'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?

If you looked at the population as a whole the people with the higher IQs would, be less likely to be at the poorer end of the population. Which is rather different from saying that rich people are cleverer than poor people, I think.

Of course there are exceptions. The brightest child in my son's primary school class was the son of a hairdresser and farm labourer. He must have had a very, very high IQ. There are some very dim children in some of the plush private schools I know. I once worked with a girl from a stinking rich background who believed that putting a sticking plaster over her naval while she was pregnant (to prevent it from showing through a light summer dress) would deprive her baby of oxygen.

And you don't actually need to have a massively high IQ to pass the 11+. you just need to know how to pass the 11+!

True. Even I managed to 'pass'.

But that was in 1974.

Hairdressers and farm labourers can be clever too, you know!

"Ah. The old "rich people are cleverer than poor people argument" I don't buy that."

The differences in attainment between rich and poor children are apparent at 3 years old and the rich are a year ahead of the poor (on average of course) when they start school.

Those differences are huge! They say nothing of course about innate intelligence (it could be down to nurture rather than nature and lack of tumble tots, ballet classes, kindermusic, books in house, being read to, outings and holidays etc), but with that kind of disadvantage before school even begins it's hardly surprising there is such low representation of fsm kids in grammars. Those kinds of difference are going to be extremely hard to overcome - even if innate IQ is the same initially (which it quite probably is), there's likely to be a use it or lose it element that means if the neural pathways aren't established and exercised early on will make later learning harder.

In our fully comprehensive area, only a small % go onto Russell Group unis, out of 100 6th formers I would estimate 3. 1 pupil to Oxbridge, and it's all due to extra paid for tuition. I know for a fact that they had at least 10% were deemed G&T measured on a national level.

I think the comp system fails a lot of children. It did 35 years ago (me) and still does today.

I agree with seeker. I have also seen a grammar school from the inside - not a pretty sight regards teaching and learning ime. Booster groups for the A-A* students, not for the B-A students. Narrow curriculum. Most children from very privileged backgrounds.

Someone said 'why not send your dc to the local secondary?' Have you any idea of the calibre of some secondaries in grammar school areas? The price of our house is seriously affected by our appalling catchment school.

And, adamschic, when my ds did A levels at his 'outstanding' grammar school, only one pupil got into Oxbridge.

It's not so much a "rich people are cleverer than poor people" (subtext- being richer makes you cleverer) argument as a "clever people tend to be richer than poorer". I think that statistically that ought to hold up, since we as a society value education as a means of self-improvement and clever people tend to want self-improvement. Although OF COURSE there are many clever people who are also poor for whatever reason- misfortune, illness, social difficulties etc...

Yes, duchesse, and many can also afford 11+ tutoring.
You ought to see our local stats on grammar school pass rates. There is definitely a rich/poor divide!

mumblesmum, ok I am surprised by this.

adamschic
bearing in mind that Oxbridge take around 0.05% of the students who start sixth for, your 1 in 100 is AMAZING

I need to do a "Me" page about sixth form stats

After GCSE
33% leave education to work
33% do A levels and then leave education
33% do degrees

of that 33% (in brackets total percentages)
75% go to new universities (25%)
24.9% go to RG universities (8.9%)
0.1% go to Oxbridge (0.05%)

Grammars NOW reflect parental ambition, not child's ability
so need to be abolished

OK, so 1 in 100 doing medicine (vet, and dentistry incl) is good too? especially as it's mine . Widening access route but still, good.

I also live in Kent and disagree with the grammar school system. My DD was capable of passing the 11+, but didn't want to go to a single-sex school. DS2 also capable, but didn't want to as the comp they all go to is fantastic.

One of my friend's DDs goes to grammar, the other to the comp with our DC. The main beef I have with the system is the advantages that the grammar school DC get. They can do many more extra-curriculr things. My SIL works in a superselective and tells me the reason is that the comp has to make provision for DC with AEN and that, in her school, that money is therefore available for extra-curricular. Also, I just went past Judd in Tonbridge (superselective) and they had 5 school buses parked outside. My DC's school only has one. That cannot be just. The superselectives, at least, appear to have 6 PE teachers, our comp has 4 for the same number of students. How is that fair?

So, Talkin, the fact that at least 2 pupils from my DC's school go to Oxbridge every year is a very good thing, if I understand correctly?

Ilovejudgejudy- don't what the situation is where you are, but in Northern Ireland all parents are expected to pay a 'voluntary contribution' of several hundred pounds a year, to attend the grammar school. I presume this money then goes to fund the additional activities etc. My old school which recently one the The TImes school of the year, charges about £400, while my brothers, all boys, charged over £1000. There are however no large independent fee paying schools as far as I am aware.

"Ilovejudgejudy- don't what the situation is where you are, but in Northern Ireland all parents are expected to pay a 'voluntary contribution' of several hundred pounds a year, to attend the grammar school. I presume this money then goes to fund the additional activities etc. My old school which recently one the The TImes school of the year, charges about £400, while my brothers, all boys, charged over £1000. There are however no large independent fee paying schools as far as I am aware."

Not the case, thankfully, here. If it was that would just be another hurdle between children for socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and grammar schools.

@judgejudy there are, I think, 9 school buses which serve my DD1's Grammar school. The parents pay for them, though - varying amounts based on where you live, we pay £1k a year for the bus but I think we live at the furthest edge of the zone from which kids travel to the school. The buses don't go any further anyway, in any direction.

At this grammar, 20 kids got Oxbridge places this year. I think it's fair to say the results reflect The kids' academic ability not parental ambition.

Seeker- fully accept that the relatively small fees charged could be seen as a hurdle to those on low incomes, however those on low incomes would not be expected to pay.

I don't think you're addressed my point about labelling 77% of the cohort as failures at 10. It's the really big elephant in the room for supporters of the 11+, surely?

It was true that when the whole of the UK had the grammar/ secondary modern system many more poor kids got into grammars in terms of numbers and statistically. Nowadays the grammar system has only survived mainly in the south east and in Tory run councils/ boroughs so surmise that the majority of those who live there are not poor. So the argument that gs are the social vehicle for poor kids to better themselves no longer holds true but rather they are for the middle classes to hold onto privileges for their own dc.

Agree that it could be very upsetting for those that don't pass, however unfortunately sometimes life is unfair, and surely it would be equally unfair on those that want to keep grammars to have them abolished. The solution is to make secondary schools as equally appealing so it isn't a two class system but a parallel system. My cousin was the only one out of five if us who didn't pass the eleven plus. He would happily tell you that he was glad he didn't get into the same school as the rest of us as he is now working as a sound engineer, something he wouldnt have got the chance to do at the grammar. He still went to university and is as happy as his brother and sister.

Scarlett- do you really think that it's OK to tell 77% of a cohort that they are failures in order to benefit 23%? Really?

Also in NI many children don't even sit the eleven plus and opt to go to one of the secondary schools. I don't think their is a huge amount of stigma attached to this as it isn't seen as a negative to go to secondary school.

The solution is to make secondary schools as equally appealing so it isn't a two class system but a parallel system.

How would you propose to do that?