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 😕

And I agree that the biggest factor in state school education in London is money.

But the selective state/private secondary schools in London are doing very well relative to selectives in the rest of the country. This I do put down (in part) to the increasingly insane competitiveness of the London 11+ tests for selectives. The kids are entering year 7 in these schools at very high Maths/English levels which then pushes through to GCSE/A level results.

I'd disagree there, too few selective schools are entirely open and don't have catchments for the effect to be positive in the broad way that has improved London schools. There may be a small element of it, but London hasn't got enough grammars for it to a main determinant.

smallfox2002 Wed 14-Sep-16 16:04:37 there aren't many grammars in London.

There aren't many Grammars full stop. However, there are Grammar Schools in London (Bexley, Bromley & Barnet) and a number in the surrounding areas e.g. Herts, Bucks, Kent, Surrey, Essex etc. How accessible they are to the majority actually living in London, I'm not sure.

In relation to the school population there aren't many.

Like I said not enough to make study for access to them a driving factor.

There are none in Surrey; there are some in the London Boroughs of Sutton and Kingston upon Thames, which may use Surrey in their postal address despite not being in Surrey for 50 years. They take children from from a very wide area of south west and west London.

Quick glance identifies 19 grammar school in Greater London.

Supposing on average each takes 2000 students that's 38,000 in total. For a bit of perspective London will need 72,000 more secondary places by 2020. There really aren't that many grammars serving the capital. They don't help to drive standards up

CecilyP thanks, I'm not familiar with that area so happy to stand corrected.

smallfox2002 The number preparing for the exam is far exceed the number of places available. Did the 38,000 account for this or is this just the number of DCs who will gain places?

These children are just the ones who are preparing for the state 11 plus. I imagine there are more who are also preparing for selective privates too. No idea how many though.

Ok then Grammar Trivia facts

I think they are 71 Towns with at least 1 Grammar school in them !
39 Grammar schools are located within 5 miles of the sea or an Estuary!

For some kind of reason Grammar schools and coasts seem to go together ! Poole, Bournemouth ,Plymouth ,Torquay ,Brixham , Dover Folkestone , Chatham, Sandwich , Rochester, Gravesend, Southend Skegness , Boston , Liverpool , Bebington, West KIrby , Lancaster

Ramsgate, Faversham , and Sittingbourne

21 grammar school towns out of 71 are 'coastal'.

DARTFORD ! (22)

Secondary school age children make up 8. 8 percent of the cities population.

So 750 000 give or take a few thousand.

38000 is 5 percent of that total.

Even if there were 5 kids attempting each available space it would still only be 25 percent of the school population.

As we know that not all areas have grammars and that not all have 2000 students it's highly.likely to be significantly less numbers of students in London taking the entrance exam.

It is not a determinant of success for London schools.

Funding, the main, biggest and most important.

I went to a grammar school (well actually an ex-grammar school that wasn't officially allowed to select on ability so selected on a 'parental letter'. I got an ok (if somewhat unbalanced) education, but not nearly as good an education as my children got in the local comprehensive.

The problems with grammar schools (imho) are the atmosphere of pressure and entitlement, the emphasis on academic excellence or failure they promote in the whole local school system, and their impact on other local schools. There's nothing like an ambitious head and a cohort of sharp-elbowed educated parents to push an average comp to excellence, and nothing like a 'second rate' label to drag one down.

I'd criticise any parent who chooses a school on snob value, but never criticise anyone who chooses to put their child where they think they will thrive.

Also.. how come the grammars didn't make such a difference before the London challenge?

Which btw isn't the only thing that has improved London schools schools.

As an academic who sees high achievers coming in, it is completely obvious that the London selectives (private and state) outperform the rest of the country and that the gap is growing. It's irrelevant that most of London's children aren't in these schools - most of the London students I see at a highly selective university are coming from these schools.

Haybott - grammars = massive selection bias, hence superior results.

You're an academic, you must be able to see that.

Or is the Sutton Trust's report showing only very small gains associated with grammar schooling for high achieving children, nonsense? (And even that research doesn't control for SATS sub levels).

Or the Sutton trusts findings that grammars are actually under represented at Oxbridge?

It also doesn't follow that because these students are coming to you from highly selective schools that this is the reason why London students out perform others.

As an academic surely you should acknowledge that because the selective state schools make up such a small amount of London schools that they can't be the reason for this.

Aren't London selectives ridiculously selective? Tiffin and the like? I'd hope they outperform a bog standard Kent selective.

Not all, some still have rules on catchment, some even on siblings.

"Aren't London selectives ridiculously selective? Tiffin and the like? "

I know three children who failed to get a place at a London SS. One went on to be offered a place at Dulwich College and St Pauls, and the two girls both got generous academic scholarships at good private girls schools.

It is VERY competitive and children are hothoused for the tests practically from reception.

The postcode lottery is odd. Either allow grammars in all counties or none.

The selection by postcode thing could be solved for everyone by a lottery/fair banding.

Grammars aren't a solution to the issue because they exclude poor kids for other reasons.

One of the reasons why London schools are doing so well is because of immigration. I see it in my DDs school. There are many races and cultures and lots of the kids come from backgrounds where it's cool to be smart. Their parents want their kids to step up the ladder. The competition is high so everyone including non-immigrants raises their game.

Londoner's don't have to read about globalisation competition because the South Korean boy or Nigerian girl are sitting in the same class as our kids and we can see the work ethic and attitude towards education and have conversations with their parents and we raise our game.

A friend moved to a coastal town before she had kids thinking it would be good for kids, safer etc and she regrets it.

Grammars may save a minority of kids but something needs to be done about towns with widespread low aspiration. Decades ago kids could drop out early and still get a job and even if they couldn't get a job they could easily get benefits. This isn't possible anymore.

actually JC fiecely wanted a comprehensive education for his son, and he and his wife split over it. He is not a champagne socialist. Diane Abbott on the other hand, yes, is a massive hypocrite.