To wonder if there are supporters of grammar schools who didn't go to grammar schools themselves

[WildebeestH]

Just that really. The only friends I have who support grammar schools went to grammar schools themselves. I'm intrigued to know if there are many people who support them having not been to a grammar (or other selective) school and if so why?

Peregrina Yes, I'm sure things have improved since the 70s, but not far enough, IMO. Of course, it's very difficult to judge these things, because there are I believe 55 schools of education in England, and some will have improved more than others.

The area I know most about, having followed it closely for 20 years, is the teaching of reading. And there, I am sorry to say, the hostility to the evidence from psychology reading researchers about the importance of explicit, systematic phonics teaching has been truly shocking, right up to the introduction by the government of phonics in 2007. Hopefully, it's changed over the last decade, but in 2009 a Freedom of Information request showed most teacher training programs had a lot of Whole Language books on their reading lists, but next to nothing about phonics.

Green its odd that you consistently argue that poor kids can't get into top comps because rich parents buy all the places there, then when shown evidence from the DfE that actually selective schools have a higher proportion of better off kids than the top comps, all of a sudden top comps aren't as in wealthy areas as grammars?

The graph is split by attainment decile so the figures I referred to come from the comps with the top 10% of attainment. Now I know that top attainment doesn't necessarily equal top school, but those who argue about selection by postcode generally look at attainment.

By selective school, it means grammar. Remember this is a graph produced by the DfE to shore up the case for grammars. What's odd is how clearly it shows that grammar schools cater for the better off, yet they published anyway and hoped no one would notice.

consult.education.gov.uk/school-leadership-analysis-unit/analysing-family-circumstances-and-education-1/

Sorry, that wasn't clear. Let me try again.

And there, I am sorry to say, the hostility from most education academics to the evidence provided by psychology reading researchers about the importance of explicit, systematic phonics teaching has been truly shocking,

I'd be very interested in graphs that show parental level of education rather than wealth - and proportions in the two systems.

You have lumped everything on a national level,simply pointing out how the systems differ. You're not comparing like with like.

There are very few grammars,the maj are surely in the wholly grammar areas which are in the South East which have vastly higher incomes than elsewhere. Those in secondary moderns in those areas will be on vastly higher incomes than in other parts of the country. The plan is to open grammars in other parts of the country where life is vastly different to the South East with vastly lower incomes. This alongside other measures will have an impact eventually.

Counties and towns have favoured comps. House prices reflect this. The cost varies but so does household income,graphs like you have shown don't reflect this. On a national level 20 or 30 k difference in house price doesn't seem much particularly to those in the SE but if you are in a low income area that 20 k is a huge amount and shuts your kids out of a better school.

Don't you think that many of those top comps are in London and the South East with the same high income as the grammars? And yet they have more poor kids and fewer more affluent kids as a proportion of intake.

Why roll out a system that favours the better off and excludes the worst off across the country?

You just can't compare London to the rest of the country. It doesn't pan out like that everywhere else, assuming your claims that all the top London comps have poorer kids than elsewhere regardless of selection schemes and social housing is true.

Fascinating, Green. How does your claim that the fact that grammars are stuffed with the more affluent and have hardly any disadvantaged kids because the areas are wealthier and just don't have that many poor kids stack up against the figures that show that secondary moderns from the same area as the grammars have plenty of disadvantaged kids?

And actually other kids count too. Those in the middle. Would love to believe that Joe Bloggs not eligible for any assistance as regards benefits or housing could just find a job,pitch up in London and get their kids into Greycoats et al. The sceptic in me thinks not.

I'm sure they do but they'll have sheds loads of kids on incomes far higher than kids say in the north east. I thought you were looking at it from a national level.

The plan is to open more in less wealthy areas alongside making it easier for the less wealthy to get in. What are the plans to sort out the comp system?

Those in the middle are in yellow on the graph. You can see the proportion of families not on PP but below median income in the top comps is exactly the same as those in grammars.

So we have way fewer disadvantaged kids, way more more affluent kids and exactly the same proportion of 'ordinary working families' in grammars as top comps.

Yet it's the grammar model that the Tories want to propagate. Knowing what we know of the Tory party and who they traditionally serve, it astonishes me that anyone would keep arguing that they're doing it in the interests of the not very well off.

What are the plans to sort out the comp system?

They don't have any. They are runnning it into the ground by underfunding it, losing qualified teachers at a rate of knots and not being able to hire replacements, and generally the whole thing is a mess. They are trying to maintain votes from their traditional MC demographic by giving them the hope that their kid would get into a grammar to 'save' them from the mess that's afflicting the rest of the system.

What MC parents don't realise is that grammars are just as shafted for money as the rest of us.

They don't have any. They are runnning it into the ground by underfunding it, losing qualified teachers at a rate of knots and not being able to hire replacements, and generally the whole thing is a mess. They are trying to maintain votes from their traditional MC demographic by giving them the hope that their kid would get into a grammar to 'save' them from the mess that's afflicting the rest of the system.

Exactly this.

I'm in a great school, great results and we are struggling to find maths and English teachers.

Other schools in our area that are in a worse situation than us have high staff turnover.

They are only pushing free schools and grammars to appease middle classes who know that they can get their kids out of the schools that are "good enough for other people's kids".

Don't you think that the grammars would be "stuffed with children from educated parents" ?
would that worry anyone?

"Those in secondary moderns in those areas will be on vastly higher incomes than in other parts of the country."

Really? 37% PP kids in our secondary modern......

46.3% PP at the next nearest Secondary Modern............

"Don't you think that the grammars would be "stuffed with children from educated parents" ?
would that worry anyone?"

Yes, it would.

Does your school speak for all?

Well exactly. I don't get the angst over them. They are really underfunded, they're not a golden ticket. Once in they aren't perfect and have their faults like any other school. The way some anti grammars bang on you'd think they were a short stop to a gilded life. They really aren't. I like having them in the variety of schools we had to choose from though. I frankly don't think the middle classes should be scorned for not liking some schools. Plenty move their dc to preferred comps.The scorned middle classes are the majority of the population. Maybe they should be listened to.

50% PP in the next nearest.

Yep- lots of money in our secondary moderns.....

"The way some anti grammars bang on you'd think they were a short stop to a gilded life. They really aren't"

Saying things like this is just tedious.

How about those just above pp and above that?

green those just above PP are the yellow band.
The middle classes are mostly in the more affluent band. The DfE set the median income pretty low.

The way some anti grammars bang on you'd think they were a short stop to a gilded life.
I don't think grammars are the way to a gilded life.
I do think they entrench already strong elements of inequality.
I do think they make the system worse for those who do not get into the grammar.