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?

The schools are awful if you want your child to go to a school that achieves 99% @ GCSE and sends 8 to Oxbridge every year !

Greenginger, I don't think you ever commented on the figures I posted for pupil premium children in secondary moderns in the "affluent"south East.........

green
It's strange because lots of the education dilemmas about all these awful schools that kids couldn't possibly attend (according to some on MN) and tutoring, appeals etc are so far removed from what a lot of people experience.

I'm in Northern England and can't think of anyone I know who carries on the way some of these MN threads do. I can't be alone in living in an area where most people go to their local primary, feeder secondary and do well.

I look at some threads and feel I've entered a parallel universe of 'wonderful children' who couldn't possibly go to gheir local school, pushy parents living vicariously through their children, people using their children as measures of their own success and people who seem to spend a lot of time discussing the system with other equally highly strung individuals.

Boney, could you clarify?

My understanding of how Progress 8 works is:

• Each child who takes GCSEs has their grades compared to a 'benchmark group' of children who obtained the same SATs results as they did.

(So e.g. a child who got 4bs across the board would have their GCSE results compared with other children who got 4bs across the board)

• If that child's GCSE results are better than the benchmark group with identical or very similar SATs results, then they are counted as having made positive progress. if lower, then negative progress.
• This is aggregated up at school level, and for e.g. children who were low attainers in SATs, middle attainers and high attainers.
• Children without SATs results do not count either way. Their results are not included in the Progress8 measure (it's an approximate proxy measure for number of children who attended private primaries, unless you know that the school also has migration in from overseas)
• There is a confidence range attached, which gives you an idea of how reliable the measure is likely to be, statistically.

Of course the progress measure is based on different children for different schools - it is based on the children that the school has at the end of Year 11. Or am I missing something?

Yep, I live in a comp-only area and the suburban/village kids all generally go to their catchment schools while the city ones generally go to one of three city centre schools, depending on which they like best. They are all good. The Catholic kids tend to go to the Catholic school which is also very good and is regarded pretty much equally highly as the non-faith schools nearby.

Having said that, the results of each school correlate almost exactly with the percentage of pupil premium kids in each school.

Rather than I resting new grammar schools, I'd like to see a big increase in pupil premium funding.

Green, the point I am making is that the people who live in the catchment of very high performing secondaries are not 'priced out', if they have always lived there (the nearest one to me has a very stable population, where many families have lived in the area for several generations).

'Pricing out' only happens if you want to buy your way into the catchment, when your children are of the appropriate age, for the purpose of schooling.

Tbh, i cannot get myself worked up about the fact that people who want to buy their way into schools in this way cannot afford to do so, as long as the families who live in the council houses a short distance away from the school, and have done so since their children were born, CAN access the good school, and so can all families who have lived in the area for many years.

I can get myself worked up about the fact that there are more deprived wards outside the catchment served by schools with very high %PP, and the consequent burden on a range of resources, and want those children shared more fairly between schools over a wider area, and I can get myself worked up about the grammar with

Basically, my experience is pretty much exactly that of MaisyPops. And I live in a very cheap house for my city, and am in the catchment area of a very good school.

I am also very happy for the next tier up of income to be tackled once the PP children are shared out more fairly. Tbh, I think this is likely to flatten the differential between the schools to such an extent that it will then become a case of most children simply going to their nearest school, especially once Ofsted has made a further round of visits. While there are honorable and dishonorable exceptions, the correlation at the extremes of the data between low PP and Outstanding ratings, and conversely between high PP and Special measures, continues to disturb me.

Yes- it's not as if the rich are compulsorily purchasing houses in the catchments of good schools................

I don't recognise any of that Maisy
. I do recognise parents making choices and going to different schools that suit their children. Nobody discusses their choices. Highly strung, living through their children.... what just because they made a different choice to yours? Why do kids have to blindly follow into a feeder school? Im guessing you haven't come across any parents making alternative choices because you wouldn't possibly contemplate living in the areas containing the schools you have a negative view of in your area. If our feeder had fab results in the areas we were interested in, fab progress 8, rave reviews from other parents, an atmosphere and ethos we wanted I would have sent my kids there. It didn't so like several others we made an alternative choice. We made do in primary with an ethos we didn't believe in etc and it tuned out to be quite a negative experience. Ditto in our own secondary schooling. Our alternative choice happened to be a grammar in our case. I fail to see how this makes us living through our children or highly strung.

My area sounds similar. The threads on here about endlessly prepping kids for entrance tests, putting in pew time and buttering up the local priest just seem bizarre.

My friend lives in Kent and is currently prepping her DC for the 11+. She says the whole system is awful, people paying tonnes of money for tutors, stress about not getting in, and if you do get in, the grammar is single sex which doesn't suit all DC but the alternative is a secondary modern. Adverts for tutoring centres are everywhere.

I honestly can't believe that people would want that instead of funding schools properly and looking to models of excellence within the comprehensive system so that everyone can just go to their good local school.

But increasingly families can't buy into areas because housing is so expensive. They have lived there their whole lives and wish to move back with their own family. They may need to live in that area for work. Surely you can see families being lucky enough to have bought early in expensive areas aren't what you should base a policy on and will be increasingly less common.

Maybe the thing that those of us happy with our feeder schools have in common is that there no grammar schools anywhere nearby?

Green, if housing in a particular area are hugely overinflated because of affluent people living fairly locally who are buying their way into a catchment when their children are 10, then the obvious solution is not grammars, but is an admissions policy that prevents such 'for school' moves being successful in gaining places.

The cracking down on temporary rental for admissions purposes has already been fairly successful in many honeypot areas, and it would be perfectly possible to look at recent purchases from local moves with no need, local family or change of jobs.

Maybe the thing that those of us happy with our feeder schools have in common is that there no grammar schools anywhere nearby? Very possibly!

There will be alternative comps. Many, many parents bus their dc to more favoured comps. Either across town/ city or in the next village. What is all the angst and appeals over on allocation day? It sure as hell isnt over a paltry number of grammars many areas haven't even got.

Going to a gramamr doesnt make aomebody highly strung.
But in terms of what i see on MN Being the kind of pretentious "woe is me" folk that spend their days deciding part of the system is good for their kods but the rest is good enough for somebody elses kids is what gives thatbimpression.
That living through kids is the impression I get of some posters on MN. And yes they do come across as being highly strung. It has nothing to do with the fact they make a different choice to me and everything to do with the attitude they present. They're the kind of people I've met in person before I find insufferably smug.

Why do kids have to blindly follow into a feeder school? Im guessing you haven't come across any parents making alternative choices because you wouldn't possibly contemplate living in the areas containing the schools you have a negative view of in your area.
You are missing my point entirely here. The people having these big education panics don't live in those areas either! Vast majority of the catchments are council or housing association with an increasing amount of private rented due to cuts to housing.
I wouldn't live in those areas firstly because you don't buy houses there but secondly because they are areas where families have lived there for years and people rarely move in, also the crime levels etc aren't ok for me.
Don't imply I'm somehow choosing to buy a nice house in a leafy suburb and judging others. Assuming I get a house in the area I want it'll be a small house where the 2 nearest secondaries are category 3.

It's not a case of blindly following to a secondary. That's the option for most people who don't spend their days drilling their kids for 11+ and going private if all else fails.

The difference is what I want is a system that works for ALL children. Whereas the type of people who fret about on here aren't interested in that. They have no concept of life chances beyond their own precious offspring.

House prices are an issue for many reasons and not just schools.

But if parents can't always live where they want to live, then shouldn't the imperative be to make all schools good?

"The difference is what I want is a system that works for ALL children. Whereas the type of people who fret about on here aren't interested in that. They have no concept of life chances beyond their own precious offspring."

Absolutely. Would I rather my children attended a school that is 'perfect', but which disadvantages others, or would I rather that they spend their adult life in a world where everyone, including them, has been to a decent, but not perfect, school?

Noble, round our nearest honeypot school there really is a 'school premium' on house prices, driven almost entirely by families of 10 year olds. Yes, there are other reasons why housing in the general area is going up in price, but trying to buy a school place really does make a significant difference....

I do think it's rather telling that you are ignoring me about PP in secondary moderns, greenginger.

But anyway, In My Glorious Reign there will be admission by fair banding and lottery.

I think you are looking at it from a teacher perspective rather than a parent maisy
Most parents are looking for a school for their child not to even out the countries ills!

I think most people here would like an alternative, but realistically there isn't one so there is little point working up a head of steam about it.

I do think just being allocated a school makes you less bothered about it though. I mean, it's not something you've chosen really.

Bert, the only thing that bothers me about fair banding / lottery is the transport issue - a whole web of pupils being bussed in lots of different directions every morning, especially in more sparsely populated areas. Even in towns, it is unlikely that a child would have more than 1 or 2 secondaries in walking distance, and they could easily be allocated one right across town in a fair banding system.

So i like it in theory (fair, not influenced by purchasing power) but I worry about the transport / traffic implications?

Our comp is possibly as fair banded as you could get. Very average. I don't think children mix much outside their own demographic though.

Well the comp system doesn't work for all children. I didn't when I was in it and isn't now. Lord knows it's had enough years,governments and money to get it right.