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?

10 points below the cut off is a lot, though. And, afaik, in at least some grammar school areas they do make allowances for pupils from particular schools/areas.

when do you try and correct the disadvantages then, if grammer is too late? Personally I think we need positive discrimination at all points of educational entry, then if you get into grammar (or later uni) on such a basis, there should be an extra support budget.

the problem for both uni and grammar entry is that the lower offer is only the first part and the second part - extra support, is the thing that'll determine the outcome.

Grammer school places are awarded on academic merit only. They are STATE schools. Background does not enter into it.

I know, husband and I both went to grammers and so did offspring.

Background does not enter into it

Yes it does. Which is why pupils in receipt of pupil premium are higher priority for places.

Of course they are - not least because if a child is familiar with NVR and VR they know how to answer the question.

The whole point of VR and NVR is they don't need to be taught.Maybe they did to your DD, but a reasonably bright kid would get what to do by themselves.

Surely if you went to a grammar school you would know how to spell it?

The whole point of VR and NVR is they don't need to be taught

I promise that they can be taught and pupils who have been taught will do better than those that haven't. Like IQ tests.

The whole point of VR and NVR is they don't need to be taught.Maybe they did to your DD, but a reasonably bright kid would get what to do by themselves

You're missing the point totally - you're honestly suggesting a child who has never seen a NVR/VR question will do well if they're "reasonably bright" compared to a child who is comfortable with them? It isn't even about the content, it is about seeing a question in an exam situation that they have some experience with.

The Grammar my DD goes to has NVR, English and Maths as the selection criteria. For the first year ever, due to over-subscription (600 went for 107 places) you had to pass all three sections. There is no question that a child who is from an advantaged background is going to have a better shot; hence contextual weighting absolutely should take place.

And if that was to the detriment of my DD because she missed out on a place, then that would be fine. Because we are in the privileged position of having other options. Am I glad she got a place? Absolutely - she adored the school. Do I believe for a minute she isn't anything other than incredibly privileged to even have had a shot? Nope. We are very, very lucky.

Of course vr and non vr can be taught. There's a whole cottage industry around it in Kent.

These threads always drive me mad with the absolute inanity of the commentary. "I know because I went to grammar". As if your anecdote somehow negates all of the statistical evidence to show that the test is massively in favour of middle class kids from educated households.

I went to a top university and middle class people were massively massively over represented. The problem is that these children have had years of academic advantage. By the time they start school at 4 they're already on average a year a head of someone with the same ability in a less affluent home. The three years of university are just not enough to compensate for 18 years of academic advantage.

What grammar schools do (and there is plenty of evidence for this) is exaggerate this divide even further without actually offering a significantly improved performance for the high achievers.

At the Grammar school that my dd attends there is a high intake of children from immigrant families mainly Asian and Nigerians. Some come from middle class families, but a vast majority of them come from relatively poor families , but have parents that are invested in their education.
However, I do believe that the school offers a number of places for looked after children and pupil premium children

Of course VR can be taught. That's why we've stopped using them for recruitment at work (law) because we found them to be no indicator of mental agility or critical thinking in the workplace.

Invariably the candidates that did well had practised the tests online. Those that did badly, hadn't. There was no correlation with academic qualifications either.

Of course vr and non vr can be taught. There's a whole cottage industry around it in Kent.
I don't doubt there is a shortage of 'turors' willing to prey on parents anxieties and gullibility.But it isn't the same thing!

Of course VR can be taught. That's why we've stopped using them for recruitment at work (law) because we found them to be no indicator of mental agility or critical thinking in the workplace

Maybe you were making them too formulaic? Or maybe they are not suitable for one specialised profession, or maybe it is the academic qualifications s that are no indicator of mental agility?

There's a lot of pressure here (Kent) from schools to make sure that your DC are at least familiar with the style of questions and exams - as VR and NVR questions aren't something that children are exposed to in normal schoolly and all evidence points to children who have had some 'tutoring'/prep (including parents going through past papers with them) do better than those who haven't.

Our state primary school is trying to bridge the gap by strongly encouraging parents to practice with their DCs, even if they don't tutor.

The real question is why aren't the allowed to do this in lesson time anymore? DH grew up round here and very few parents tutored, because children were prepared for the 11+ in year 5 by their class teacher.

The removal of all children getting help/prep is what has lead to a divide, between those whos parents can help them (either doing it themselves or paying for tutoring) and those who can't/don't.

I think it's very unfair, but it's the system we have here so I've got DC1's name down for a tutor for year 5.

*in normal schooling

It is nonsense to say that grammar schools help those from underprivileged backgrounds.

There has been much research which shows the exact opposite; grammar schools help entrench existing inequalities.

The overarching problem is that schooling is increasingly seen as a method to place children into a social strata. Let's get back to basics and have an education system based on helping children to be better, community-minded citizens

VR can very much be improved by familiarity and practice. For GL exam there are 21 types of VR question. So a child who does the practice books if they have a tutor or at prep school or with a parent clued up enough to buy the correct books off amazon/wh smiths has a definite advantage.

No matter how bright a child is if the first time they have seen that type of question is in the exam hall then they will be at a disadvantage. They have 60 seconds per question.

VR also tests vocab. I recall one in a practice book to do with animals and which was odd one out, a 10 year old needed to know a leveret was a baby hare.

I checked criteria for the grammar near us. All children need to meet same standard (GL exam pass needed in maths, english and VR). Then if oversubscribed it goes - (1) looked after/previously looked after, (2) catchment and qualify for pupil premium at time of registering for 11+, (3) catchment and (4) OOC. Only 2/3 of places go to in catchment children in any event.

What date and channel was this on? I'd like to watch it.

No matter how bright a child is if the first time they have seen that type of question is in the exam hall then they will be at a disadvantage. They have 60 seconds per question

Yes this. Except DD had 80 questions and 45 minutes. So you’re automatically at an advantage if you’re familiar with answering those questions.

No matter how bright a child is if the first time they have seen that type of question is in the exam hall then they will be at a disadvantage. They have 60 seconds per question

Yes of course. Yet state primary schools in Kent aren't allowed to coach for the 11+ so nearly everyone goes to a tutor (or does VR etc at home) and the private schools have coaching in school time. The guy in charge of education in Kent seems to have finally twigged this is stupid and has indicated the rules will change.
I disagree with the contextual scoring though, where does it end, university, jobs?

Contextual scoring is already used in Universities foggetyfog including Oxbridge. Nothing wrong with giving the underdog a more equal chance.

I think it would make more sense to have 3 entryways each admitting a proportional amount of their group. Group 1 prep kids. Group 2 state kids. Group 3 pupil premium kids. Each entry point completely blind to the other two. Top scores in each group get in. (And the same for university). Everyone is then judged only against their peers.