'new' grammar schools in kent...

[oliverreed]

well, not technically. The local authority have been given the go-ahead for two (I think) annexe grammar schools in Sevenoaks. Gove is surely rubbing his hands with glee. I agree with the decision as pressure on places in this area is causing a lot of heartache for many families whose children are travelling a long way, but is it paving the way for the creation of new grammar schools.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts?

But tough - that's because - as was correctly stated - lots of high earners flee London for kent because it still has grammars. If everywhere had grammars this excessive pressure on the few left (and on the parents and children applying!) would not be there and we could revert to the system we used to have where expensive tutoring or prep schools prior to grammar was not the norm.

I was at grammar in the 80s and virtually no-one was tutored or came from prep schools.

"social mobility"
as in the thick kids of the upper classes end up as bin men
I don't think so

everybody wants to move upwards
but as we have (hopefully) learned with debt in the last few years
entropy determines that if some move up, others will move down

are you happy for your child to be the one who moves down?

if not then you do not believe in either selection or social mobility

go figure

Rubbish - who says that the number of bin men (or accountants) is inexorably fixed?

If that was the case, we'd still be a socity of feudal serfs and a few noblemen.

Of course we can alter the balance of different professions within our country, depending on the skills we have avilable. We will still need bin men, rue, but can always import them if nec. Or if we really couldn't find anyone to be bin men, their wages wuld rise and more people would turn to being bin men as a good career!

Toughasoldboots That's no surprise about the prep school intake. At year 6 open days at DD's west Kent grammar, you see more top of the range cars than you can shake a stick at. It's a grossly unfair system and despite my DDs both having passed the Kent test, I would rather it were abolished in favour of a properly comprehensive system.

I live in a non-grammar area but with a few semi-selective 'grammrs' which fulfil the same function and my dd's new 'grammar' has a noticeably poorer clientele than her state primary. Hardly any from prep schools.

It really is not fair any more. In the 50s and 60s, no one was tutored to take the 11+ and it definitely was the brightest DC who got in, but now it's whoever has been tutored which means it is the people with the money. Anecdotally, too, via my children's contact with grammar school children here, it seems they are from financially better off homes.

The main problem with our education system is that non-academic prowess is not considered favourably. In Germany, eg, you have to be properly qualified to be a hairdresser, painter and decorator, carpenter, etc. You cannot just set yourself up as one of these tradespeople without proper qualifications. Everyone knows that so tradespeople are very well thought of, too.

It's not perfect but it's certainly not true you have to be rich. The 11+ is aimed at 11 year olds so any normally intelligent parent can tutor their wn child with minimal financial outlay.

And just not true of all grammar schools - at my dd's school, one f her best friends shares a bedroom with both her parents and her brother - hardly loaded.

The social mix she gets at her grammar is far better than there was at her bog standard state primary. i rather enjoy no longer being the poorest parent there.

grammars aren't the worst culprits in social divisiveness. There are far more faith schools and even normal comprehensives in the top 100 most socially selective state schools than state grammars. See here

I wouldn't tutor mine but would just familiarise them with the format and type of questions to make sure they don't make silly mistakes. I think if they needed extensive tutoring I would be questioning whether grammar school was the right thing for them.

Agree to a degree but depends on your dc's state primary - some state primaries finish all the maths curriculum in yr 5 and sme not really by the end of year 6. If there is a maths entrance paper on ks2 maths at the start of year 6, your dc will not pass unless they've covered the maths. No matter how bright you are if you've never heard of a perimeter, say, you can't work one out.

So maths curriculum needs t be taught in that situation.

I wouldn't call that extensive tutoring, bandb, I think that's understandable to make up for an obvious gap in state primary's teaching (which shouldn't exist, frankly).

Is there a grammar school where the %of children on FSM is anywhere near the % in the local primary schools?

Tough, mascalls is in no way a true comprehensive. It is a very good school with some lively facilities, but just looking at the people I know, I can think of at least 30 boys and girls who went to local grammars. That's a whole class, who, in the main, will be more academic than their current top grammar stream. Therefore, through no fault of their own, they are not truly comprehensive.

Seeker, I highly doubt it. Ime most grammar kids have had some kind of paid for coaching. However, as someone said earlier, children on average achieve similarly to how their parents do ( nature or nurture), and being good at passing tests does mean it is more likely on average that you can find paid employment. Therefore on average their will always be fewer fsm at schools that select children who are good at test.

I doubt it. Some primaries around us have 60%+ going to grammar whilst others have less than 5% pass the 11+.

One of these has 2% EAL and 1.5% FSM.
The other has 64.7% EAL and 14.7% FSM.

I'll leave you to work it out.

Toughasoldboots - the reason the girls grammer in Tonbridge favours Sevenoaks is because it was supposed to be built in Sevenoaks (it was the school allocated for the need in Sevenoaks), but for various planning issues, the council decided to build the Sevenoaks girls grammer in Tonbridge.

Also, it used to be that Sevenoaks School (private, expensive) gave the children who got the highest 11+ a free place, but that stopped a while ago.

I know people in Sevenoaks who have put their DCs down for Sevenoaks or Tonbridge (both private) because they can't be sure their DCs will get a grammer place even if they pass. Now, that might be sharp elbowed middle class types, but I think there's a lot to be said for keeping such people in the state sector with a 'stake' in it. Once you get people opting out of state provision, (whatever type it is) they rarely care about state provision for those of us who can't afford £30k a year and the 'pushy, know how to play the system' types are exactly the types you want pushing for improvements to local schools. I also think there's a lot to be said for rich people's DCs realising that they are well off compared to everyone else.

Oh, and while it's undoubtably the 'rich sevenoaks' parents who have pushed for this, there are poorer people living in the town and local villages too. It might not be their parents who've made this happen, but they may well be the ones who'll most benefit.

Tough, I genuinely mean I know 30 children in mascalls catchment who went to grammars! Both superselecives and waiting list places in Maidstone, or at Weald of Kent. So it really can't be comprehensive.

Yes, but that means mascalls can't be comprehensive- to put it v rudely, it has no peer group for a 420 passer, as those children are all elsewhere. A true comp has all the able children ( though of course then house prices come into play!).

"Seeker, I highly doubt it. Ime most grammar kids have had some kind of paid for coaching. However, as someone said earlier, children on average achieve similarly to how their parents do ( nature or nurture), and being good at passing tests does mean it is more likely on average that you can find paid employment. Therefore on average their will always be fewer fsm at schools that select children who are good at test."

So that blows the social mobility argument out of the water. Which is the only faintly respectable justification for the existence of grammar schools.

Well, like you I live in Kent. And although I do think grammars are divisive, my education at a comprehensive was crap. So it's a bit of a catch 22.

Agree that Mascalls isn't a true comprehensive.It is far more academically mixed than many other nonselectives in Kent,with some very bright pupils -but lots of children in its "catchment area" will take the 11+ and go to grammars,so it still loses children who would be in its top stream.
I grew up in the area too and am wondering why when children from Sevenoaks have been going out of the town to grammer schools since I was young,many years ago it is suddenly such a big deal?