To ask a question of th grammar school supporters on here?

[BertrandRussell]

If selective education is so effective, why don't wholly selective areas get significantly better GCSE results than wholly comprehensive ones?

You do understand that the school supports certain children more than others because they don't get it at home? You would really want to swap your DC's lives for theirs just so that they can get a bit of extra support in maths or whatever?
You want the scarce resources spread evenly so that your kids can leave their kids in the dirt even more than they already do?

x-post with curioushorse!

then selection with the syallbus staying the same gets best overall results?

No. I'm saying all children should get equal treatment from their school to reach their potential. I live in a deprived area and we are in the minority (aspirational and value education) our primary failed our dc because they could happily ignore them and not teach them. Yes I am bitter about it because how dare they make that decision for my children who should be taught in school and are entitled to a school based, not self directed as it ended up being, education.

I don't think Westminster is wealthy because it has good schools.

I thought it was interesting that the % of independent places is much higher where there are no grammar schools.

Not really; they are very wealthy boroughs, home to the seriously rich.

I'm saying all children should get equal treatment from their school to reach their potential.

In which case, the gap will never be narrowed.

Grammar schools Don't usually receive a larger than fair share of funding though noble so they aren't taking scarce resources that should be used to support disadvantaged pupils. The grammar schools that I know of actually receive less per pupil Funding than nearby non selective schools.

Does anybody know why the gifted and talented programme no longer really exists in primary schools? I know it was poorly implemented anyway but it seems to have gone completely now.

So you're advocating pulling children down then?

Those LAs seem to be pretty wealthy ones on the whole?

True but they are also the ones with some of the highest percentages of children in selective schools. The pattern across the country is very mixed but a large proportion of grammar places are in the South East.

No, Play, I'm advocating pulling disadvantaged kids up. That's why schools get given PP money per disadvantaged child, to use to improve their educational chances.

Then really what you're saying is my kids should be home educated and not be in school at all for all the teacher contact they recieved.

How did you dc do in the end, play?

No, Play. Clearly children have the right to go to a classroom to be taught by a teacher. If in fact your kids were put in a cupboard all day and didn't have any lessons then that's obviously unacceptable.

PlayOnWurtz

My experience of primary school is the same as yours. My DS2 particularly currently learns more from me and the out of school activities which he does than from the school.

We spent y6 working on 11+ papers and they attend a grammar school where they are thriving. Y6 was basically a sats cram for those who were expected to do poorly.

I think you expect equal treatment. otherwise teachers decide who gets extra help because they think that child deserves it more? On whose criteria?
It's surprising what teachers imagine your home life to be like. It's not always accurate.

We also do extra curricular clubs to meet their interests and are a household of avid readers.

teachers decide who gets extra help because they think that child deserves it more? On whose criteria?

Crikey if you knew things that teachers know about some kids' home lives you wouldn't begrudge them extra funding or support.

Or maybe you're totally self-absorbed and would? I don't know, I've been on MN long enough to not be surprised by anything.

Also, Pupil Premium is a trigger for extra cash and support. It's a blunt measure but the outcomes for PP kids are woeful so it's certainly identifying something problematic.

I know some kids have shit home l live on the same estate as many and it's truly depressing. It's horrible. However as ghastly as their lives are the support they require should not have a detrimental effect on the support the other children in the class recieve.

Who decides what criteria denotes a disadvantaged child? In order for you to feel you can give extra time and energy?

So what, your kids were put in a cupboard and didn't go to lessons? Their books weren't marked?
How did they get on in their SATs after being ignored for 7 years?

I feel I can safely say the school deserve none of the credit for the high marks my dc got in their sats nor can they take any credit for them passing their 11+

They weren't put in a cupboard but they may as well have been.

The thing is its not just me saying this. There are several others on this thread with bright children saying the exact same thing. Why are we striving for mediocrity, which is what you're advocating?

noble I ve seen teachers make huge assumptions about children's lives.
It depends often on what you tell the school. Lots of people prefer to keep things private.