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.

Thanks AP: I suspect people say they don't understand when they're actually thinking oh flip.

"In a non grammar school in a grammar area, you have removed those the system deems intelligent at 11: she is saying, I think, that that is not a good thing. So you carry on deeming people intelligent if necessary, but don't hide them in another school."

This makes no sense. Firstly, is it more important that they are deemed intelligent, or that they are intelligent? Secondly why is it important that people who are deemed intelligent but not actually intelligent removed? What is this nonsense about hiding them? They want to be there - people like seeker see no benefit to them being educated with the 77 per cent - so what's the problem?

I refer you all to my short, clear list of questions earlier - some clear, non self-contradictory responses would be marvellous. Thanks in advance.

I don't suppose LaVolcan you would mind explaining which of these statements you agree with:

A. a non grammar education is significantly worse than a grammar education (implied by your statement that children are being denied a certain standard of education if they fail they 11+)
or
B. there is little difference except that non grammar learn only two languages and they are not learning alongside people deemed intelligent (as you stated in your previous post)

Brycie - the age for leaving compulsory education is 17. If you're going to come onto a thread and be all knowledgable, do try to keep up with the changes in the system.

Mixed ability teaching (I do it every day, and last year 70% of my Year 11s got A or A*) is not the same as setting in a comprehensive school. We set in core subjects, and within that, differentiate for individual students- that's what good teachers (and even mediocre teachers do)

I would turn your argument around and say if your aim is to improve the standards of education for all, why bother with grammar schools? Why are they necessary? If all schools were able to cater for all children, all teachers were good or outstanding, then there would be no need for selective schools.

Goodness eviltwins - do you want to correct the people who agree with you as well? It has no relevance to the point I was making.

" If all schools were able to cater for all children, all teachers were good or outstanding, then there would be no need for selective schools."

You are mixing up chickens and eggs. This is quite true, and I have argued for improvement (repeatedly). However the reverse is not true: abolish grammars and schools will be able to cater to all children and all teachers will be good or outstanding.

You fell for a little flawed logic there.

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

I didn't say that. Someone else did.

But ref the other bit: I certainly don't think grammar school parents are any more 'me-ish' or 'selfish' than other parents. That may have been robustly said, but not by me.

I think probably the vast majority of ALL parents care a lot about their own child's education, and also care about the nation's children - that's not the point. The point is what the hell do we do about it, and how do we improve the system. I thought that was what the whole thread was supposed to be about? Originally, anyway...

I know that mixed ability teaching is not the same as setting. I didn't say it was. You are making things up to disagree with. I'm saying setting for subjects is the same as selection and publicly deeming intelligent.

I didn't say the "currently 16" thing. I don't know who did. Nit?

Elibean - I don't think it was you, it was other people. Yes this thread should be about that: I think the answer is to improve education for the 77 per cent, not degrade it for the 23 per cent.

I mean you didn't say the bit about the me me me Elibean.

I disagree with grammar schools on principal. Just do. I live and teach in a grammar area. My yr 11s got 70% A or A* last year.

What principle?

Why do you think that ditching grammar schools would degrade education? Does that mean that you think areas without grammars have worse education than those that do? Is a DC going to do better in, say, Gloucestershire, than Warwickshire?

My own. It's my opinion, and one I do not have to justify, any more than having to justify preferring purple to green.

Actually it's a question I've been asking, repeatedly. As you'd know if you'd read my previous posts. Anti campaigners seem unable to answer it. Sometimes they say it's worse, sometimes they say it isn't. I'm still waiting. What do you think?

Makes no difference to my argument either way.

If it's worse, why degrade the education of a fifth of children?

If it's not worse, and high school children get the same standard of education, what's the problem?

Actually sometimes the same person says it's both at different times. It's frightfully difficult to follow.

What, just a "principle"? Not, equality or fairness or anything? Just - "because"?

That's convincing.

If it's not better, why bother with it at all?

So are you saying it's better?

So you recommend degrading the education of a fifth of children?

I'm not trying to convince anyone . Any more than I would try to convince anyone that purple is better than green. I am against private schools and grammar schools, just am.

Well at least you won't be disappointed. It's the debating equivalent of sticking out your bottom lip and folding your arms.

No, I am not. I don't think those top set students get a worse education in non-grammar areas. Do you?

I know. But I am not trying to convince anyone. It's my opinion, and one I am entitled to.

So if you don't think it's a better education, what's the problem with grammars? You have to come up with a really good reason to dismantle them - so far I'm not seeing it.

Answer my question- do you believe that top students get a worse education in areas with no grammar schools?

Yes, you're entitled to it why wouldn't you be?

I don't know - I keep asking people with experience and they keep giving different answers. You say no, LaVolcan said no then yes, the parents I know at grammars think yes - it's a mixed bag.