'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?

Whoops,misspelled grammar,sorry...

I do think people should remember that schools have changed a lot since we went to them.

No it doesn't.

The point of grammar schools is to give any child who is academically bright an appropriate education, and for that to be based on the child's abilities not their parent's wealth - unlike private schools. So genuinely meritocratic.

You can't object if the children of reasonably bright peope happen to be reasonably bright themselves - that doesn't mean they are less deserving of the places. It's only a problem if bright children with less bright or educated parents are denied a place - but there is no evidence that that is the case.

You could try to argue that grammar schools were rdundant now owing to the massive success of grammar schools in the past in increasing social mobility for those previously uneducated. But you'd be doing a serious dissservice to all those whose families have not been able to take advantage of this in the past - in N London and Home Counties where I live, a v high proportion of those applying for and getting into grammar schools are the childrn of recent immigrants eg HBS, where I went, where 65% now have English as a second language.

As the current cabinet amply demonstrates, there is still plenty more work to be done re social mobility.

Fsm applies only

@seeker.

So why do poor and/or working class children not get into them, then?

A verbal reasoning test is not going to be very EAL friendly, is it?
Tutoring is such a problem here that they have to have remedial groups in the grammar schools.

My catchment has 2 single-sex grammars (taking 30% of children) and a secondary 'academy' that gets around 30% A-C grades in a good year (which parents of the 70% who've failed the test try to avoid on appeal).

Well, of people I know- some just didn't consider it, others didn't pay for tutoring and didn't do a lot ( if any ) at home ( by tutoring I don't mean intensive coaching, just covering the maths and doing a bit of familiarisation with the v and non v). Also, a lot of people ask at school and primary teachers aren't always that knowledgeable about what the 11+ involves. And some people don't want that level of academics, or worry there would be a ton of homework.

So that's all right then?

seeker, has it ever occurred to you that the reason these poor working class children don't get in is purely down to the basic fact that they are not academically able to?
It has nothing to do with the fact that they are working class.
And what is the point in tutoring a child to pass the 11+ for them to go to grammar school and be completely out of their depth? Passing one exam does not equip a child with the academic ability needed to take them through a grammar school education. Tutoring is pointless as, if the child is genuinely bright enough, they will pass the 11+ anyway.

mumblesmum - see my post about HBS. Top grammar in the country, 65% have English as a second language. So clearly the VR exam is hardly a major disadvantage.

if grammars were GENUINELY meritocratic
by normal distribution models they would be within 10% of the FSM %age of comps - as would the remainder schools (call them what you like)

the best model I know of comps is Hampshire (bearing in mind that the three grammar counties are in the south too) and the Hampshire FSM %age is 31.9%
www3.hants.gov.uk/chapter_6_children_and_young_people.pdf
so any school with less than 28% FSM is economically selecting - even unintentionally.
The "comp" round here that magically has 0% FSM has the most convoluted catchment boundaries in existence.

If Grammars have under around 10% FSM - they are NOT contributing to social mobility - they are just reinforcing class costs of tutoring

which takes me back to my idea of "federated" schools being able to swap pupils each year to get the best from each and pool resources - I CANNOT see who would lose from it
how do we get the policy wonks in London to take credit for my idea and make it happen?

seeker - show me any evidence that 'working class' kids do not get int them.

I know loads of kids with working class parents at or from grammar schools. They won't feature in your fsm categry as they 'work' hence the 'wrking class' label. But they don't qualify for fsm, even though they are hardlt loaded.

As far as I can see, you want a divisive system, where the kids of the v poor get an academic education paid for by the state and the very rich paid by themselves, and everyone in the middle can get any old rubbish.

Why should bright children from poor backgrounds not be able to get a appropriate education - if their parents happen to work?

i can see n logic in that stance at all.

talkinpeace as I said before, the whole fsm is a red herring - it nly applies to those not working, not to those v poor but with one parent at least who works.

It shuld hardly surprise you that the kids wh get into grammars come frm families with a strong work ehic - it's pretty important if you're ging to succeed at a grammar. So, excepting cases of disability or ill health, far more likely to have parents working. So not getting fsm. It does NOT mean the parents are all wealthy. Far from it.

Effing keyboard - huge apologies.

I'm sure you are all taking into account the blindingly obvious point which is that it tends to be more well-to-do (Tory voting) areas which have retained grammar schools, whereas people in areas of greater deprivation tend to vote for the kind of dogmatists who can't wait to bury the grammars.

bjf1 of course, if the 'creme de la creme' mix exclusively from an early age, they'll hopefully pair off and breed eventually, strengthening the stock and improving the national profile for the greater glory of the motherland. Bring on the tractor manufacturing prizes and medals for mothers of 3 sets of twins!
(So long as they all pass the 11+, obv)

Talkin I don't think I'd have a very happy child if, every year or so, depending on their performance, they had to swap schools.

And on the point of FSM. I am SAHM, my DH works full time but we do not qualify for free school meals, and we are hardly middle class. So we would not show up in the figures either.

Reactionary (good name) you are aware that comps were brought in by Tories (in Birmingham??not sure) who were upset their kids failed the 11+ You can bet your life they didn't think they'd been directed to a more 'appropriate' school for their talents. Their kids weren't going to the sink sec mod - so they invented comprehensievs

Quite - my FIL was trained to pass the 11+ by his mother who was a cleaner. No-one in their family had ever been to uni before - but apparently as she workd as a cleaner, she would not be working class enough for seeker, as she wouldn't have qualified for fsm.

So apparently the fact that he then went to uni and became a lawyer is not evidence of social moobility - because his mother had a jb.

You have to really, really stretch your definitions of wrking class, seeker, to make them fit into your theory that grammar schools don't promote social mobility, don't you seeker?

Sorry for numerous typos but too cross to type slowly.

As has been said before, The political Left hate grammar schools as they entrench privilege; the Right love them because they entrench privilege.

I'm not sure that fact - if fact it is, and remember it was Tony Crosland who famously said he was going to close every fucking grammar school in the country, having been to public school himself of course - changes the current reality, which is that where grammar schools have survived, it has been Tory-controlled local authorities, which tend to be located in better-off areas, which have achieved this.
My own theory about the likes of Crosland is the posh silly lefties couldn't bear being bettered by the uppity lower-class grammar school kids.

The right don't love them - the current crop hate them because they allow for social mobility, and we can't be having that, can we.

Don't want the plebs t get abpve themselves.