience of neglect and abuse at home has implications for their behaviour at school, but you know, this is what is called 'real life'. If you want to educate your children in a social bubble there's always the option of home schooling or private school. ;-)

By the way - your comments about "unengaged parents" - so nasty and judgemental. DH and I have always been massively engaged. I read to my daughter every single night of her life until she was 12 and told me to 'stop it now'. We cooked with her, took her to the theatre, and to museums, played with her, sang with her, took her for long hikes in the country and to galleries, talked with her, hugged her, took her to the cinema and watched old films with her. There are different ways of engaging with children than those which involve you getting them to do worksheets, handwriting practice and helicoptering over them while they do homework. Why SHOULD a parent feel bad for not listening to a child read when the child in question has become a strong reader and a big book enthusiast just by being read to?

Some people prioritise particular types of learning, others prioritise different things. People who aren't pushing their children academically are not necessarily 'disengaged'. Neither are children who aren't very achievement orientated in relation to school work 'not bright'.

Don't rise, mini.

She's "only playing". And has a rich fantasy life.

poster Capricorn76 Wed 14-Sep-16 08:57:49
If the problem is that many average and high attaining kids are not meeting their potential due to a proportion of badly behaved kids and their crappy uninterested parents why don't they create more specialist schools that the kids who don't give a shit can go to rather than cream off the brightest at grammars?
be ause they want to use well behaved children and gifted children as a sudo moral models they have the misguided notion that is makes naughty children better behaved or do better academically the reailty is its drags there grades down and makes the otherwise well behaved children behave badly like when a teacher sits a naught child next to a well behaved child in the hope it will calm them

It dosent work never has there is a well known Epasoide on the Simpsons

We're skniner talks about cone of ignorance he shows Bart in the middle and all the people that sit directly next t Bart but awful grades and the futher away you sit the better marks you get

It makes me giggle but sadly often ture

This is the reality of having badly behaved or unengaed children

I don't think people would even care if the child was academic or not as long as they behaved but too often the children are not doing well because of there behaviour

vimeo.com/16152346

this lol