'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?

The Tories do not hate grammar schools (whatever that means). Successive Conservative governments have simply let local authorities do their own thing with regards to the organisation of secondary education. Many local authorities, of all political persuasions, intoduced comprehensives during the Conservative administration of 1970 to 1974 as they had already set the wheels in motion as compelled to do by the previous Labour government.

Comprehensive education did appeal to Conservative-controlled councils in rural areas, where the numbers were not great enough to justify the cost of running two parallel systems.

There is lots of research on cultural bias and whether tests measure anything but parental background. It seems non verbal reasoning is the best indicator of future performance

CecilyP The Tories often jettison principles if they waste cost money

@juliascurr unless you are dyspraxic. NVR is a frakking nightmare for the dyspraxic.

Very few kids with additional needs in grammar schools either........

I'm wondering what subjects success at NVR would indicate you will be good at.

@seeker My DD is severely dyspraxic. And at a super selective grammar. To my certain knowledge the school has other dyspraxic students, some dyslexic ones, at least one with aspergers and at least a few with potentially complex medical issues. Less of your sweeping generalisations please. It does seem as though the system in Kent is highly flawed not least because most of the Kent grammars get not great results. But that doesn't mean that grammar schools throughout England are all the same as the ones in Kent.

I said very few, not none. Delighted if you have stats that can prove me wrong. I would also be delighted if other counties have a fair 11+ selection system- looking forward to hearing about it.

What makes you think Kent grammars don't bet good results, by the way?

The Kent grammars do not get great results because, as seeker has stated, they take 23% of the ability range. So, rather than highly flawed, they are pretty much as the selective system was originally set up. The grammar schools that get great results tend to be the super-selectives that take around the top 5-10% of the ability range from a wide geographical area. So they are basically a peculiarity within a broadly comprehensive system.

What on earth is a "great" result?!

seeker - the solution to your objections is not to thrw the baby out with the bathwater but to ensure that grammar schols are open to all from all backgrounds - like the NI system, this needs far more grammar schools, not less, so that this is not this insane pressure for parents to tutor their kids to get in because there are so few places, plus there should be free tutoring for all kids at schools in year 5 so that all have a basic level of preparation and none are disadvantaged by cming from poor backgrounds.

To a degree, you're right that the tests do innately favour kids from more educated backgrounds eg re vocab - but poor children can read books to, yu know - libraries still exist. At the end of the day, the kids will be learning academic subjects and sitting academic subjects and you can't really expect a secondary school to take classes full of children who've never botherd to go to libraries and teach them vocab - or phrase everyhing in v simple language so they understand. Because how are they going to pass their English GCSEs if they do?

I think there is a danger f patronising the working classes here - the assumption that because a bright child comes from a poor background they haven't read books is pretty patronising.

NVR is supposed to predict success at science.

5A's & 5A*'s GCSE is a 'great' result (my friend's daughter - Hampshire comprehensive)

I thought NVR tested capacity for reasoned analysis, so quite wide spread of subjects

Plus, seeker, I still don't get how you can justify selection at 11 based on family incme - which is what comprehensive education is - via house prices. If you live in a nice middle class area, you get to go to a nice middle class comp. If you happen to live on a sink estate, then surprise surprise, the local chool reflects that.

he grammar system allows the bright kids a chance to get an academic education that reflects their needs and abilities, no matter where they come from.

Certainly, my FIL managed to pass the 11+ despite cming from a slum (now all since knocked down). That's the opportunity grammar schools provided in their heyday and to which we could return - though I don't think either the left or right have the will, for different reasns. But vast swathes of the British public in the middle certainly want this.

"I think there is a danger f patronising the working classes here - the assumption that because a bright child comes from a poor background they haven't read books is pretty patronising."

If that's what I was saying it would be. But I'm not. We have a system which is skewed towards educated middle class families. Yes of course if you come from a family with no books you can be self motivated to find them and educate yourself, go out to the library and so on. But you have to be a pretty bloody exceptional 8 year old to do that. You are having to struggle for what is handed to my children on a plate. In my opinion, it it pretty patronising to say "well, if these people really wanted to improve themselves it's all there. Not my fault if they don't want to access it."

And at the "swathes of children who have never bothered to go to the library"! yep- it's all their fault, the feckless undeserving poor!

Re FSM:

Free school lunches
Parents do not have to pay for school lunches if they receive any of the following:

Income Support
income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
income-related Employment and Support Allowance
support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
the Guarantee element of State Pension Credit
Child Tax Credit, provided they are not entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual income (as assessed by HM Revenue & Customs) that does not exceed £16,190
Working Tax Credit 'run-on' - the payment someone may receive for a further four weeks after they stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit

(From govt website,)

So as far as I can see, it is the non-wrking only, or they'd be getting working tax credits, surely?

I repeat my point above - FSM may be a useful indicator for poverty but you'd expect an inverse correlation with grammar school entrance, as success at grammar school entrance reflects hard work - but not income. If your family has a strong work ethic, except in cases of ill health or disability, they are much more likely to have at least one parent working. So not getting FSM.

That does not mean that grammar schols do not encourage social mobility - it means that kids from hard-working but not high earning backgrounds can have the same high quality education as kids from rich backgrounds. Which is the definition of social mobility, surely.

seeker - what you want is a situation where schools completely replace the family input. But they can't do that. At primary level, maybe it's realistic for the school to attempt to fill in the gaps that the parents haven't. But at secondary level, it's not realistic. You'd have to be a very, very fervent believer in nature over nurture if you think that a child who has had no input from home, has been to a rubbish primary and has made no extra effrts themselves, is still going to have the same innate abilities as the child who has actually done some work for the past 11 years.

It wud be lovely if grammar schools or any schools could do that, could make up for 11 years of neglect and failing to develop neural pathways etc, but i doubt they can, with the best will in the world. And I don't see how comprehensive schools could do it any better, either.

But explain to me how comprehensives can, as you clearly believe it to be the case. I just don't get it.

I think the solution to that neglect is not to ban grammar schiols but to ensure excellent pre-school education, preferably free, so those from por backgrounds can benefit from this, with extra support at primary.

Banning grammar schools removes hugh quality education at secondary. It doesn't help the poor but bright at all.

At least at comprehensives kids have the chance to come to learning later. The current grammar school system shuts down their options at 10.

And the top 23% currently in grammar schools would make up the top sets of the comprehensive- it wouldn't make any difference to them.

breadandbutterfly we get child tax credit -I'm disabled, dp works pt

You most definitely don't have to be on benefits to get FSM.

Exactly, JuliaScurr - you're disabled. Who I specifically mentioned as the only exception re FSM.

seeker - "At least at comprehensives kids have the chance to come to learning later. The current grammar school system shuts down their options at 10. "

This seems to be the crux of your objection to grammar schools. But it's utterly illogical.

You objected to my suggestion that poor kids could access learning for free from libraries, as how would a kid from a poor background know to do that. Yet you epect this same kid to move house from a sink estate to a posh area, so they can go to the naice comp rather than the inevitably shitty one on the sink estate, at the age of 11.

Please explain why you think selection by house prices is inherently fairer than selection by merit - and how a poor kid frm a rough area is going to be in a position to avoid this. and why this is going to be easier for them to do than, say, going to the library.

For crying out loud.