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. ..

worraliberty admittedly I worded my post wrongly. I've just typed an explanation and lost it.

What I meant is, among my circle of school mum friends some have worked hard to get 'up there'. One started off on benefits and now has a good job with a good income, own mortgage etc, her DCs still get PP as the rules at their school are you still get PP if you've been on FSMs within the last x amount of years. She'd be a bit miffed if she was described as poor now.

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.

Think I agree awfulaunty

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

They've done this here sleepy. The school everyone wanted their DC to get into years ago no one wants as their first choice now. The one that you wouldn't send your worst enemy to a few years back had had more £ invested into it, change of HT and has had a complete turnaround. Now everyone is clambering to get their DCs into that school.

Sleepyblueocean, I am not sure money is the answer. You can build the most advanced school and hire best teachers, but if there is no support at home the school won't achieve much. Some private schools exist in tiny old buildings with limited resources, yet the children achieve impressive results and gain places in grammars/private secondaries of their choice.

Getacurl many are starting to.

As in if they pass pp kids go to the top of the queue.

Its 25 years since I took the 11+ and got into grammar school. No one was tutored. I went to school with people whose parents were professionals, insurance people, school caretakers, factory workers and due to a large local employer engineers. IMO thats how it should be. Yes we got good results, but many kids at the local comp got equally good results. And in those days if you lived over a certain distance away then you got free transport.

So my question is: when did it all go bonkers?

The King Edwards consortium in Birmingham already do this. So if a child has been eligible for PP at time during the previous 6 years prior to taking the test, the score needed for a place is slightly lower.

Its a good idea, however I'm not sure it reaches the kids it should. State schools are not allowed to tutor in any way. So unless a poor child is a complete outlier, the chances are low without some kind of familiarisation.

But still, it's an attempt to even the field. I however do not know of any children who have passed without tutoring either from well educated parents or a paid provider.

Redexpat Same here, only I took my 11+ 15 years ago. I knew some people who had tutors, but they were few and far between and tended to be from very pushy families. The 11+ wasn't why they were tutored.

I honestly think grammars are/were a good idea, but that's probably because I went to one. If you are highly academic and have the aptitude then they should be an option, but I do hate this tutoring for them, and the idea of having grammars for the poor is terrifying.

Oh, it would function the way grammar schools used to. It would cream off the intelligent from the 'lower classes', depriving lower social groups of their potential leaders. Works well for maintaining the status quo. Also nice for the intelligent poor who get a route out of poverty.
Solve lack of support/knowledge at home by abandoning homework and providing after-school prep sessions for all instead.

Grammar Schools for children who are not competing with those whose parents can afford private tutoring to pass the 11+ are a good idea.

All my kid's friends who attend a Grammar have this in common, with the exception of one who was tutored by the parent to pass.

Personally, I think a return to IQ based tests are fairer, maybe coupled with a referral system from primary school, but nothing is infallible. However, access to Grammar School for those whose families can't afford a private tutor is a start.

Stupid idea.

I think it would hinder social mobility too.

It won't hinder it as much as the current system, where you don't even get to cover the 11+ syllabus or practise past papers unless you are tutored and/or go to prep school!

It's an absolutely terrible idea.

11+ preparation ought to be provided free of charge in primary schools.

Or maybe the students should be tested only in maths and English. Some private schools had already abolished VR and NVR. Why grammar schools can't do the same?

NVR is a useful test for DC whose first language is not English.

Look at the stats - Poor kids of Asian (inc Indian) origin do better regardless of the schools they attend. This can be in part because for many Asian families things Grammar/Private School parents do - pushy parenting, extra classes, tuition - is so ingrained that these things are budgeted into household expenses. It's this idea that nothing is more important than a good education that makes these kids excel - and most will.

Sleepyblueocean, I am not sure money is the answer. You can build the most advanced school and hire best teachers, but if there is no support at home the school won't achieve much

This is totally true. I honestly believe that the home a child comes from has a huge influence over their prospects in life, and the emphasis on what school a child goes to is overstated. Of course it's relevant, but this idea that changing the school system will somehow eradicate inequality is rubbish in my opinion. Whatever schools children go to, they will still come from a variety of backgrounds which will continue to affect their prospects.

I believe in grammar schools personally as I think as a society we need to help the brightest students to excel to the highest possible standard. That is paramount and shouldn't be sacrificed for social mobility. But the two can sit alongside each other in trying to help those from poorer backgrounds to get into grammar schools, or to support them in whatever school the go to (there is a scheme called 'gifted and talented' or something I think?). I think the idea of tutoring for 11+ in state schools is a good one as well. But actively excluding children based on something they can't help e.g. their parents' wealth? No.

It is also important that those students who are never going to be the brightest or get into grammar school are helped to be the best they can be. For this reason I hate the A* - C grading schools have as there is no incentive to help an E grade student get a D or a B grade student get an A.

knackeredinyorkshire Sun 05-Mar-17 12:45:08

Sounds like a really good idea. We need as much variety as possible to help all dc reach potential, I just see grammar as one area of specialism. There should be loads more.

I honestly believe that the home a child comes from has a huge influence over their prospects in life, and the emphasis on what school a child goes to is overstated

whilst I feel parents are hugely influential the school should and does throw up potential bright candidates.

If you want to continue with a race to the bottom, then education should remain in a state of stasis. If you want to create a more vibrant, diverse and all inclusive society, then grammars should be a part of the options available to students and their parents.
The attitude of most ethnic brits needs to be modelled for the rest of society in my opinion. Education matters hugely. And it matters even more so these days.

So sick of hearing on MN how grammar schools are the domain of the middle class. How you only get a place if you have been tutored or surrounded by "museums" and have well educated, well travelled parents who spend their time educating their dcs into the grammar mold.

My dd has just got a grammar place. And yes we are well off. She had no tutoring. However, her school is in a very deprived area with large numbers of children receiving pupil premium. A significant number have got into grammar because they are clever.

Sick of the poor children = crap school argument. Its insulting.

I went to grammar. I was born to a 16 year old single mother and brought up in poverty. But i was clever. Just like loads of other less well off children.

Improve the schools we do have so every child can have the opportunity a good education . More teachers, more support and smaller class sizes. Lessons on integration.

In la la land there for a minute sorry!

I know pp is ever six however it's still a very U fair measure of household income.
Working parents can often be worse of financially than unemployed ones.
This could encourage people not to start work until their child is in year one.