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.

Entirely random CecilyP: decided by the authorities to what age
education is compulsory. Indeed there's a big campaign to get lower achievers into more selective institutions, just to show your point is really irrelevant.

selective higher education institutions, that should read.

Brycie - APMF's post of 15.20 immediately above mine doesn't address much that I said. I have friends who have gone on to be extremely successful despite not passing the 11+. Who knows what they might have done with more opportunity? Not sure who went to a comprehensive and then went to Oxbridge - it wasn't me so I can't reply to that.

In answer to her subsequent post: what do I think they were getting in the grammar school and not a secondary modern (not a comprehensive by definition). Chance to learn two languages as standard and possibly a third, chance to do 3 separate sciences, (although admittedly that didn't apply to my girl's grammar school either), possibly higher standards in music although that generally seems patchy these days, being supported in an application for medical school instead of being told you were aiming too high and pushed into nursing. Possibly better sports and technology facilities at a sec mod.

If it's worse, campaign for it to be improved. How do you know that we aren't? I'm in a comprehensive area - it hasn't stopped me campaigning for improvements and better resourcing for the local schools, it didn't stop my husband/father/mother all serving stints as school governors.

^Entirely random CecilyP: decided by the authorities to what age
education is compulsory. Indeed there's a big campaign to get lower achievers into more selective institutions, just to show your point is really irrelevant.^

Can you explain how that makes my point irrelevant?

So LaVolcan your campaign is not working so lets pull the 23% down and see if that will help? and as for

being supported in an application for medical school instead of being told you were aiming too high and pushed into nursing. Possibly better sports and technology facilities at a sec mod.

that is wrong and should be fixed but not by closing the excellent school down the road.

This is why I think the argument isn't thought through - it's just a general sort of oh it must be wrong it must be unfair something something everyone else gets a good education oh no they don't something something something we want grammar school children oh no we don't they cream off the best oh no they don't something this something that.

Far from it - some of us care passionately about the issues and have thought long and hard for many years, as to how the country can give everyone a good quality education.

So basically the chance to learn three languages instead of two?

Okay. Not much then.

Irrelevant because you are eliding the idea that intelligence / achievement potential is set at a certain age and then talking about compulsory educational ages, as if by 18 intelligence / achievement potential is "set".

Obviously in terms of achievement potential that isn't true. That's why lots of people want students with worse qualifications from disadvantaged backgrounds admitted to highly selective institutions over non disadvantaged students with better qualifications.

LaVolcan: I'm sorry but it doesn't come over. There's a lot of self contradiction, false argument, circular argument and conclusions based on assumed premises and even false premises. Maybe I'm mixing you up with others but I don't see a lot of clarity - not at all.

Where do I say - lets pull 23% down? My argument has been - lets give opportunities to the other 77%.

Examples: do they cream off the best or don't they?
Are standards higher in grammar schools or aren't they?
What is the best way to improve standards in other schools if not?
Will the presence of would-be grammar school students benefit other students or not?
If so, how?
Does failing an 11+ condemn you to lifetime failure and a poor education?

Brycie - ditto, I could say exactly the same about your posts.

LaVolcan -"My argument has been - lets give opportunities to the other 77%." fine - I agree - but how does abolishing selection achieve that?

REally? What questions would you ask that I'm not clear about?

@Cecily - it is argued that the 11+ favours the middle classes so it is inequitable. Oxbridge favours the middle classes but that isn't bad???? Why is something that favours the MC is bad at 11 but not bad at 18?

Irrelevant because you are eliding the idea that intelligence / achievement potential is set at a certain age and then talking about compulsory educational ages, as if by 18 intelligence / achievement potential is "set".

No, I am not saying that intelligence and achievement potential is set at a certain age, I am saying that there comes an age, currently 16, when people will make their own choices and go their separate ways. At 11, as everybody has to go to secondary school, and as everybody in a state school has to follow the national curriculum, you really don't have to divide children at this age. At 14, there will obviously be some division when children come to make their subject choices for GCSE.

Obviously in terms of achievement potential that isn't true. That's why lots of people want students with worse qualifications from disadvantaged backgrounds admitted to highly selective institutions over non disadvantaged students with better qualifications.

That's an entirely different matter and is actually something that highly selective institutions have been doing for years based on their own experience of how their students have achieved in the past.

APMF, I doubt if anybody has tried to claim that Oxbridge is equitable. You could say it is elitist, rather than bad.

?? Brycie, we ALL have a 'me and mine' attitude (if thats what you want to call it - I didn't) in so far as we need to think about our children's education. Grammar, private, and comp mummies alike. I don't see your point.

I also have nothing against Grammar School mummies

Its just that, to illustrate one of Seeker's points, an area in which there is NO grammar school system means that many parents who might have to choose on behalf of their offspring, don't. Its a no-brainer, unless you want to/can choose private (which isn't that easy around here either).

Therefore, the local comp - which was failing up until a few years ago - is getting loads of input and support which it might not otherwise have had. Because yes, parents do think 'me and mine' as well as having worthy thoughts or doing worthy deeds.

"I am saying that there comes an age, currently 16, when people will make their own choices and go their separate ways."

Yes - it's entirely arbitrary and not linked to intelligence and academic potential. It was fifteen, currently sixteen and will be eighteen. Are you suggesting there should be no selection at sixth form either? What if education was made compulsory until 21?

Everyone on this thread, just about, is in favour of selection, via setting. Nobody is advocating a truly comprehensive education where all abilities are educated together.

So IF grammar schools do offer a superior education to its pupils you have to come up with really excellent, watertight arguments to dismantle that and "bring them down" to the level of the rest.

IF they don't, there shouldn't be a problem for you.

And if they DO offer a superior education the answer is not to remove that - a retrograde step, to educate children more badly? - but to make the education of the others just as good, if not better.

Elibean: there has been the suggestion robustly made that grammar school parents don't care about the 77 per cent. I don't think it's true - at least you acknowledge that if it's true, it applies to all parents.

"I am saying that there comes an age, currently 16, when people will make their own choices and go their separate ways."

Again, you are the first to acknowledge that you cannot improve the education for the 77 per cent "without me and my DCs". Another point made earlier by AMPF (and solidly supported by me!)

I think it is no coincidence that our local comp thrives in an area with no grammars, indies, or private options.

"Therefore, the local comp - which was failing up until a few years ago - is getting loads of input and support which it might not otherwise have had. Because yes, parents do think 'me and mine' as well as having worthy thoughts or doing worthy deeds"

Cripes, I meant to quote this instead of the thing about ages. Copy and fail duh.

Nobody is advocating a truly comprehensive education where all abilities are educated together.

You seem to be confusing comprehensive with mixed ability teaching.

Yes - deliberately. Because this is about selection: which nobody is opposed to.

Did you have those questions on the parts of my argument you find confusing?

Yes - it's entirely arbitrary and not linked to intelligence and academic potential. It was fifteen, currently sixteen and will be eighteen. Are you suggesting there should be no selection at sixth form either? What if education was made compulsory until 21?

That seems highly unlikely to happen, so I don't feel I need to form an opinion. I don't think the school leaving age is entirely arbitrary as it seems a fairly sensible age for young people to first enter the working world. And the legislation that set up the selective system as it still exists in Kent was enabling legislation to raise the school leaving age to 16 even if it took 30 years to accomplish.

What about eighteen? That is happening.