Grammar schools should make contextual offers?

[capitalshitem]

I have no personal stake in this at all as not in a grammar school area. I was watching a programme on tv the other day about grammar schools and a young girl from an immigrant family living in a tower block didn't get a place and she was less than 10% under the benchmark whilst a girl from a naice middle class family who had probably been tutored was a couple of points over and obviously got a place. Can't we assume that in the same circumstances they would both have achieved a similar result? Why can't grammar schools make contextual offers like some universities do?

Better just to get rid of grammars and offer lol children good schooling.

Anecdotally round my way the grammars are far from good schooling. They basically say “right you lot are smart and motivated and probably have pushy parents so get on with it and achieve great things” providing them with little in the way of support or resources. The local comprehensives on the other hand pour massive amounts of resources into children, especially if they stay on to A Level. I’ve been shocked at the different experiences my friends have described for the kids at grammar. One of the comps used school funds to pay for a tutor for the exam to get into medical school for a friend who had one in both and the grammar kid got nothing, no help whatsoever, not even a couple of past papers thrown his way.

Theres a lot of faff about grammars mostly because they are outside the experience of the majority. Some are good, some less good. A good comp is comparable to many.

Trouble is in many Grammar school areas, there are no comps, good or bad. There are Grammar schools or Secondary Moderns, it's an appalling system.

well, we went to grammar schools from not-great backgrounds and it did change our lives, out of my many siblings i'm the only one that went to university and got a graduate level job etc.

I do think entry and catchment are key issues - would like grammar schools to have a large catchment area and to positively discriminate on income, yes to all that, they are a great tool for inter-generational mobility. How well do you think bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to navigate the trials of non-selective schools without parental backup?

I'm from a working class background, parents separated when I was young (back together now -long story), I passed my eleven plus without even really knowing what it was. We moved so I didn't end up going to the grammar school, just a standard comp, got four A grade A levels at a local sixth form and a place at a very well respected RG as a result, without any tutoring or concessions, easily held my own academically with privately educated peers. I would've been eligible for FSMs at secondary school but didn't have them. However if I hadn't had that academic attainment but was sent to the grammar school or RG uni based on a concession it would've been much harder to keep up.

No I don't think you can make this assumption. It could be correct but it could be not. I know a girl who was given a contextual offer for a very competitive degree due to her address and secondary school but she'd got 10 A*a at gcses and was clearly extremely bright and therefore had no need for the offer.

Similarly I know some kids whoive in an area/went to schools below average but didn't meet the criteria for contextual offers who did experience difficulties in their lives that would justify a contextual offer.

Any situation that mean that it is unrealistic to consider each case for its own merit jeans that some level of unfairness is almost inevitable but that's in all aspects of life.

PickledChutney No, pp aren't suggesting children get into Grammar schools just because they are poor but because contextual data should be used.
It is well known that every time a child moves school it affects their learning, some children have to move school many times, after being made homeless, evicted etc. Nothing to do with the child. I know a child who went to 6 different primary schools and failed the 11+ by a handful of marks. Contextual data would have shown this is exactly the child for whom Grammar schools were created. If he narrowly failed after such a disrupted primary education (which involved a stint in a homeless families hostel with no where to do homework other than the bedroom which he shared with his mother and 3 siblings) imagine how well he'd have done with a stable home and school.
So, no don't give him a place just because he is poor, look at the whole picture.

without now giving the children of those benefits scrounges a better education that they haven’t earned too
This is so uncaring, since when do we punish children for the lives of their parents.

Pickledchutney, well you are just a treat aren't you. Are you suggesting that the children of those on benefits be punished just because of whom they happen to be born to? People like you make me sick. It isn't a case of giving these disadvantaged children MORE opportunities, it's about equalising the opportunities available to all children, but you are too thick and your head is too far up your arse to see that.

Allowing a certain number of pupil premium children a lower pass marks is just trying to account for the fact that they don't have parents in the know who can afford tutoring. Like I said, plenty of grammar schools are doing this now. Not that I agree with grammar schools, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

PickledChutney what an ignorant and ill informed post. Supporting lower income and lower aspirational families to achieve will benefit society as a whole. I really do fear for this country with attitudes like this.

What a horrible thing to say and nasty assumption to make about people. Lots of ‘pupil premium’ families are working, in low paid but essential jobs. PickedChutney what an arse you are.

Of course children who are from stable homes, have parents who read to them, have a reasonable level of education themselves, are aspirational and who tutor for these tests are advantaged to pass them.

It is somewhat of an assumption though and you’ll find there are children who sit either side of the fence.

The advantage of grammar schooling is simply the removal of swathes of badly behaved. Grammar schools have lower budgets but the children can concentrate and teachers stay.

People get very hung up on tutoring when that's just the tip of the ice berg. Middle class kids from educated families have had 10 years of academic advantage before they ever get an 11+ tutor.

Statistically the 11+ favours middle class kids. This is established fact. Statistically able students do just as well at a good comp as at a grammar. Where as achievement at secondary moderns is worse than at comprehensives. Grammar schools increases social inequality.

if you've been tutored, heavily, and still don't get the required grade, is a heavily academic grammar school somewhere you should be though? I imagine the pressure would be horrendous on you to perform to the same level as your peers

IME, yes it is. Many of the dc in my dd's class at grammar still have a tutor in Year 9. If you struggle to pass the 11+ you risk being in bottom sets in grammar, rather than towards the top in a non-grammar. The latter is probably better for self-esteem and good MH.

PickledChutney. One advantage of a selective education is that you may be taught logic and thus clarity of thought. With understanding comes compassion, something we could all usefully employ.

Let me clarify - I’m not suggesting that children from poor families be punished, merely suggesting that they not be given opportunities that they haven’t earned

Or they haven’t had chance to earn?

That would be the whole point of contextual offers.

Did you struggle for an education?

At the same time a child doesn't have to go to a grammar school or private school to succeed. Many medicine, law schools etc... have pupils who managed to get there through an education at average comprehensive schools.

Of course they don't have to, but grammars and private schools can give kids from poorer backgrounds more social confidence though - my parents had no network of well heeled friends, they didn't socialize much and if they did it was just a piss-up. At school I got used to intimidating settings, which gave me more confidence starting out in work.

Yes, you can have a family setting with all sorts of opportunities and achieve at a comprehensive, but they don't prepare you very well for dealing with formal atmospheres.

Actually, I’m well educated. I’m just not a bleeding heart liberal like the majority of people on this thread!

What exactly have the kids of middle class and upper class parents 'earned'? Their parents might have earned their opportunities certainly, then again, their parents might have simply have had everything handed to them by virtue of birth, just like their offspring.

I get very cross at people who came from backgrounds where they never had to struggle, moaning about people getting benefits. You benefit from the random circumstances of your birth, don't resent the less fortunate being given an opportunity to redress the balance.

Actually, I’m well educated. I’m just not a bleeding heart liberal like the majority of people on this thread

I don’t see how you can be if you associate suggesting the lifestyle of disadvantaged kids is taken into account when accessing privileged education.

I mean, what have the kids of middle class parents “deserved”?

In our area children are tested just on VR and NVR. Neither of these should be affectedby the quality of teaching in school or their backround.It is testing kids mental agility and reasoning abilities.
I thnk lowering the score for some demographics is unfair and also sets kids up to fail once they get to theg rammar school.

Neither of these should be affectedby the quality of teaching in school or their backround

Of course they are - not least because if a child is familiar with NVR and VR they know how to answer the question. My DD was a private prep. Both of those were taught as standard from 7. Of course that gave her an advantage.