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 😕

Calalili thank you for answering my question

JC left his wife because of her insistence of a grammar school education for their child.

I have heard this meme often enough from grammar school fans to people like me who hate them - the conversation goes 2 ways

Q. Did you go to a grammar school ?

A. Yes - what a steaming hypocrite you are - gaining the advantages and then wanting to pull the ladder up after you

OR

B. No - well you can't POSSIBLY know what it's like. You're just jealous and have a chip on your shoulder about it.

you can still see how unfair a system is while being a part of it.
Grammar schools basically only work for those with the money to tutor their children through the exams and so therefore less well off families will not benefit. Not to mention the bias against those in the BAME community.

No matter how much money you spend on eduction

Non will be equal

The biggest indicator on how a child will do is how much there parents value education

One imagines you could put some of the most challenging student in eaton but due to there family background and dynamic they simply won't do well

As my grandad used to say you can build a house on bad foundation

"voting against poorer voters getting the same opportunity"

poorer people don't have the same oppurtunities - extra grammar schools or not.

"The biggest indicator on how a child will do is how much there parents value education " (sic)

I can value my child's education all I want, I still can't afford the tutoring it takes to get kids through the exams.

Just because someone doesn't put their kids through a certain school doesn't mean they don't value their child's education.

Some of us do not get the opportunities that money can buy.

Pleasemothermay there are many many dimwits at eaton (and even more so at say, Harrow) they will still have a better career than the vast majority of this country through contacts, and if you don't believe that, you haven't moved in those circles

There are two types of people who have no money

finacally poor
And poverty of aspiration

If you don't a blue education your child just won't do well that it grammar schools won't change people who would rather there child miss a week of school rather than buy proper school shoes

poster TheSunnySide Tue 13-Sep-16 12:41:00

I don't agree I would imagine for example you take your child to the libuary

You would be surprised how many children have not been in one ever lest the school takes them

There are very basic things that parents can do to support there children education that have a huge impact

The amount of children whom don't have reguar bedtimes sit up all night long and are buggered for school the next day

My sons teacher told me this was huge issue

Reading to your child

Making them school ready

I said it before there are many parents who are often activity working against the school it's sad these children are doomed

It's not always about money sometimes it is sometimes it's also about choices

I choose to tutor my son but I don't smoke or drink I rarely gat my hair done we only got sky last year

Any who this is about labour lefties who will no doubt try and vote down grammars while packing off there children to one

Bullshit anyone

Here's the thing. 130 of the 173 failing secondaries are in the north and midlands, just 43 in the south Sky News on north south schools divide ....nobody really believes that Labour are about to finally sort out the entrenched crapness in the schools that have been bad for a long time

Exactly. And most of these schools are in poor Labour working class areas populated with the kind of voters Labour have ignored for a long time in the belief that if you stick a red rosette on a pig people would still come out and vote for it. Those voters have been ignored and taken for granted by Labour for so long I don't see why they would ever believe a hollow promise of improving all schools against the concrete promise of selective education which would at least give their children a fighting chance against their richer neighbours.

Yawn

I'm a socialist.

My kids are at comprehensives.

My family is middle class.

Do I count as a 'champagne socialist'?

Grammar schools basically only work for those with the money to tutor their children through the exams and so therefore less well off families will not benefit.

Exams can be weighted to minimise benefits of tutoring as much as possible and just measure raw intelligence. The brightest poor children will still outdo some tutored dimmer children and get in. So at least some will get a chance rather than the current system where none get a chance.

We currently have selection by house price which benefits the wealthy. If selection on ability isn't acceptable either then the only alternative I can see is random selection of school by lot and bussing children in. This would give a truly comprehensive education where poorer children weren't ghettoised away from their wealthier peers. But something tells me that were anybody to suggest this suddenly an awful lot of Mumsnetters would lose their commitment to comprehensive education when they couldn't buy their way out of it and it wasn't other people's children being consigned to a shit education but potentially theirs.

Um, minifingerz, that comprehensive didn't work out well for at least one of your kids IIRC?

Op, I find your posts almost impossible to understand. Could you possibly proof read and correct before hitting post? What does this mean:

"If you don't a blue education your child just won't do well that it grammar schools won't change people who would rather there child miss a week of school rather than buy proper school shoes"

?

And your rambling about children who never get taken to the library - how will the new grammar schools help them?

poster BillSykesDog Tue 13-Sep-16 13:14:47

We currently have selection by house price which benefits the wealthy. If selection on ability isn't acceptable either then the only alternative I can see is random selection of school by lot and bussing children in. This would give a truly comprehensive education where poorer children weren't ghettoised away from their wealthier peers. But something tells me that were anybody to suggest this suddenly an awful lot of Mumsnetters would lose their commitment to comprehensive education when they couldn't buy their way out of it and it wasn't other people's children being consigned to a shit education but potentially theirs
this' we live in a ok area but it's all that we could afford I am a lucky in that my children are adopted so have to be admitted to any school we want them in*

If you claim your a socialist but have brought your way into a good education via house prices them yes your a CS

And also I think most minority children and working class people including me would be highly offended by the lefties using our children as some sort of social enrichment before you pack them off to Oxford

My children mix with working class people all the time there called there family now can we have some grammar schools

Op, I find your posts almost impossible to understand. Could you possibly proof read and correct before hitting post? What does this mean:

"If you don't a value education your child just won't do well , grammar schools won't change people who would rather there child miss a week of school rather than buy proper school shoes"

?

And your rambling about children who never get taken to the library - how will the new grammar schools help them?

It won't but it may help children who do I rather some children get a decent education than non labour had there change to give us a utopian society instead they brought in tuition fees and packed off there kids to grammars while making it impossible for anyone else

Awsome

YANBU and I'd add Nicky Morgan to the list.

I benefit from lots of things. Class privilege. White privilege. Doesn't mean I approve of them.

Incidentally I did go to a comp (and on from there to Oxford) my children go to an excellent and distinctly unleafy comp, they're bright kids who could presumably have got themselves in elsewhere, and if anyone wants me I'll be in the corner swigging champagne with Minifingerz and Bibbetty.

"There are very basic things that parents can do to support there (sic) children education that have a huge impact"

of course there are but going to the library doesn't get you through 11+ Exams - getting Tutored in the right way by very expensive tutors does.

That's beyond me financially, let alone those who can't get to a library.

"But something tells me that were anybody to suggest this suddenly an awful lot of Mumsnetters would lose their commitment to comprehensive education when they couldn't buy their way out of it and it wasn't other people's children being consigned to a shit education but potentially theirs."

I can't buy my child into a good comprehensive education. He will go to one of the shittest secondary schools in our city by all accounts. The answer to giving all children a better education is not to open more grammar schools so more rich people can tutor their kids into them, it's to fund the existing comprehensives in all areas and raise teaching standards.

Yes, if visiting the library was so effective in getting children in to selective schools, 11+ tutors would be out of business.

How is it that schools have got to the point where grammar school entrance is so hard that people have to now afford private tutors?

I got into grammar school as I passed the 11 plus and nothing more nothing less. No special lessons given to me.

Having said that though I am not sure I valued my education and certainly could have turned out better. I am not blaming my parents but on reflection I wasn't pushed enough.

On the other hand I try my best to push ds and he scrapes by at school.

I doubt even with lots of private tutoring ds would have got in to a grammar school he just isn't remotely academic.

TheSunnySide Tue

I hate to tell you this but just thowing money at the problem usually is not the answer

One would imagine there are things the head could do but chooses not to to raise standards that costs nothing if very little

Cracking down on uniform is often one of them we see how not letting the little darling not wearing Nike air max to school because they want to goes down like a lead ballon

My sons school is outstanding has been for years it's in one of the poorest parts of the LA there are well over the average on free school meals and has over -70% of children start with little or no English

It's often a convinent for heads to say they have no money when in reality there are just shit and ineffective

There is a school about 5 minutes from my son it's been is special measures for years and has a more affluent school population than my sons due to missing the council estate in the catchment

You could give some school billions write blank cheque books and bar astetics you wouldn't see much improvement

Please find me one good, robust study which shows a correlation between uniform on its own (as opposed to uniform as an addendum to other measures) and academic results.