'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?

Nice, well you obviously DO care about their education or you wouldn,t have bothered to post on this thread, would you?
And I did not say ALL parents who send their DCs to the closest school are not really bothered, just some.

But bfj if you were to ask me if I was going to send my son to the grammar school I would just say to you " no he is going to the local school"

Woud you hen assume that I did not canvas I was not willing to spend my evenings pouring over Ofsted reports.

Sorry I pad auto correcting. Should read
" woud you assume that I did not care as I was not spending my evenings reading Ofsted reports"

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.

Presumably your school chooses its top sets at age 14. Grammar schools select their pupils at age 10. The super-selectives have always tended to get 100% A-C. The more bog-standard grammars are sometimes a bit lower.

NiceHamione - what do you mean by this?

"Yes I would be annoyed at my son but also annoyed that I had sent him to the grammar at great expense . "

What expense - are you confusing grammar schols and independents?

By the way, what's the point in being cross at a child or a school if they don't get certain grades?

No based on the grammars around here they are expensive . Firstly you need to tutor to get in. Secondly very expensive uniform and PE kit. Expensive books to buy, even the lockers are expensive. Then the cost of getting them there every day rather than just walking to the secondary school.

Also because our grammar schools are basically used by people who have enough money to pay for an independent education but would rather not pay there is the added pressure of your child being the token poor child in the class.

If my son did not work at his GCSEs and therefore got grades that did not reflect his abilty I would be cross.

If I had been lead to believe that my child was grammar school material and I then sent him to an exam factory , I would then be annoyed that I had put him through such a system to get rather poor to mediocre results .

Nice, I never assumed anything. I have had actual conversations that ran along these lines with other parents at the school gates. I do not expect anyone to spend all their evenings reading Ofsted reports, although I do think that any parent who is interested in their DCs education would at least spend the short time it takes to read their intended closest school's report.

Also, you cannot blame the grammar school system if a child is well able but unwilling to put in the work needed to get good grades.

Wow, Naice - some seriously weird assumptions there.

First, at my dd's school, the unifrm etc are cheaper than the comp alternative we had. The bus (ystercard) is free. The school we chose precisely because it was not an "exam factory" - the non-acadrmic subjects are taught as well as the academic ones and the focus is on the whole child.

I would not be cross at my child if they did nt achieve their potential, I'd be discussing why and how they would now achieve what they wanted to achieve - life hardly ends at GSCE.

And I didn't pay for any tutor to get in.

I said based on the grammars round here.

It's only nnecdotal, obviously, but everything about my DS's comp is more expensive than my DD1's grammar school, except for the cost of the bus. I don't just mean uniform, I mean the cost of meals, the cost of extra curricular activities, the cost of school trips......everything.

this thread has got too weird for me- but I just wonder before I go if those remaining need to define their terms.

Am quite horrified that anyone would be cross at their dc if they failed to get top grades - surely what they need if they failed to fulfil potential is supportive and constructive advice, not put-downs. Who are they doing the exams for? You? and hardly as though a few lower grades means failure in life.

What kind of pressure is that to put a child under? Clearly your dc desn't need to go to an exam factory, Naice, they live in one.

seeker - absolutely - am still waiting for the point where you define 'working class' and 'poor' while we're at it.

Am happy to define away, if any of my terms have been unclear.

Where have I said that I am not supportive and constructive ? However if my son who is targeted A* across the board came out with D grades because he had pissed about rather than revising I would be cross. Yes there is life after GCSEs but it is much easier if you try and get the best results that you are capable of.

The thought of any if my children living in an exam factory is laughable. Surely if i was that kind of parent he would be down the road at the grammar. It was precisely becaue we wanted the children to have a pressure free childhood that we refuesed to tutor or take a place at the grammar.

However that is the Internet for you , people make judgements based on one post.

My main point still stands that for a grammar to be claiming that they are succeeding by getting 98% A*-C is a rather empty statement . It is certainly not an achievement so great that it warrants labelling most of the other children a failure, segregating children, often by class and subjecting young children to an outdated and narrow form if education. ( Again based on the grammars around here or that I have worked in)

The only one labelling children a failure in life is you. Am pleased that your last comments are qualified - certainly your experiences bear no relation to mine.

Children are 'segregated' by ability, not class in the grammar system - it's an (imperfect) meritocracy, and thus, to my mind, better than a system where children are 'segregated' (your very emotive word again) on house prices, which starts at birth not at age 11, and frm which no amount of merit will buy an escape.

I know which system i think is fairer.

breadandbutterfly, agree, children are segregated by ability, and there is nothing wrong with that.
We can't all be olympians, such is life.

Indded, by the same token, theatre schools should admit all children, no matter if they have any dramtic/musical/dance ability, sports teams should be forced to include children like me who are terrible at all sports, and following this onto university, all courses should be open to all applicants, no matter their natural level of ability or interest, as long as they come from a deprived - or very wealthy - background.

Middle class children should eat gruel and know their place.

Broad brush definitions in this context. Poor=eligible for free school meals. Working class=not in a white collar or professional occupation.

And for the record, I have never said that I consider anyone to be a failure. I have only said how many children regard themselves after not being successful in the 11+, after being told that they are not suitable even to try. I honestly think some people on here must have no actual experience of the 11+ system at all!

I am all in favour, by the way, or rigorous streaming. I am just not in favour of streaming children permanently at the age of 10. Particularly if the steaming process is heavily weighted against disadvantaged children.

Your examples of talented sportspeople and so on would apply if the grammar schools only took the top 5% or so academically. There is a case for really exceptionally academic children being educated separately- as with very talented musicians and so on. But the top 23% is hardly Einstein territory!