Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

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

999 replies

breadandbutterfly · 01/12/2012 21:48

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.

OP posts:
seeker · 05/12/2012 12:29

"It's what anti-selections are basically saying. "The absence of you and your children is the problem making the rest of education crap."

What a very bizarre interpretation.

And AMPF- you appear to be entering the murky world of the conspiracy theory! Is Elvis still alive in your world?

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 05/12/2012 12:33

To say that I think the absence of 'you and your children is making the rest of education crap', one would have to be saying that rest of education was crap, which I for one am not doing. So there's a problem there I think.

What I do think is that selection and schooling by wealth or by intelligence is socially divisive and wrong.

NotGoodNotBad · 05/12/2012 12:46

"tutoring makes a difference because if you put more effort in you get a higher attainment out. However good primary schools were, children could always do a bit better with more work.

Caveat - applies to tests that can definitely be trained for like maths and english and science. VR and NVR maybe less so, but why would schools want to teach these? "

Of course tutoring makes a difference to VR and NVR. I did some of the practice papers with my daughters (for independent school entry - they use 11+ tests) and they both improved greatly through practice. Simple things like tips on how to solve anagrams if you're stuck, getting used to leaving out difficult questions, solving codes (they were flummoxed by these at first but were soon sailing through). There are only a few types of question, so you can familiarise them with how to solve the different types. The girls did both reach a plateau after a few weeks - the remaining questions usually involved things like unknown vocab, which is more difficult to address.

seeker · 05/12/2012 12:56

"You criticise others for saying/inferring that working class people are thick or lazy.You now seem to be saying that WC parents are too thick or lazy to download free past papers. These are papers aimed at 10 year olds. Are you saying that WC parents are too dim to help their DCs unlike MC parents?"

You know perfectly well that I am not saying anything of the sort. You are just being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to provoke. Happy to discuss sensibly. But a sensible discussion does not include deliberate misinterpretation of the other person't viewpoint in a pathetic attempt to "score" points.

Brycie · 05/12/2012 13:03

Why is it a bizarre interpretation? You want grammar school children and their parents educated with everyone else. Why?

Socially divisive and wrong? Why? What are the "wrong" outcomes?

Brycie · 05/12/2012 13:04

And if the rest of education is not "crap" (I don't think it all is, either) but if you think it's equally as good as available through selection, why are you worried about grammars?

LaVolcan · 05/12/2012 13:09

APMF - it's not the National Curriculum which forces teachers to teach to the test, it's league tables. They have an NC in Wales but have abolished SATS and league tables.

iyatoda · 05/12/2012 13:14

Its called 'pull them down syndrome' Brycie. I much rather 'pull them up'.

seeker · 05/12/2012 13:18

No. I want grammar school children educated with other clever children in the top set of a school where children who do not start off in that top set can aspire to be in it. And where the 77% of children who are not able, for whatever reason, to jump through the grammar school hoop at the age of 10 have not been publicly declared to be failures.

It's quite simple really. It's just not good for children or for society to tell 23% that are successes and 77% that they are failures at the age of 10.

I don't think comprehensive schools are nirvana/Mecca whatever. And I don't think there is no room for improvement. But I do think they are the least worst option.

Brycie · 05/12/2012 13:24

" I want grammar school children educated with other clever children in the top set of a school where children who do not start off in that top set can aspire to be in it."

So you do want them, as role models. And you think this will do more to improve non selective education than.. improving non selective education?

"And where the 77% of children who are not able, for whatever reason, to jump through the grammar school hoop at the age of 10 have not been publicly declared to be failures."

They would not be, if non selective education was as good.

The least worst option is not really awfully good, is it? Is that the best you can do?

Brycie · 05/12/2012 13:31

"Its called 'pull them down syndrome' Brycie. I much rather 'pull them up'."

Well there's a synopsis of my two days on this thread. Grin I hereby award you this year's Plain English prize.

seeker · 05/12/2012 13:41

"So you do want them, as role models. And you think this will do more to improve non selective education than.. improving non selective education?"

I'm obviously not expressing myself properly. In grammar school areas, there is no non selective education- you are either selected for grammar or high school. In comprehensive areas, the children who would have gone to grammar school go into the top sets and do as well as the would in a grammar school. The difference is that those top sets and what is taught and learnt in them is available to the other 77%. it's not about your child being a role model. It's about the opportunities that your child has at school being available. If you can't see it, there's no way of you finding out whether you want it or not!

Brycie · 05/12/2012 13:49

You think this will do more to improve secondary moderns/high schools than ..improving secondary moderns/high schools?

You do want them though. So not that bizarre after all.

iyatoda · 05/12/2012 13:52

Seeker, not a lot of people have a messiah complex. I know I do about hunger in Africa and black on black violence in the UK, but my complex suddenly disappears when my children are involved. I am not going to immerse my child in a school rife with gang culture, disruption, lack of parental commitment with the belief that the goodness that radiates from them will make everything right.

seeker · 05/12/2012 13:59

I don't want to improve selective education- I want to get rid of it!

Brycie- could you do me a favour? Could you actually read my 13.41 post qnd answer what it says, rather than what you think it says?

seeker · 05/12/2012 14:00

You too,iyadota!

LaVolcan · 05/12/2012 14:02

I think that you are expressing yourself perfectly clearly seeker.

On reflection, perhaps not Grin, because no-one is actually selected for a high/sec mod school. I have yet to hear of a test where they ask you to submit a piece of art work, or a model that you have constructed to show that you have a practical bent, even though the justification of them was that they were for children more suited to a practical education.

They are only non-selective in the sense that you could turn down a grammar school place and the Sec Mod would have to take you in.

Brycie · 05/12/2012 14:03

You said it was a bizarre assumption that you wanted grammar school children to improve the education of grammar school children. Now you admit that you do.

I'm now asking you if you think this is a better way of improving non grammar education than - improving non grammar education.

You don't have to respond if that's too tough for you. It is a hard one for you because the answer is obviously No, in normal people's worlds.

Brycie · 05/12/2012 14:05

If anyone rather than seeker wants to respond as to why you need grammar school children aged 11-18 to achieve what teachers, headteachers and local authorities are unable to do - I'd welcome any chancers.

Brycie · 05/12/2012 14:10

"You said it was a bizarre assumption that you wanted grammar school children to improve the education of non grammar school children."

I have got stupiditis.

LaVolcan · 05/12/2012 14:11

Brycie - you have lost me for one. Perhaps my grammar school/university education wasn't good enough for me to understand.

(No thanks due to the grammar school for my getting into university, but that's a different topic.)

Brycie · 05/12/2012 14:17

How have I lost you? What don't you understand?

Simple questions. Do you want grammar school children educated with all other children?

If so, why?

If not, why do you care about 11+?

seeker · 05/12/2012 14:20

Brycie- I think I explained why in my 13.41 post. Could you read that?

CecilyP · 05/12/2012 14:23

I am not going to immerse my child in a school rife with gang culture, disruption, lack of parental commitment ...

I doubt if the parents of the other 77% particularly want that either, iyatoda.

Brycie · 05/12/2012 14:24

No I read it again and it's not comprehensible. Why do you want grammar school children educated with all non grammar school children. Do you think they will raise standards? If not, why do you want them?

Swipe left for the next trending thread