'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?

seeker - I'm with yu 100% on wanting better opportunities for kids from poor backgrounds. And I certainly don't claim that grammar schools provide all of the solutions or will mean that that's it, nothing more needs to be done for kids from poor backgrounds. But I think they're an important part of the picture.

I agree that ideally, we'd give kids a second bite of the cherry, at 13+, say, fr those who developed later. But that's tinkering with the system, not throwing it out wholesale.

I went to a grammar, chose to send my dd to a grammar and would absolutely make those choices again. Do i hink comps would peform better if people like me and my dd were in them? No, not at all. My dd was top of everything at her primry - demoralising for the other kids who could never be top and boring for her as the work was too easy. She is better off at a more strwtching school and they are better off with her there too. One of her best friends failed to get into grammar and is now G&T at her good comp and really blooming in confidence. She doesn't feel a failure - the opposite.

Sorry - misread it

Agree with your objection to selection by postcode/income, but when Brighton allocated by lottery, the middle class didn't like that, because they ccouldn't 'fix' the system

"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."

Well, not all disadvantaged children live on sink estates. And not all comprehensives on sink estates are shitty. And not many people in real life, rather than on mumsnet do this moving business. And the very presence of grammar school brings down the quality of the schools that the remainder of the cohort goes to.

And being told at 10 that you're a failure has a significant impact on the psychological and academic well being of a child.

I dont know about psychological well-being of a child, but I have a friend who will be 70 in September who is still miffed at not being selected at 11.

If grammar school places are monopolised by the offspring of former grammar school pupils it is hardly likely to facilitiate the social mobility that supporters of selection are always talking about.

I think the social mobility thing has already been blown out of the water! It's something thatbthe supporters of grammar schools say to justify their survival.

It seems to have replaced the mantra of 'parental choice'.

The trouble is, schools may be different now, but when I went, being in the top set at a comp was crap. And I don't want that for my dc- I want being bright to be normal, I want them to have the choice to do 3 sciences or 2 languages, and round here that means a grammar. And tbh, even if a comp could provide the academic subjects, it's much harder to make the children who take them seem anything but square/ geeky/ odd, if the bulk of the school aren't doing that.

Bollocks it's been blown ut of the water, seeker, you've just refused to answer every post where i poiunt out the lack of lgic of your thought processes.

And clearly not all grammar places are taken by children of former grammar school children, as in the examples I gave abve. But it would hardly be a fair system if children of those who went to grammar school were automatically disadvantaged due to the fact their parents were also bright - would hardly be very meritocratic then.

Or do yu expect those wh have been to grammar school themselves to only enter professions where they can make lots of money, and be forbidden from being teachers, academics etc/ Because that would be really fair, wouldn't it? Or should us privileged parents who went to grammar selflessly offer to home schol our children so as not to be a burden on the state?

I fail to see why you object to the idea of a meritocracy. I can see how you might argue over the details of implementing it successfully eg how to ensure the exams to enter grammar schools are fair, etc. But not to disagree with the whole thing and throw ut the only bit of our current education system which DOES allow bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds to flourish.

Re kids being seen as failures at 11, that is only a problem where we view only academic success as success and every other kind of success as a failure. That's not how the real world works - plumbers aren't failures because they're not university lecturers, they're just people doing differemt jbs. If anything, intellectualls are pretty low status in England, unlike say in rance.

There is nothing inevitable about the choice of school one goes to marking somewhat ut as a failure or success - no reason why you can't be a success at technical or practical subjects.

Some schools near me do pick a proportion of pupils based on technical ability or sprting ability - I'm sure those kids don't feel failures. What matters is that all kids get the most appropriate education for them - not that everyne gets the same education that actually suits none of them.

"Bollocks it's been blown ut of the water, seeker, you've just refused to answer every post where i poiunt out the lack of lgic of your thought processes."

Grammar schools do not act as a mechanism for social mobility because generally speaking children from disadvantaged backgrounds don't have access to them.

Are you denying that this is true?

And as for not been seen as failures at 10- you know and I know that they are not failures. But if you take a test and everyone congratultes the people who get over a certain mark and commiserates with everyone who gets below a certain mark, or if you are told that you are not suitable even to try and take the test in the first place then I just don't see how a child is not going to feel a failure.

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

The league tables.

seeker -

"Grammar schools do not act as a mechanism for social mobility because generally speaking children from disadvantaged backgrounds don't have access to them.

Are you denying that this is true? "

Broadly speaking, yes, I am. I do agree that the mechanisms for ensuring this access are far from pefect and ought to be improved. But the way to achieve this is precisely by increasing the number of grammar schools not reducing them. I think a main reason for the ridiculus tutoring situation that we have - which I do disaprove of - is the severe lack of places relative to candidates who would benefit from it. It's ridiculous that people can be jusged to be of grammar standard in Kent but then not get a place or only get one 3 hours away.

I don't think that's enough on its own but it is a start.

Ideally, I'd like to have exams that couldn't be tutored for.

Re the success/failure thing, i think league tables have a lt to answer for - when I went to HBS, I don't thin anyone had any seious tutoring and no-one ever referred to the exam, and we generally had a fairly low opinion of ourselves. V few kids came from prep schools. Now, since the intro of league tables, kids - and parents - know that certain schools get top reslts, with the effect of making the kids more arrogant and making the pressure to get in much greater, which i think is a huge shame.

So 98% a*-c don't count as great results?

Surely a grammar should be 100% A* to C, if not A to B.

My son who lives in a grammar school area and could have gone to the local grammar , but does not because we don't believe in them, is on track for all As and A*. As i teach in the school that he attends, I know this is quite typical for the students at his comp , or secondary modern, who chose not to go to the grammar despite having the ability . If my son had attended a grammar I would have been quite shocked if he got a C in a subject and yet 2% at the grammar didn't even manage a C.

Which grammar is this? Not all grammars get 98%.

What is the point of this example again?

Some children are very bright, but as lazy as sin. Even if they do well in IQ tests, they fail their GCSEs. There comes a point where the CHILD has to decide to do the work. No amount of tutoring or teachers slogging their guts out will get a child to do their GCSE coursework IF they don't want to.

I would imagine that if I were the kind of parent who wanted to send my child to a grammar, and they had the required ability to get into a grammar, I would be furious if they did not come out with all A* to B.

So is 98% supposed to be an example of a good grammar , are the others worse?

I get hauled over the coals if I do not get 100% A- C from my top set, in reality i am expected to get mostly A* to A with the odd B grade.

I personally don't want my DC to be top at the local comprehensive, as it still would not be stretching him to his full capabilities.

And it may be an unpalatable and non-PC idea but, maybe the fact that disadvantaged children do not go to grammars is purely down to the fact that their parents are probably not all that interested or bothered about their children's education.
I have spoken to a number of parents who say they just want their DCs to go to the closest school as it easiest to get to, regardless of whether it's good or bad. Mention the words OFSTED report to them and they look blank.
Sad but true.

My children go to the closest school, it does not mean I do not care about their education.

"I would imagine that if I were the kind of parent who wanted to send my child to a grammar, and they had the required ability to get into a grammar, I would be furious if they did not come out with all A* to B."

Surely you should be furious with your teen rather than the school. Many teens completely and utterly rebel when they have been an academic pressure cooker for years. Such teens might do better in the more relaxed atmosphere of a less selective school.

NiceHamione Do the incredbily lazy but bright children get moved down a set?

You are preaching to the converted ReallyTired as I have chosen to send my very bright son to a secondary modern rather than the grammar. Although to be honest I would call it a comp. Yes I would be annoyed at my son but also annoyed that I had sent him to the grammar at great expense .

If children to not perform as expected they will get moved down a set if they do not respond to whatever intervention is out in place. That is if there is someone ready to move up.