Allison Pearson in Telegraph about why grammar schools best

[PollyParanoia]

link
I have to say I think this is poorly written, even without me going into my (somewhat confused) thoughts about grammar schools. Do agree with her about the hypocrisy of so many of our elite sending kids to faith schools.
And, ooo, the readers' comments are a bit scary, but then what was I expecting?

those are all good arguments Waterlooroad.
I am just still not sure what you do about the academic children in a school where there are not many. Do you give the children a right to be offered particular academic subjects, or facilities like a school library, even though that may skew the allocation of the school's resources towards a relatively small number of children?
In a way I would quite like that (it would be the best thing for my children, I think, if they could go to the really-rather-nice comprehensive but be offered subjects that they don't currently do there because there isn't enough demand) but I quite get that most people wouldn't think it was fair.

I went to a grammar school that was quite spoonfeedy and I totally know where you're coming from re that, but the option was that or a comprehensive that didn't offer the academic subjects.

I worked in a school that did exactly that abr1de, they refused to change , I handed in my notice in the end.

Re grammar's reaching out - grammars are LEA schools operating within the allowed perimeters of the school system so they function as other schools do - open mornings, open eves, community based projects like mentoring younger students, sharing facilities etc but it's not like public school who can offer bursaries etc.

But grammar uptake can depend on the primaries - some heads are anti grammar and offer no info/support to parents on getting their child into one, whilst others actively prepare their students.

I am not opposed to selection per se, but I don't agree with creaming off the top percentage of kids and leaving the rest in sink schools.

I failed to get into grammar school when I was 11. I wasn't stupid, but did struggle with maths and that let me down. By the time I reached GCSE I had sorted it all out in my head and went on to get 4 A's at A Level.

My point is, you can't possibly guage a child's intelligence at 11.

Comprehensive education with streaming is the only answer.

In Kents, primary schools are specifically instructed not to offer any 11÷ training.

Cumbria - I suspect the number of bright kids who missed out getting into grammar school is small relative to the number of bright kids who now end up in sink comps.

Not that I think selection at 11 is particularly fair. 13 would be more accurate - except that by then many less advantaged kids have given up, or are too far educationally behind their MC peers to catch up.

There is no easy, pain free answer to allocating good schools places fairly.

really need to check my posts before posting : perimeters/parameters

My children are distinctly academically, average. They went to a small non selective private school that they could have stayed at till they were 16.

They left at 11 and go to our local comprehensive which has been better for them than any school we could ever have hoped for.

In fact I'm going to write to the head to tell him so :)

I wonder how many "sink comps" there actually are. Compared, I mean, to how many people think there are - a school can look very "sink" indeed from the outside and on paper, and not be!

Quite a high no of sink school in the county we live in combined with quite a insular outlook (dh has worked in two - he likes working with tough kids but not when the management's weak) but there's hardly any in the county adjacent, and that's the one with grammar schools. In Kent which I think you mentioned before, there's relatively few unless Margate/Ramsgate way.

Seeker - I was picking up on Cumbria's use of 'sink' - referring to a 'secondary modern' standard of education.

Bright children need education appropriate to their needs. So a bright child who mistakenly ends up in a secondary modern might be limited by, e.g, lack of qualified science or foreign language teachers.

Unfortunately, one result of the move to comprehensive education was a far larger number of bright children missing out on a level of academic education they required.

IMO the core of this problem is the limited number of good teachers and head teachers. How do we allocate them?

It used to be decided (roughly) by ability of the pupil. So the brighter kids got the best teachers. But now
appears to be mainly by parents bank balance.

I teach in a school that is comprehensive but in a grammar school area. People not in the know could assume we were a secondary modern. The challenge is for all schools to provide the highest standards for their pupils . We do not see the existence of grammar schools on our doorstep as an excuse to dumb down or provide a second rate education. As a result we are chosen over the grammar and independent option. We also take an increasing number from the grammar into our sixth form.

What nobody can ever answer in this debate is why selection by ability is "unfair" yet it is thought perfectly fair for all children to be forced to go to their nearest school, which might be dire.

We've just moved away from a grammar area (work, not deliberate). We aren't overburdened with money and couldn't afford any of the "nice" areas that automatically feed into the half decent schools in this area. So we live in a normal house in a road that is OK but our nearest secondary is awful. I just hope it turns around in the next 8 years or it looks like we'll have to move again, and I'm sure we can't afford to.

In Kent, although we wouldn't have technically been in the catchment for the grammar, which was on the other side of the town, our boys got to go there on ability. That is so much fairer than selection by bank balance/ postcode.

Of course it is not fair when you are in catchment for a dire school, I am in that situation. However my dd's school is so awful because so many local parents opt out of the state sector . If my dd's school had nor become a ghetto for the poor, those that don't care and the odd leftie it would be a different place.

A2363, I know things have changed considerably in many of the London Catholic schools in the last six or seven years and quite rightly so. Dare I say perhaps I had a hand in this change?

Please note I?ve nothing whatsoever against single-parent family, 2-Catholic-parent family, Muslim family, Hindu family, gay family or whatever family. If Catholic schools like the London Oratory want to use criterion like ?Catholicity? as a fundamental tool in determining its admissions selection, then they must stick to the guidance and rules as per the published Guidance issued by the various Archdioceses of London and surround and other Regulations. Hypocrite Governing Bodies were setting up and interpreting their own rules even to the extent of overriding a parish priest?s authority on who is or isn?t a practising Catholic. That?s not to mention some of the admissions criteria set by these hypocrites are actually illegal.

The damning indictment at the end of the first paragraph of this(1) and this(2) directive sent to the Chair of Governors of the London Oratory by the then DfES in 2003 following my complaint says it all.

I believe the scanned document you referred to, A2363, is the updated version whilst this 2003 version was current when I applied.