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.

If all children were taught properly and well at primary - and secondary, come to that - not only woudl they not need to be tutored - but a massive part of the raison d'etre of grammars, free schools etc would be removed. It wouldn't be half the issue it is now, not a tenth of it.

Stop moaning about selection and start moaning about the National Curriculum. I feel sorry for people stuck with it who can't help their chidlren themselves, rely on schools to help them in a way that they can't, and are let down over and over again.

It's a disgrace for social mobility. A disgrace.

Me: "Education shouldn't depend on the aspirations of your parents."
Quite right. But state schools make it that way.

rabbitstew - " Private schools make it that way, too - far more so. "

Utter rubbish. They educate seven per cent of the population. The state system is responsiblefor the rest. It's state primaries devolving reading and times tables to parents while they get on with dress up days and all sorts of other stuff that is not a tiny bit as important.

Complain about THAT and someone like me would take you seriously. Blaming private schools for poor education is just desperate. They do well so - what? You want them to do worse? Is that what you want?

It's state primaries devolving reading and times tables to parents while they get on with dress up days and all sorts of other stuff that is not a tiny bit as important.

Are you really Melanie Phillips masquerading as Brycie? That's the sort of stuff that she spouts. I would grant that this was probably true in the late sixties and seventies when 'child centred' education inspired by the Plowden Report was all the rage, and reading, for example, depended on its being 'all a matter of readiness' and times tables were an absolute no-no. But all that stuff began to bite the dust big time when the National Curriculum came in.

No quite wrong. Have you never read any of the threads on this subject? Do you know how often teachers listen to children read? Have you read the defences from teachers of how things work? How they blame parents?

Some people spout what they think is the case instead of what is the case.

Blimey dramatic much?

Do people really care what hqppens to any child who isn't their own? Or about the sort of society we're creating?

It means they going to school b instead of school a.
They both offer free education, gcses and alevels.
depending on how hard child works they both have chance of uni.

Lets put into perspective they not being abused, nothing terrobles happening to them no one gets irate about kids in countries where they get no education at all?

I ask you again seeker what exactly you doing to change system other than posting on here?

are you campaigning publicy?
lobbying mps? petition?
councils?
opting out as protest-no you not have 1 in system and were prepared to have 2 in system.

Most of country dont have grammers schools.

But the utopia of comprehensives dont exist here,
most hell holes where wouldent wish to send mine.

My experince of state education so far through ,me and my child.

They cater well for top groups they seemed to get lots of attention. That was case in my seconfry bottom sets were doomed to little or no education as classes so disruptive, the worst teachers ect.

At dds last primary the top groups had help.
bottom kids raised
those in middle made poor progress.

since moving her to mixed year 1/2 class boosted her confidence as shes now top in class .

Maybe the middle average kids will feel boosted as will be in top sets if all brightb ones in grammer.

All the bottom sets should focus english and maths gcses but be offered some voactional stuff and career advice so they leave with something.

maybe more interventions in secondry catch up classes for middle to raise then.

education to be about raising not lowering and dumbing down standards as some kids may be bit upset.

Lets take emotion out of the row and do best logical thing for that child based on their needs and ability,

I refuse to call schools where the top 23% is creamed off comprehensives but every time I write 'Secondary Modern' I think it a ridiculous term because they were modern when they started but outdated now. It makes me think that the whole system is outdated when they can't even name the alternative to the grammar school. I know that some use High School but my grammar school was called xxxxxxx High School for Girls.

It is quite laughable that teachers are free to have dress up days and 'all sorts of stuff that isn't important'! Obviously not written by a teacher who has to cram an amazing amount into a day!
Other threads have dealt with teachers hearing DCs read. Even if you give each DC only 5 minutes ( far to short for most) that is well over 2 hours - what are they doing while others are reading- bearing in mind that at the age they need it you can't just say 'turn to page 34 and do exercise 12' and expect them to get on without needing any help or teaching!

The whole premise of this thread and half the argument is that the top 23 per cent is NOT creamed off. The whole premise is that people buy an undeserved "creaming off" of their children by tutoring. The idea behind the article in the OP is to engineer a system where tutoring makes no difference - and to create a situation where the top 23 per cent is indeed "creamed off".

If people could actually get to grips with that it would be progress.

Exotic: I agree with you on lots of things and I know we've had a disagreement about arguing before. Prep schools manage to teach to a certain level - why can't state? Aren't you interested in what's going wrong?

Lol at disagreement about arguing. Disagreement about reading! I hope you arf with me at that freudian slip.

Brycie, state schools don't have the same outcomes as prep schools since they don't have anything like such a high percentage of their children starting out a year ahead and school ready due to having wealthy and involved parents. It's really little to do with the national curriculum (many privates follow this in any case).

You seem to think that given the same teaching, all children will come out the same, which unfortunately is not true. Wherever a selection system for the top x% exists there will always be people tutoring their dc to try to ensure they pass that hurdle.

Blaming parents again?

It's so easy isn't it. State school teachers have 93 per cent of the country's children, for six and a half hours a day, five days a week, except for the holidays. But outcomes aren't anything to do with how state schools function and what they teach. They're to do with parents, or private schools, or grammars, or Tories, or

if outcomes at a mixed intake state school are strongly correlated to the rich kids performing better (which they are), then is it any surprise that an independent school where all children are rich by definition will have better outcomes? I'm not blaming parents, who in the main don't choose their income levels (xenia might disagree here) - but if poorer children are starting school a year behind their wealthier friends, it implies interventions are needed before school age to help. Changes to schools may only be able to prevent the gap widening.

State education should be about levelling out the differences, not pandering to them and using them as an excuse.

That's what state education is for. The more you devolve to parents, the more you end up with elitism. The NC's dependence on parental input has done more to damage social mobility than private schools or grammars ever will.

children will always learn from their parents whether the NC mandates it (does it even?) or not. Abolishing homework will make little difference to that (and incidently, your much admired prep schools usually give lots of homework).

Your plans sound dangerously likely to result in everyone learning at the pace of the slowest.

Yeah yeah yeah. This is the reason social mobility is poor. Low expectations, failure to see a problem, so failure to address it.

"It's state primaries devolving reading and times tables to parents while they get on with dress up days and all sorts of other stuff that is not a tiny bit as important."

You're right Brycie. At my kids' state primary the final year was pretty much one long party - endless celebrations, non-educational days out, school plays with all practice during school hours, etc. (yes school plays are fine and educational in themselves, but added on to the rest it seemed like they hardly did any academic work!) This is Scotland, so no grammar entrance to prepare for, but surely they should have been preparing for secondary level learning?

Depressing isn't it. Got to say, and excuse the generalisation, but mumsnetters, bit middle class, bit educated, at least interested in how to help their children, very often don't see it. They don't mind doing the reading, and the times tables, and buying tapes from ELC and singing in the car and blah de blah de blah. They think it's nice (it is nice!) But not when it stands in for something the schools should be doing - ie establishing an excellent grasp and enjoyment of reading, excellent writing skills and excellent arithmetic skills.

Not clear why you are blaming the NC, Brycie - it dictates which subjects should be taught but most of the content left is fairly non-contentious i would have thought. Can you give an example of something in the NC that you think is so deleterious to children's education that it should be left out?

Your 'dressing up days' certainly aren't in the NC but I'd hate to take them out - bringing history or literature to life, as they usually are, is part of the magic for my dcs - they love these days...

I totally agree that all state schools should have higher standards and expectations esp for brighter pupils but that is not related to the NC - it's likely affected by attitudes / incentives for schools. Changing the 'carrots' or 'sticks' on offer for schools can make a big difference to kids' progress - recent league table changes meaning that schools now have to state the % of pupils who have managed to reach their EXPECTED levels not just the national levels at KS2 has made a huge difference, IMO, at my kids' school - I have seen a huge change in attitude between dc1's experience and dc2's, since this was introduced (eg kids who got level 3s in KS1 are now expected to reach Level 5s or above at KS2 or questions will be asked - in the old days, the school got no extra brownie points if pupils went beyond a level 4 so bright pupils who could do that easily were often completely ignored).

I don't think you can usefully apply 'lessons' from prep schools to the state system, really - to me the main lesson is that more money, much smaller classes and well-motivated and probably well-educated parents make a huge difference - but we all knew that, didn't we? I don't really see how we can 'apply' those benefits wholesale to the state sector affordably or practically.

HI Bread - I blame the NC because I've seen high demographic, very expensive schools with two parent professional intake produce mediocre results because of the way they teach.

I totally disagree with you about the dressing up days. When outcomes aren't good on literacy and numeracy (which is the premise of this whole thread) then dress up days are unaffordable.

The changes you detail seem likely to lead to a lowering of expectations. If you get a higher league table place by fulfulling expectations of pupils, then it stands to reason you just lower the expectations and achieve the league table place as if by magic. Unless I've misunderstood.

Your last paragraph - I disagree. I've seen schools choc full of wealthy children in small classes with well motivated and well educated parents fail dismally to shine. How did they differ from UK prep schools? They followed the national curriculum.

I qualify this by praising some changes in requirements with more emphasis on excellence in the basics. More of this please.

Incidentally, a friend with a child at private school (had left my kids' primary school in around year 5) was, while my kids were busy getting "rewards" for the grand task of reaching the top of primary, reading and analysing simple newspaper articles. My kids' state school would never have dreamt of doing such a thing!

Yes I can talk about the Y8 difference. In an NC school I have unhappy experience of (bloody expensive) Y8 was seen as a "year out" where they spent much of the time on "integrated learning" ie writing and producing a play. Supposed to take in history, literacy, team work, drama, planning etc.

Year 8 in a private school of my very happy experience was testing, rigorous, exciting, academically highly progressive, rounded, energetic, sporty, drama-ish, and demanding. Marvellous.

Also, as a teacher (not primary age) and a parent, brycie, whilst I'm sympathetic to your wail that it's not the parents' job to teach, and having to test times tables or whatever is dull, I actually do think that education is a 2-way street. Too many people have the empty vessel theory of education - that a child is like an empty pot that a good teacher just magically 'fills' with the right knowledge. but this is not the case. For teaching to be successful, the pupil needs to be receptive and the receptiveness of a small child is going to be affected by their home background. Pupils need to be encouraged, supported, even basic things like fed and given enough sleep at home - teachers can't ensure these conditions, but without them, their attempts to ensure every child achieves their potential are likely to be less successful than they should. I feel quite strongly that learning isn't something restricted to school or school years - everyone should continue learning throughout their lives and there is no reason why teachers should be expected to be magicians. They can take the child to water but it is up to the child to drink at the fount of knowledge - and the more positive encouragement the child gets from home, the likelier that is to happen.

I do agree that the support needs to happen as early as possible as differences are apparent before kids even start school - but the support needed in reality is not primarily educational. The big elephant in the room is that we live in an uncreasingly unequal society - what families struggling need are good jobs, housing, health, money, social networks - all huge issues to resolve. Far easier to focus on the 'symptom' - which is all these pages of wrangling about the effects of under-achievement at primary and/or in the 11+ really are - than to focus on the underlying cause.

It is not the educational system which leads to children from disadvantaged backgrounds failing at school, or failing the 11+ or whatever. It is the inequality. And under the Tories, this is getting worse quick. That is what needs to be tackled. Those who blame the 11+ have mistaken a minor symptom that does not even affect most of the country, as the root cause of the educational inequality in our country. It is not.

Can't get past the first sentence. Why do you call it a "wail"? Are you trying to demean what I'm saying? I had this earlier with "spout".

I don't want to acknowledge what else you wrote after that comment about wailing.

tell you what make me cring, when people talk about school, and say in a sniffy way, well if they child is bright they wil suceed in any school

what a load of bullshit

i do not beleive that in poorer areas, say where only 20% of the children leave with 5 gcses, that only 20% are actually capable

yet in a well off area 70% plus of the children leave with 5 gcses

its is not down to the fact they kids in the wealthier area are more intelligent at all

Brycie - you seem entirey unfamilar with what the NC actually consists of. There is no requirement for such things as 'integrated curriculum' in it. To some degree, yr 8 is a more relaxed year in any school as there are no national exams at the end of it and choices do not have to be made about GCSES - but your description of your experiences of teaching under the NC bear so little relation to my own that I barely know where to start. My dd in year 8 in a state grammar well, actually semi-selective but largely the same thing in practice) is doing all the things you describe as your private school experience - certainly no let up. She's doing a BBC schools journalism training course after school as a G&T student (v excited), started Latin, the maths she is doing is GCSE level already apparently etc etc ad infinitum.

Bad schools do dumb down. Good schools don't.

But the conclusion that bad schools do so because of the NC is totally unfounded, as plenty of excellent schools - incl the grammar schools this thread is focussed on - do not dumb down, despite using the NC.

The assumption that private schools = good, state schools = bad is particularly shoddy thikng, and is certainly not borne out by the comparative results of many private and state schools. And that is before adjusting figures for the really important underlying factor like parental education and wealth, as discussed in my last post.