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?

You can ask anybody who sends their dc to a preferred comp the same. Hoards do it, you even get a list of choice spaces on secondary application forms.

In our area kids went to 5 diff comps, quite a few didn't go to the feeder. They put down their preferences and got then. Must be having quite an impact on the comp system.

What is the %PP for your grammar vs the other 5 schools?

If selection was truly 'means blind', and simply a matter of parental choice like choosing between the 5 comps, then they would be very much on a par?

(Oh, also: what is the %PP of the feeder comp, which presumably transport is free to, vs the %PP at the alternatives?)

Would the answer not be to address the issues within that school rather than removing10% of pupils and leaving 90% in a poor school.

Or you could do both????

Because then we're back to the point that the 11+ is a load of bollocks.

The question is whether you can fully improve a school without the most able 10%, especially if people persist in seeing raw results as the mark of a good school, and if the best teachers ill often choose to teach in the 'higher status', 'easier' school (in terms of e.g. social issues that come with deprivation) rather than the secondary modern.

If a school is bad and you simply want an alternative then why not argue for opening a free school that sets by ability, has a good pastoral team etc? Why argue for a school that the majority of children from the first school are excluded from before it even opens its doors?

"Would the answer not be to address the issues within that school rather than removing10% of pupils and leaving 90% in a poor school.

Or you could do both????"

Why would you want to?

I think when you are looking at the headline results - which as a parents that's possibly what you will do it makes sense to have the top cohort in there as they will improve the headline figures. We can then pretend it's a better school as the headline rate is up.

I don't really buy into the idea of cultural capital and somehow the mc going in to support the school. It certainly doesn't happen like that here - there is very little involvement from parents in the school.

The other point is that if you have 1 (limited) pot of money, is it better to use it to improve the already-existing comprehensive for all, or to lower the standard of the comprehensive by ploughing the money into building a wholly new school which creams off the highest 10%?

And if it really is a plan to appease the middle classes, then it's not going to be the top 10%, is it? It'll be 25% or not enough will get their kids in.

Bert, if it's already limited by the ability to tutor for the test and afford the bus fare afterwards, the 10% who get in will probably include the top 25% of the target MC families, so it's probably OK....

My children are both at a grammar (we live in Bucks so 100% selective) and I work in a Comprehensive.

Grammars don't mean you have beautifully behaved children but what you do generally have are supportive parents who value education and will ensure homework/ revision done.

the pressure on my children is way in excess of the pressure put on the children where I work. The pace of the lessons is much faster and their is a general expectation that children will do further reading/ consolidation at home. They are taught at a higher level then where I work. I would say the quality of teaching is similar.

The extra curricular stuff at my children's school is way above that in local non grammars. Also the aspiration for the children is higher.

My children are very fortunate but yes the grammar system is unfair- all children should be afforded the same opportunities.

I do disagree with the standard Mumsnet notion that children in grammars are heavily tutored and privileged- at my children's school they are normal kids from the local state schools. They are not bussed in from miles around- tge last two years they have only offered to 3.2 miles from the school and there is a very strict catchment and residency policy.

Disagree with grammars by all means but don't imply that all kids in them are over tutored automatons with rich, pushy parents.

What is the %PP for the grammar vs your comprehensive vs the secondary modern that is the alternative to the grammar for those who fail the 11+?

If the system is genuinely fair and income-blind, the grammar and secondary modern %PP should be the same.

I appreciate that not all pupils at the grammar are rich and over-tutored - but they are, on average, richer and more tutored than those in the secondary modern....

And just for the record I went to a comp and my husband to a mid league boarding school.

cantkeepawayforever they are broadly similar- the upper is nearly twice as big and hence has a larger catchment area which includes a less prosperous area. It's % is slightly higher which probably reflects this. The neighbouring grammar is catchment for this area and I couldn't tell you how many children from there qualify.

I do live in a very leafy middle class area though - both the grammar and upper are located in the same town. The Upper performs v highly sending pupils to Oxbridge / Russell Group. All children have friends at both schools and there is no nastiness.

The comp I work in has much higher pupil premium which is reflective of where it is.

TBH thinking of my children's primary class as many tutored and didn't qualify as those who tutored and did.

The evidence just does not support new grammar schools at the moment. Students who are in receipt of free school meals who get into grammar schools do tend to do disproportionately well. Questions could be asked about if those students are fully representative of students on FSM. However too few get in and therefore the Sutton Trust has recommended that the existing grammar schools work harder to recruit students from deprived backgrounds before opening anymore. The government has ignored this advice - which isn't surprising as they have a record of ignoring research - in fact Gove boasted about ignoring experts.

Tw1nsetAndPearls my children's school has changed their admissions policy so pp children have a lower qualifying score.

I will be moving house ( I rent so not as big an issue) when the time comes so that we will be in the catchment for a grammar school. Can't afford private so it's our only chance of a decent education.

The brighter kids all want to learn. Discipline is better in a grammar school. Kids not dragged down by the dregs.

My school can't afford textbooks for the new GCSE or the new A-level and teachers are buying their own classroom supplies. We've had redundancies among teaching staff and TAs. Support staff are leaving and not being replaced. I'm obviously delighted that what little money there is being allocated to education is being spunked on this ridiculous vanity project just so that people who think the less able are dregs can be pandered to.

The mere presence of grammar schools distorts the data but in selective areas there are 18% of pupils entitled to FSM, the FSM rate in grammar schools is 3%.

If I am right 13% of entrants to grammar schools come from the independent sector , in grammar areas 6-10% are enrolled in independent schools . Again this is higher than the national figure as the presence of grammar schools skews the data.

I have seen it argued on here that perhaps students on FSM are just not as clever. Data from selective areas show that 66% of students who are or entitled to FSM and achieve a level 5 in maths and English get into a grammar school. The figure for those entitled to FSM is 40%.

Grammar schools might not full of millionaires but let's not pretend that they are great vehicles of social mobility.