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.

It makes perfect sense to me to teach children from a younger age, most are more than capable. If the curriculum is taught in its entirety there will be no need for extra tutoring in Maths and English. Early year?s education is so important they need to know so much by the end of year 2 I honestly don?t see the point in playing in nursery and reception and then cramming in years one and two.

Well, why not just start everyone on their degree courses in Year 7 dinky

• Save all that cramming it into three years later hey ?!

It's all about developmental readiness.

Why oh why do so few people "get" play in the under 5's ? (or better the under 8's ?)

Well it might prepare students better than at the present time.

Most children I know who sit for private schools at the age of 4 can read and write. Children at state schools are at a disadvantage even before they start school and before you say they catch up, most don?t.

There is more than enough time in the day for 3-8 year olds to learn and play.

All ages really, Juggling. Even adults may learn better by "doing", which is what playing is, really, isn't it?

In other European countries children don't start formal education until 6 or 7. My continental friends have been very shocked at this learning to read and write at 3 and 4.

My DD learnt to read fluently by the time she was 4, it opened up a whole world to her, she has not had her head out of a book since. I cannot imaging making a child wait until 7 years old to read books.

Dinky, the reason children at private schools generally do better than those at state results wise has little to do with the quality of teaching. I think it is very much to do with the socio economic group and education level of the parents who send their children there. Most state primary schools will have children with a complete mix of backgrounds so the overall results will not be as good as a school where all the children will have had every advantage money can buy, and already may be inherently brighter than some in the class in a school in a disadvantaged area. I appreciate that sounds controversial and in no means want to offend, but let's face it, the child of two doctors is likely to be already brighter than a child of people who are of low intelligence and with poor levels of literacy and numeracy.

Really? I knew it was controversial but I thought some basic common sense would come in to it! I mean I certainly am not offended by the fact that my best friends children are probably inherently brighter than mine, simply because their father is super clever. That's life!

Behaviour in grammar schools is massively better than in the bottom streams in a comp, sorry it is. I went to a grammar and am in giving talks to under performing teens regularly and the difference is unbelievable. Terrifying actually.

Dinky. I think I love you.

"the child of two doctors is likely to be already brighter than a child of people who are of low intelligence and with poor levels of literacy and numeracy."
Not necessarily. One of the theories which attempts to explain the rise in diagnoses of ASD posits that it is to do with increased intermarriage of persons of high intelligence. Some people with ASD can be bright in the sense that you mean it, of course, but most show some degree of cognitive impairment.

Totally agree. It amuses me when people without any actually experience of setting foot in a classroom, especially one in a disadvantaged area, think it is unreasonable to choose to send your own child to a grammar.

I have set foot in many classrooms and I moved out of a grammar school area to one with good comprehensives-a great decision and all 3 DSs have had their first choice of career. The top sets are the DCs who would be in the grammar school if there was one, and have professional parents who want the best, so why on earth they should face disruption I don't know! On the odd occasion they have had it I have phoned up and it has been sorted.
Lots of places in the country have no grammar schools (most areas) and since only about 7% are in private education that leaves a lot of very clever, motivated DCs with parents who are doctors etc in state school comprehensives. They do well and get to top universities.

I love the way that people assume that if there is a grammar school their DC will get a place-some of the cleverest people in the country managed to fail!

I sold my house to just such a family-their DS failed (against all their assumptions)

I also know bad cases of bullying in the grammar school. One girl who had to go home at lunch time and a boy who had his nose broken as he got off the school bus-by others who got off the school bus from the same school-are the ones that spring to mind.

But what about the children who are not in the top streams? And actually, if it was a true comprehensive there wouldn't be ANY streaming.

And don't get me started on some of the stories I could tell you from the comprehensives I have dealt with- much worse than a broken nose.

I had 2 close friends at school who failed the 11 plus who went on to get firsts at Oxford. Now Oxford is not our best university (I have met some people who have been there at whom I frankly boggled) but still, it makes me think that the 11 plus is wank.

There will always be children that should have passes but didn't, but they are in the minority, and are not good enough reason to scrap the system. They have tried this recently in northern Ireland and have made a total mess.