Changes to 11-plus to stop middle-class parents 'buying' access to grammars by hiring tutors

[breadandbutterfly]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241411/Changes-11-plus-stop-parents-buying-access-selective-schools-hiring-tutors-children.html

Similar article in the Times apparently but paywall.

People don't actually have a choice where they live- they go with the work. I was lucky that I was able to move out of 11+ area to a comprehensive one- but that was only because of a job change otherwise I was stuck.

I think lots of people do intentionally move into grammar school areas, I am just not one of them. I have made sure that we live on the fringe of a grammar school area though so we do not feel the effects so keenly. It does mean that DS has quite a commute to school.

breqdandbutterfly- I think I'm going to draft a little paragraph explaining myself that I can c and p whenever there'a thread like this! . we moved to Kent at a time in our lives where we were convinced we weren't ever going to have children. For reasons too long and complicated to explain we aren't in a position to move. Where we live there are grammar schools and high schools- no comprehensives. Ds has a high IQ and is a high achiever academically. He would be in the top sets of a comprehensive, so he should definitely be in the school geared up to cater for the top 23%. you have to work within the system that exists- we would be using the selective system whichever school he was at. Our other child is a a grammar school. For the avoidance of doubt, I have been a vociferous anti selection voice in reql life and later on here for many years.

Of course they do! Arisbottle - I was a complete hypocrite when it came to selling my house and I always got it into the conversation! Interestingly the DS of the family that I sold it to failed. They appealed and even employed a solicitor to help their case and he still didn't get in.

"To be fair to Ronaldo I have been on here most of the afternoon.

Sometimes I post on here whilst pretending to watch my children at a club."

Ariabottle- I wish there had been iPhones when my dd was spending most her weekends at gym competitions!

The thing everyone agrees on , ot seems, apart from me, is that somehow the brighter children deserve a better education ( grammar school) than the ordinary/ not so bright.

Why is innate intelligence so important? It should not matter, also, I very much doubt it can be measured by any tests.

I find it very interesting that my DS was bottom of the bottom set, and that friends said I had to accept that Someone had to be bottom of the bottom league, after a year of better quality teaching (private school) in smaller class now does much better on the sats and other tests. The difference is marked. It shows an average child can be seen as " low attaining" in one place, and " above average for his age" with a bit more help. Not talking aboit a glam prep here, but a school that focusses on SEN.

I wish ALL children could get better education. As it stands, and overall, education in this country is just not up to scratch. Just picking the "innate bright" for grammar schools through a newfangled test will do nothing to alter the fact that a lot of kids in this country are being let down spectacularly.

We need an educational revolution. I am open minded about free schools, coud it work?

seeker - none of my business, but why do your think your ds failed the 11+ and how do you think it could have been improved to prevent that? I'm not questioning your assessment he should have passed - I think you sound pretty clued up on his abilities relative to others.I accept that you'd rather both your dcs lived in a comp area. But humour me - how in your experience could the existing transition to existing grammars be improved?

Chandon - don't think 'everyone agrees' at all - read this thread.

I agree with you Chandon, I find the old chestnut of 'the 11+ gives the bright DC from a disadvantaged background a way out' very annoying because the subtext is , if you are not so bright you should jolly well know your place and stay there! They deserve the best education too and a way to better themselves. Excellent education should be for all and I have never understood why it can't be under one roof to give movement up and down.

Arisbottle - your main criticism of the grammar system appears to be that your ds's grammar is dull and you teach some kids who didn't like (the same?) grammar. That does not mean there is something inherently wrong with grammar chools - clearly, if all were dull and disliked by former pupils they would not be massively oversubscribed. My dd's school is not dull at all.

Agree 100% that everyone deserbes the best education - do not agree at all that 'the best' education is the same for all pupils. I blieve in differentiation to suit individual children as much as possible. Lumping all kids together and saying that one size fits all fails most children.

Exotic, DS old school said all this, it was all about how children moved up and down between the sets....the reality was that a bunch of kids were pretty much written off as "low attaining" , which means the teacher had low expectations and the bar was set low for these kids, which suited a lot of them, as it was nice and easy.

I have worked with primary age children for a few years ( not a teacher, but in drama for "underprivileged children, an EU funded thing) and I have never met a "thick" child. Some children are a bit slow, some are dyslexic, some are daydreamers, some are late developers, some are not ready for school until they are older. But none are thick. All kids could be educated to a good level, I really believe that.

The point of education should be to get all children up the maximum of their ability. I am so disappointed with the State system, though I know it works for a lot of people, too many kids are let down through low expectations.

Yes, breadandbutter, I am therefore quite interested in the Free Schools idea, and how that will work out. I do not " believe" in the comprehensive system, OR in grammar schools.

Why are so many people against free schools? Because they will be better? Or worse? Or because they will all be different? Or...?

Ask anything you like bandbfly- i'm used to being quizzed on the subject.

I don't think there is a way that would make the transition to grammar school better or fairer. I don't think, for a start, that there is an untutorable test. Eton claims ton have one, but that doesn't stop people tutoring for it. And I certainly don't think there is a single test which would not favour the children of the professional middle classes, regardless of tutorability. Which is why the system is inherently unjust.

About my own family. I have one who was borderline, and passed. And one who was considered a shooin, and who failed. Catastrophically. Both untutored. Both at the same adequate primary school. Not sure that shows. If anything!

I Seeker, fancy seeing you here

I Meant Hi not I

What is so good about a grammar school? It is bound to get great results because it is selective, doesn't have special needs kids, has a disproportionate number of kids from affluent backgrounds, doesn't have many looked after children or those with emotional and behavioural difficulties, has a lower proportion of kids with English as an additional language. There would be something seriously wrong if a grammar school did not get better results than the local comp. I don't understand why people think their children will get a better education at one. I do think a lot of it is middle class parents wanting to prevent their children mixing with the riff raff.
The grammar school system is so socially decisive it should be banned.

Also, in a comprehensive, one size does not fit all. The curriculum is flexible so that it caters for all abilities.

We do not swear except under our breath or privately.

I fear if you send your child to private school, he will swear like a trooper. Caring / getting upset about swearwords is seen as awfully lower middle class...

If the school has just got an "outstanding" it must deal with truancy and attendance very well. Are you sure the problem is not historical?

My DS goes to a comp and he has just been rewarded for attendance and punctuality with a trip to the cinema. There are loads of incentives for good behaviour at his school and plenty of punishments for bad behaviour.

No, my main criticisms are that they are divisive, unfair and favour those who already have the dice rolled in their favour anyway . It is just another reason for the middle classes to opt out of mainstream education. It harms those left behind and is too permanent. As if that were not bad enough there should be no need for them any way.

LeQueen The point I make is that you are unlikely to get children of "illiterate, immigrant window cleaners" at a grammar school and that is why I disagree with selective education.

I do see your point that you don't want your child to sit next to a disruptive child. However, I think it is wrong to assume that this is what is necessarily going to happen.

Just because the children are in one building it does not mean that they get the same lessons or style of teaching. As a comprehensive school teacher over a week I will see children over a vast range of abilities for those who have the reading age of my son in reception to those heading off to Cambridge with a fleet of A*. It is my job to meet their needs, as a professional I can do that.