To think funding new grammar and faith schools is a bad idea.

[ConstantlyCold]

Just that really. This will benefit pushy middle classes (like me) but not the kids that really need investing in.

Stupid idea.

Have you been a bright (as in exceptional) student in a comprehensive school?

All mine fell into that category. They were set by subject, as in most comps. All went to very good universities and are now doing well in their chosen professions.

That is a comp which has slightly above average FSM & Pupil Premium and getting on for 40 different mother tongues on entry to Yr 7. They have a higher than average percentage refugee children as well.

They also have a higher percentage at the lower end of ability and income groups. This is because we border two boroughs with grammar schools who market themselves aggressively to the more affluent primary school parents in our area. Which of course means they can "weed out the plebs" more effectively in their own area.

This isn't some magical, exceptional comp. Its a good state school, other comps in the borough and our neighbouring comp borough also do well.

One of my eldest's best friends did try the 11+ (very bright girl, esp at maths). Her immigrant parents had not understood the 11+ system and the tutoring needed - they actually believed the schtick that it was an impartial test.

She failed and ended up at the same school as my kids but with dented confidence. This was a situation the comp was used to and had special support for (it should have been funded out of the grammar schools' marketing funds). She eventually read Maths at Cambridge - she should have passed any objective 11+ with her eyes shut.

I think taking money from the national budget for grammar schools is a disgrace.

I'm a bit more "meh" about faith schools because from observation they vary in style massively. Around here the two local faith primaries have much more diverse intakes (ethnically and socially) than the small catchment primaries which are near exclusively middle class white.

I've also come across faith schools where the faith in question is

Can't remember who made the point on funding to grammar schools but both the neighbouring selective boroughs spend significantly more per pupil on grammar pupils than "high school" pupils.

They try to fudge this by counting the pupil premium in with the per pupil spend and it still comes in at less. Considering their grammars are almost universally attended by the affluent MC that is a double disgrace.

“Have you been a bright (as in exceptional) student in a comprehensive school?”

Not sure what “bright(as in exceptional)” means- surely they are two different things?

But I had a very bright child in a secondary modern who did fine. Your point?

Ha at the poster who said I am lucky to live in an area where the school happens to be available for my faith. It’s no coincidence.

I find it strange that people claim there are no non faith schools in their area. There’s a good choice of both in my area. Perhaps I am just lucky. But what I often hear people complain about is that the local faith schools are good but they consider the education in the local “comps”to be terrible therefore they are not an acceptable alternative and faith schools should be abolished (because sky fairies/imaginary friends/ other offensive characterisation of religious people) as it’s not what they believe in and it’s outrageous that they should have to send their kids to such a school.

my religion is important to me and religious education is important to many. Hence why we have religious schools. I want my kids to learn about my religion (and others) at school. I do of course teach them at home but I see no reason why religion should be banned from schools because some people don’t agree with it. It’s an important part of life and culture.

The faith based education of my local school is excellent and what I and many other parents want for their children. If you don’t want a faith based education, don’t send your children to a faith school.

The utter arrogance of some faith school advocates beggars belief.

Zsazsa: very few people, if any, object to their children learning about religions in school. What people have an issue with is the state funding an education which is within a religious basis. The state funding religious practice. And what people have a serious objection to is the state funding schools which though paid for by everyone refuse to admit everyone.

Faith schools, like grammar schools, are not necessarily better schools. It has been demonstrated that any better results in faith schools are down to the selection involved.

Because our state funds faith schools many people in rural areas find they have no choice but to send their child to a religious school.

How can this be right?

Faith schools, like grammar schools, favour the elite minority they cater for, and their advocates and champions defend them and their privelige despite all evidence that they are not effective and despite all evidence that they are not fair.

ScrubTheDecks but the state also funds schools in catchment areas that you have to be wealthy to buy into, why is it fair that tax payers from poorer areas should fund these schools when their own children have no chance of getting into them

You have to think if faith schools (other than the new Ines of the Blair years) as church schools that are currently operating in cooperation with the state system. The state doesn't and never had owned them.

Even in the days when we thought we were rich, no government has attempted to buy out the owners. It would be a very expensive policy in itself, plus the capital cost to the government of schools would increase, and quite a number of church/community funded improvement projects would simply never happen.

The role of covert selection isn't as clear cut. If you live in a diverse community, you will know that many church schools have an intake which is predominantly made up from communities of recent immigrants because churchgoing isn't just something done by middle class 'naice' people in leafy areas to get a "selective" school. The proportion of CofE schools is so great as to be formative of the Mormon. If you look at Catholic schools, they come out as typical in terms of proxy markers for deprivation (yes, there are leafy ones, just as there are leafy secular schools, neither is terribly representative of all RC or all secular), but are more diverse in terms of ethnicity.

One feature that interested me (though I haven't checked recently to see if it has remained the case) is that RC schools - a sample demographically matched to other schools - had the lowest rates of exclusion. I've never seen a plausible explanation for why that should be the case, other than pastoral care and ethos.

(I'll give you a clue, Kent isn't super selective)

There are several superselective grammars in Kent.

There can't be if the county operates a fully selective system

Kent has selectives and super selectives. What it doesn't have is comprehensives.

Our rc school has taken a few kids that have been shunted around local schools and excluded for bad behaviour.
Our school is like international school with amount of dc there from European parents android further afield.

What I don't understand is, people say in grammar area then secondary moderns are not Good.
Why is that the fault of the grammar. Why can't they be good and focus on the the dc who are there. With less range surely they can lift up those there. Rather than than have lots in top set go falsely boost grades

Betty and Bert: can you explain it please? I haven’t a clue

I mean about the super selectives.

In Kent there are grammar schools, super selective grammar schools, high schools and faith high schools. You take the 11+. If you pass, you get a grammar school place. If you pass very well, you have a chance of a super selective, which admit in a combination of score and proximity. If you fail you go to a high school. If you fail and are a Christian, you have a chance of a place at a faith school, which admit on a combination of faith and proximity. They are just high schools with ideas above their station.

So the High schools in Kent are similar to Comps in Essex then Bertrand? do all children in year 6 have to do the 11+ exams?
what if they cant get into any school and are just 'average' children or are more sporty than academic? The Kent system seems so different to anywhere else in the UK!

No, not all year 6 kids take the 11+ -it's by parental choice. 23% pass and go to grammar schools- the ones that fail and the ones that don't take the test go straight to high schools. They aren't like comprehensives because they don't have the full range of ability. There are no comprehensive schools in Kent.

It's very unusual not to get a school at all-there are enough places to go round and the 11+ pass mark is adjusted so there aren't more passers than places.

When it went over to Comprehensive education in the early 1970s Kent boroughs must have just decided to stay with the old systems with a bit of tweaking here and there I suppose.
A lady i work with is 3 years older than me and she said that her school were very sniffy as they had lost their Grammar school ' status' and became a comp. there must have been a bit of that going on as well in the boroughs that adopted the new system.

The Kent system seems so different to anywhere else in the UK!

Sounds like standard grammar school borough to me.

Two of our neighbouring boroughs have grammars, faith schools and "high" schools. They also have a couple of super selectives although they don't name them as such.
The high schools in the boroughs are nothing like comprehensives and get lower per pupil spending.

I can remember my mum saying that it was a labour government that changed the system ( clearly not everywhere though, i thought it was nationwide to be honest)
So by putting more money into Grammars and faith schools, the comps and high schools will miss out again? seems so unfair.

Yes, apart from the super selectives, Kent operates an old fashioned selective system- the sort the whole country used to have. It’s what most people think of if you say “grammar schools” - something that affects everyone’s education, not just a few very very bright kids going to a superselective.

There is a good argument for superselectives. It’s not an argument I agree with personally, but it’s there. There is no good argument for the Kent system.

So by putting more money into Grammars and faith schools, the comps and high schools will miss out again? seems so unfair.

They will "benefit" in terms of being able to expand but that isn't a benefit for the children who are already there of for those who would have got in anyway? The money will probably go towards building new classrooms but not on text books etc. They will also have less land for sport etc Many are already quite cramped and lacking in outside space. It will be interesting to see if all the grammar schools apply for the money. My guess is that many will not.