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 😕

"There is no consistency in primary schools and helping pupils prepare for and sit the test. Yet on the other hand you have parents sending their DC to prep schools who will be working every day with that very test and other more rigorous tests in mind.

Many primary schools do not even cover the sufficient amount of the curriculum to pass the test. This is where tutors have stepped in. To fill that gap that primary schools have left open."

We don't have Grammar schools in Wales so there would be no point. But that aside I personally think primary school should not be about prepping and hothousing children to pass tests.

Well thats great for kids who know what they want to do but at the age of 14 an awful lot don't. I have two in the local academy, its a good school, the local school. I am quite rural so there's no choice. My DD is in year 10 and has just started her GCSEs. There is no way I would be moving her out of that school now when her teachers have been monitoring her progress from the day she started. Her GCSES are all she needs to be concerned about now.

I will say it is easy to slag off comps because no one tends to bother naming the comp they went to-not out of shame, generally, but because who cares? That means people don't generally associate comprehensive education with career and life success.

What would it be like if, when people were interviewed, their state schools were named in the same way that, say, public schools like Radley and Benenden etc are named? My school would crop up quite a bit, for one: lots of fellow attendees of all backgrounds have done very, very well (internationally prominent business role, top exec of blue chip company, law, medicine, drama, product design) though I have to admit it was a South East commuter belt school that apparently 'doesn't count' to comp sceptics (so they don't have to take its good results into account when judging the system).

I am always surprised by how few people from my old grammar have done well, given it was a superselective and we were all meant to be super-talented.

poster WindPowerRanger Tue 13-Sep-16 15:10:06

My sons school was fab howeve I still felt that I had to tutor to mitage the large class sizes and the naughty children the disrupted that the school are not allowed to expell

Mine too Wind. It produced a couple of MPs, a few rock stars and sports celebs as well as the very many very many professional in many areas over the years. Not naming anyone as it would out me but it was an inner city secondary school from a very varied catchment area.

I'm a liberal leftie. I'm
Neither fashionable nor a "champagne socialist" (god I hate that term).

And yes. Grammar schools are bad.

So do I, Orwellschild. I will admit to being a Campari socialist if pressed.

pleasemothermay1 Tue 13-Sep-16 14:37:55

"hh so I get it now we keep the bright children in a shit school for the benefit of other children "

Dd wasn't "other children". She was another bright child who happened to be ill at the time. Because she attended a good comprehensive, both she and the other bright children in her class did well and nobody missed out. If a division had been made at 11, then she and any other children who because of illness, family problems or lack of family support were unable to make the most of their talent at such a young age, would have missed out.

"How can someone in the top set show someone who is totally separated from them in the bottom set what to do?"

Ds was in bottom sets when he started secondary and in top sets in several subjects when he left. That's how. Sets don't have to be set in stone. The presence of a top set who are motivated and do interesting things can be an incentive for a child to work his way up.

I didn't go to a grammar school - there weren't any where I was bought up (deprived, northern). My husband went to a Catholic comp in a very poor area. We both have good degrees from Russell Group uni and have done well. We did both have huge amounts of family support though. My DH from a working class background, and me from a middle class background (but a single mother and no cash).

We've moved with work around the country, and made sure that when it came to kids we did not live in an area with grammar schools. We'd seen what the 11+ had done to our friends' and colleagues' kids. Fine for those who were dead cert entry, but really shitty for those on the borderline who just got in, or just missed. The 'just got ins' felt thick all the way through, even though they were bright, and the 'just missed' felt thick because they had failed at 11, even though they were bright. It became clear that extra tutoring all the way through, or private prep schools were commonplace to prepare for entry.

We moved to an area with great local comprehensive schools. The area has one 'catchment' for all the secondaries, and pretty much everyone gets into the one they choose (something like 95%). So kids in social housing get same choice of state school as those in £1m+ homes. Most schools are now academies but some still proudly describe themselves as comprehensive, like my kids'.

The secondary we chose has excellent results and is a very nurturing environment. No hothouse, no selection, yet the able kids do extremely well, and they grow up as part of the community with their less academic friends, and value them as equals.

Not lefty claptrap at all. Just good, local schooling for all. Far better spending money on this than with the gimmick of grammar schools.

"Many primary schools do not even cover the sufficient amount of the curriculum to pass the test. This is where tutors have stepped in. To fill that gap that primary schools have left open."

Surely the question should be why are state grammars, teaching the national curriculum, testing on the basis of material that is beyond the KS2 national curriculum? How can that ever claim to be fair or reasonable? OK, VR and NVR, which are supposed to be non-curricular IQ tests, but so many ask for maths, essays etc.

Offline - I agree fervently with your point. I think selection is a good thing, but in the state sector it should not be made on the basis of tests for which only the rich may prepare.

But that aside I personally think primary school should not be about prepping and hothousing children to pass tests

Ahh that predictable dramatic swing to the left

No middle ground, no gentle prepping for a few hours a week, chatting to the dp etc...basic exam technique which would benefit every single child? Parents of GS pupils coming in to help and so on.

but in the state sector it should not be made on the basis of tests for which only the rich may prepare.

The only reason the so called rich may prepare ( BTW DP of DC who have gone for grammar are actually low income, doing it diy at home with a tutor at the end to make sure no gaps...) IS BECAUSE State Primaries do not necessarily help their pupils.

If state primary helped their students then of course more FSM etc would be attending GS.

Offline to answer the question: the original idea was that by putting in questions on each area of the KS2 curriculum, it would allow all pupils a fair chance at answering a sufficient number of questions to pass the test. Different primaries taught the syllabus in a different order and this was designed to make it fair.

Unfortunately, that's where the tutoring industry saw a gap to fill, leading to the problems now identified.

The CEM tests avoid this problem and don't give a particular advantage to those who've covered the whole curriculum, in the way the old tests did.

If primary schools prepared the kids, parents would still prepare their kids outside school as well- so the result would be the same.

gentle prepping for a few hours a week, chatting to the dp etc...basic exam technique which would benefit every single child? Parents of GS pupils coming in to help and so on.

What a bloody waste of curriculum time, prepping kids for an exam 80% of them are set to fail. You do realise that you can't add in hours of 11+ prep without taking out hours of other stuff.

The CEM tests avoid this problem

CEM have just released evidence that shows their tests don't work, don't assess natural ability and are biased against deprived children.

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils

"No middle ground, no gentle prepping for a few hours a week, chatting to the dp etc...basic exam technique which would benefit every single child? Parents of GS pupils coming in to help and so on."

You can laugh all you want but we are talking about Grammar schools and the terrific amount of prepping and tutoring that goes on in the hope that kids get through the exams. We are not talking about a middle ground. If you go for the middle ground you still won't get into grammar school unless you are naturally gifted in the way that grammar school tests need you to be.

As a poster described above, the system leaves different children feeling inadequate in different ways and the pressure on those kids is enormous.

I personally believe that school is not for prepping 5 year olds to pass exams like the 11+ but clearly some do take gifted children and try to guide them through grammar school and Oxbridge entry - they always have. The reality is that most children do not have the financial backing that they need and there are better ways to educate than the grammar system.

Presumably that post of mine will be lost in the noise.... No-one has any faith in these CEM tests and that's quite funny, since no-one has seen them (except CEM, the schools and the 11+ candidates fleetingly).

No-one has any faith in these CEM tests

Including the CEM, see my link.

By which I mean I do - they're very different from the old tests. The tutors out there are livid because they simply don't have a clue what's in them.

Surely the question should be why are state grammars, teaching the national curriculum, testing on the basis of material that is beyond the KS2 national curriculum?

I have never got the impression that they are?

Some primaries cannot get through the part of the curriculum thats appropriate for the test. Some do.

noble

I dont think there is any getting through to some posters sadly

I was thinking more of the pupils who can give it a shot, simply being helped by the school.

Help means extra hours somewhere outside the curriculum, knowing whats in the exam for a start being able to say to Pupil X " your tables are weak, you need to do x y and z". Exam technique....and so on.

In my dc primary school the top set is different to the bottom set so not sure how on earth it would affect the other sets.

"Presumably that post of mine will be lost in the noise.... No-one has any faith in these CEM tests and that's quite funny, since no-one has seen them (except CEM, the schools and the 11+ candidates fleetingly)."

My understanding is that fewer state school pupils pass the new CEM tests and there is no difference in the number of FSM passers. Am I wrong?

The reality is that most children do not have the financial backing that they need and there are better ways to educate than the grammar system.

^^ well what we have now certainly isnt it.

Your FSM pupils are being let down by their own schools.

How come in the past - pupils could do a few practise papers and pass, what changed?