'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?

Yes, I do, as I feel that no one is forcing a child to sit the test. There are some comprehensives too if a parent would prefer that option.

Bloody hell- devil take the hindmost, eh?

Just want to confirm, scarlett

I asked if you though it was OK to Tell 77% of the cohort that they qr failures in order to confer benefit on the remaining 23%, and you said "Yes, I do"

Is that right?

By re educating parents that academic selection is not necessarily a bad thing, and raising the standards of the secondary schools so those at the bottom are being better catered for. I would actually stop forcing children at the bottom to sit subjects they are never going to pass and return to focusing on life skills and vocational subjects. I think there is far to much focus on academic achievement for all and not enough on where this will actually lead to. My fourteen year old foster son is currently at a comprehensive. His reading age is around 8 and Maths 7. He is sitting a full academic syllabus. It is totally idiotic as he isn't going to pass any of these subjects. How is the comprehensive system benefitting him?

No one is saying that the remaining 77% are failures. They are saying that they are not as academic. That doesn't mean they are destined to have a crap life. I am sorry, but not everyone has the same strengths and they should be played to, in the right system for them. I read law at a russell group uni. I wasn't very good at it and needless to say, I am not a barrister. Some of my fellow students were incredibly bright and are now very successful. That is life, they were just a lot cleverer than me. Do I begrudge them it? Absolutely not.

Well, either northern Ireland runs it's selection process much better than Kent does, or you have an entirely different species of children, parents and teachers there. How can you not feel a failure at 10 if you are either advised not to take the test at all, or take it and fail?

By re educating parents that academic selection is not necessarily a bad thing, and raising the standards of the secondary schools so those at the bottom are being better catered for.

So you feel that parents should be educated to agree with your point of view? Surely it is just a matter of opinion. And many parents who agree with selection at 11 are nevertheless mortified if their child was not selected for the academic school - some to the point of going private when the selection process does not go the way they would have wished.

You have said that you would make the non-selective option more appealing to them by 'raising standards so the bottom are better catered for'. How would you do this - how would it be measured? And most caring parents whose kids would not pass the 11+ do not perceive their kids to be the bottom. The fact that you have used the words 'the bottom' would now make the secondary modern an even less attractive proposition to me than it was before.

Regarding low ability children sitting the full academic sylabus, I think you have a point. But that is not the fault of the comprehensive system; it is more a problem of the national curriculum - a curriculum that also has to be followed in grammar, comprehensive and secondary modern schools alike.

Is this an April Fool scarlett? If so,

I agree with you that of course if handled incorrectly a child would feel like a failure, and of course this is wrong. But I don't agree that the solution is to force everyone to go to a comprehensive. I agree that the middle classes want to keep the grammar system because it benefits them, but at the end of the day, who can blame them when it consistently produces good results for them if they have a bright child?

scarletts, I can see your point of view and agree with it. However, this would be hard to implement. Fwiw I think grammar schools have their place and should be in every borough, not just the affluent South. But I think there should be some mobility between the grammars and those that go to the 'secondary moderns' - perhaps some 13+ places for the late developers?

There are lots of outstanding comprehensives in the UK but I live in an (admittedly) inner city area and (totally anecdotally), if you have a geeky or outstandingly clever child it is not something to be celebrated as it's another reason they can be picked on/bullied. In these circumstances, children slack off or they are miserable. In a grammar school, on the whole, the majority of children will be fairly to very bright.

The white elephant in the room for me is the poverty of aspiration and opportunity for those 10/11 years olds whose parents dont understand the system or can't help. In grammar areas, why not have coaching in the classroom for all of the pupils for 6 months - this would surely level the playing field a bit for the bright children whose parents are unable to help/pay for tutoring etc.

How would you handle it correctly? "Never mind dear, you can now go to school with children at 'the bottom'"

"and I'm sure you'll enjoy your vocational training- maybe you could be a sound engineer one day if you're very lucky"

I work with kids now in Scotland with kids in the NEET group. They haven't a single qualification. I strongly believe that if they had been sent down the vocational path instead of made to sit subjects they had no interest in and were never going to pass they would be a hell of a lot better off now. Not all children are the same and not all want to do academic subjects.

" Not all children are the same and not all want to do academic subjects."

Of course they aren't and don't! But how can you possibly sort them out at 10? That's why comprehensive schools are a good idea!

There will always be exceptions to the rule, buy generally speaking you can identify which children are the brightest. It may be upsetting to hear but it is true. Even when I was in primary one, we new who the brightest children in the class were and needless to say, they still are. Doctor/ investment banker and deputy head teacher of a large comp by 29 years old.

Alas, Scarlett is right in that IMO nearly everyone thinks this way.

Give me a 6 year old with an average intellect (whatever that means) & I'll 'make' him G&T for reading by lots of early exposure & constant practice. He'll be able to read fluently & understand Roald Dahl before he's 6. His 'brightness' is hidden practice & he's become smarter on his learning journey. His busy teacher will treat him differently.

Every teacher I've ever met privately or publicly thinks as Scarlett so do something at home folks to help your child out.

'Bright' early on & you won't ever use the label. Dips & poor performance will be due to other factors. A 'slow' child early on will be seen as a plodder or hard worker if they do well & exceed expectations see 'value add' for details.

Interestingly, In Asia they believe you can make a child grow up gifted. Interesting isn't it.

You might be able to identify the top 5%- but not the top 23%. And generally speaking you are not identifying the brightest, you are identifying the most middle class. I repeat, why do you think it's acceptable to shut down opportunity for the majority? Why not have a situation where late developers and flash in the pan early bloomers can move between sets? Why should a child be denied the opportunity to study hairdressingbor child care because they happened to hit the arbitrary pass mark?

I absolutely hate the idea of grammar schools after I had to do a research study into the whole thing. I think they are positively harmful to the overall good and it would be better to spend money on better gifted and talented provision in comprehensive schools instead.

Thank Dawkins,- the voice of sanity!

Would agree that of course tutoring and help at home improved literacy and numeracy etc, however the children in my class who were obviously good at general school work and seen to be bright, also consistently scored highest in the i.q tests we were given twice a year from age 8. They always scored 130 plus. Those that scored less than say 110 didn't pass the eleven plus, despite all coming from middle class homes and being tutored. It was a quaker prep school.

I don't think it is acceptable to shut down opportunity for the majority . I don't think it is a perfect system and I totally agree that it discriminates against those from poorer backgrounds, however I don't think that the solution is to just abolish grammars. For one thing it would just lead the middle classes to stretch themselves to go private, which would just create an even bigger class divide. A better solution would be to make grammars more accessible to all, and I personally would go back to the test being more of an i.q test as it was when I did it.

No. The solution is comprehensive schools!

Intelligence is composite & can't accurately be measured by an IQ test. Neither can an IQ test predict suitability for/whether you'd thrive in a Grammar but I appreciate that's not a widely held or popular opinion.

But I think there should be some mobility between the grammars and those that go to the 'secondary moderns' - perhaps some 13+ places for the late developers?

This was a system that happened years ago, but would depend on the grammar schools having surplus places. Also, the children in the secondary modern would have to follow more or less the same syllabus at the same level to seamlessly transfer.

There are lots of outstanding comprehensives in the UK but I live in an (admittedly) inner city area and (totally anecdotally), if you have a geeky or outstandingly clever child it is not something to be celebrated as it's another reason they can be picked on/bullied.

If it's any reasussurance, an exceptionally able boy (sadly not DS) in DS's low achieving comprehensive - admittedly in a town too small for an inner city - was treated as a minor celebrity by the other kids.

The white elephant in the room for me is the poverty of aspiration and opportunity for those 10/11 years olds whose parents dont understand the system or can't help. In grammar areas, why not have coaching in the classroom for all of the pupils for 6 months - this would surely level the playing field a bit for the bright children whose parents are unable to help/pay for tutoring etc.

I don't think not paying for extra tutoring (especially in something of no practical use like VR and NVR) actually represents poverty of aspiration. But coaching in the classroom won't actually solve the problem. It is a competition. If you up the ante, you just raise the pass mark. FWIW, a couple of years ago I heard an interview with council rep from Bucks who absolutely insisted that their 11+ could not be coached for.

We will have to agree to disagree. As I say, my foster son is at a comprehensive and it has done him no favours. If we lived in NI he would be at a great secondary where 15% of the children have additional learning needs and properly trained special needs teachers. At the minute he is in a class of thirty alongside very bright children and he simply can't keep up.