To think that grammar schools for the "poor" is a stupid idea?

[AwfulAuntie]

I know it's Daily Mail, but...
"New grammar schools should be created that only admit children from the very poorest families, an academy chief has said.

Dame Rachel de Souza believes selective schools could boost social mobility by barring wealthier children not eligible for the pupil premium – the official indicator of poverty."
Surely it's a very stupid idea - to segregate kids by wealth. And who would like to wear a school uniform that signals you are "poor"? Or how the standards of a grammar school will be attained if the selection will be done on the grounds of a family's income and not the merit?

Ps a English is not my first language so sorry for spelling mistakes. ..

Hmmmm I haven't read the article but from what you've posted here, I sort of get it.
I was academically gifted and went to quite a prestige grammar school based on my abilities. However, I struggled to fit in and over 90% of the pupils there were from very well off families, had big houses etc. My mum was a single parent, didn't see my dad much and we lived in a council house. She worked full time to earn enough to get by but we very rarely had much left over for treats. All of our sports equipment had to be bought by us (for 5 different sports) as well as the uniform which was very expensive. My mum did her best and I'll always be greatful to her for it but I did feel like an outsider for most of my time there.

Yep, stupid idea!

Grammar schools in general are a shocking idea. Until there are grammar schools everywhere they should be mothballed.

I don't support grammar schools but if we have to have them then restricting entry to bright children from disadvantaged groups seems a much better idea than using them as a way for the middle classes to swerve private school fees.

Sort of a ghetto then?

So, what would happen if a pupil's family had a change of financial circumstances which meant they were no longer eligible? Would they get turfed out to the local academy?

Silly idea really.

Knackered, I agree! I think all kids should be tutored by state schools to minimise the advantage that wealthy parents can "buy" for their children.

Hesterton, but surely it will be possible to introduce a few VR/NVR lessons in school curriculum? Maybe the teacher could teach some NVR during maths lessons and VR during English?

^not eligible for the pupil premium – the official indicator of poverty."

Is it really? Someone needs to tell half the pupils that at my DCs naice school then.

Surely it's a very stupid idea - to segregate kids by wealth. And who would like to wear a school uniform that signals you are "poor"?

Well yes in a sense, but I had a very lovely college friend who had shit because her private school uniform indicated her and her sister was rich.

You could argue that kids are already segregated by wealth in some areas, those in council estates having to go to the nearest crap comp, whilst others who have the means to, can afford to move to an area with a nice GS/ or to pay for their DCs to go to a private school.

Terrible idea, as PP have said.

Could something like a 'contextual offer' help, ie the 11+ pass mark could be lower for children eligible for the pupil premium?

Presumably it would be relatively easy to engineer poverty for the purposes of getting into a 'poor' school. People do all sorts to get into outstanding schools.

I don't think it would be fair to lower a pass mark for pupils eligible for a pupil premium. They are no more deserving than children whose parents are struggling and working in low paid jobs.

Unfortunately a few VR and NVR lessons in an already packed curriculum are not going to set aside the years of privilege afforded by 7+ years in a private school, in addition to tutoring often for years. It would be a start but would probably only bump a few up. Not sure what the solution is though.

Is that based on those really intensive schools in the US? The ones that start early and finish late, plus set mountains of homework? They've had good results academically and socially. But I think they are pitched a bit differently than Grammar School, more like places that help kids catch up from the generations of neglect of the urban (I.e. black) public school system there.

I still can't see how these "schools for poor" will "boost social mobility". I think it might do the opposite and hinder further integration and aspirations.

Is it really? Someone needs to tell half the pupils that at my DCs naice school then

Why?

PP is still the official indicator of poverty and is used frequently by SLT, OFSTED, local authorities, governing bodies etc.

I'm not sure what 'telling the pupils' would achieve?

I doubt very much that there would only be grammar schools for the poor. You'd end up getting stigmatised schools( the poor and the school for the better off ). Those just over the cut off would be resentful as they'd be excluded.

Hesterton your description of grammars pretty much sums up the comp system in many areas.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39076204

And a few VR lessons don't count for much.

Solid maths skills and a good vocabulary from reading and language use do though in the same way they give advantages to some in Sats and GCSEs( which many also tutor for).

I don't see any reason why selective schools cannot introduce contextualised offers, as many universities do.

Why not spend this money on the already existing schools in areas of high deprivation.