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.

Oh dear, Brycie. You really don't get it do you?

I will spell it out.

An additional educational need could be anything from a physical disability to a behavioural issue to a severe learning difficulty.

I don't think that students with SEND should be educated separately. I teach top sets where students have SEND. An additional need does not automatically impact on a student's intelligence or ability to learn. It is still an additional need.

Got it now?

I teach a girl in a wheelchair. She has additional needs. They include tables which can be moved up and down. She is very clever, she just can't walk very well.
In the same class is a boy with AHDH. He also has additional needs. They are both classed as SEND - it is a very wide ranging thing.

"The grammar school teacher said that wouldn't be useful for her because they don't really have any SEND or EAL students. The league tables will not shoe grammars failing to achieve." means that the grammar school teacher said that. Not that I think it. It was an anecdote in which I told you what someone else said.

So can we return to what you intended when you said "What is the difference between educating EAL and SEND students separately in a set and educating them separately in another building?" because it really doesn't read well.

Oh dear Evil - yes I do. I understand that you're so very desperate at the poverty of your argument that you've reverted to accusing me of disablism. And how very desperate you must be.

"I teach top sets where students have SEND. " In that case I hope you vocally disagreed with the colleague at the meeting and now are confident that the presence of SEND and EAL students has no bearing on grammar/non grammar positions in league tables.

Which is what you said earlier - clearly stating that you couldn't rely on league tables showing grammar schools doing well because there was such a low per centage of SEND and EAL students.

Do you see now? You can't have it both ways.

"It means that the grammar school teacher said that. Not that I think it. It was an anecdote in which I told you what someone else said."

So you don't think it?

So we CAN look at league tables as a good indicator of which schools countrywide do best?

Because you did introduce this smear to divert from that line of argument.

"So can we return to what you intended when you said "What is the difference between educating EAL and SEND students separately in a set and educating them separately in another building?" because it really doesn't read well."

Now why ever would you want to return to it - except to repeat the smear - when I've already explained I was thinking only of children with different intellectual needs?

You're deliberately twisting it - which is typical of your posting style.

I did disagree with the colleague, as I felt that her point was ridiculous.

However, it is true to say that grammar schools have fewer SEND and EAL students, and that is one reason that their results are better. Naturally a school which selects by academic ability is going to achieve better GCSE results than one which doesn't. It would be stupid to attempt to assert anything else. Lack of academic ability and additional educational needs do not go hand in hand, but a student with severe learning difficulties is unlikely to pass the 11+.

No doubt you will twist this and say I'm being a hypocrite, so I will spell it out again.

1. Grammar schools are always going to do better in league table terms as they are able to take the higher achieving students.
2. Comprehensive schools take students from the full range of abilities, and therefore if you are only measuring schools in terms of % of A*-C GCSE grades, it would be silly to expect anything other than a grammar doing better than a non-grammar in an area which has grammar school.
3. SEND does not mean a child is stupid.
4. Some SENs mean that a child is less able to perform academically.

Ah, so you admit you don't understand what SEND means?

Good.

No I'm afraid not Evil. You have been deliberately twisting things and I am pointing out exactly when, where and how.

"However, it is true to say that grammar schools have fewer SEND and EAL students, and that is one reason that their results are better. "

So you do think it, although you tried to avoid saying so. So YOU introduced the assumption that such students would do worse and would bring down results and league table positions.

No one has said - except that you have implied - that SEND means a child is stupid.

I thought it meant Special Educational Needs - now I know it means Special Educational Needs and Disability.

It's a very good thing you don't want to convince me or anyone else. My lip would literally curl right in half before I could agree with someone who resorts to such a low and twisted debating technique.

I don't think that league tables are the best way to look at which schools do best in their current state, no.

I live and work in Gloucestershire - we have grammar schools. The top grammar, which selects only from the top 10% of students who take the 11+ always does best. Of course it does - it takes the top students. The other grammars, which get to choose from 11%-25% (results wise) don't do as well as the top grammar. The other schools don't select academically and their results show that. I used to teach in Warwickshire - no grammars. No comprehensive school could possibly get the same results as the top Gloucestershire grammar as those schools had an intake which took in the full range of academic ability. In "league table" terms, the grammar is "better".

There are far better indicators of the effectiveness of a school than the number of A*-C grade GCSEs. Levels of progress is far more important.

No I bet you don't.

So you looked it up - good.

You said, in answer to my question about whether you knew what SEND means:
"Perhaps I don't: I thought it meant special or additional educational needs, intellectually speaking"

So it was you who assumed that SEND students were inferior, intellectually. I always knew it didn't.

Do you not agree that levels of progress is a far better indicator of how effective a school is than A*-C grades?

And that "No I'm afraid not Evil." was a direct response to "You're deliberately twisting it" from you Evil - another ridiculous accusation made in desperation.

"So it was you who assumed that SEND students were inferior, intellectually. I always knew it didn't. "

Oh for God's sake. You have just said - and you told me before - that results are better when schools have fewer of such students.

When you've made your mind up, do let the world know. It's a white knuckle ride here.

Yes I looked it up I'm not into game playing, twisting, smears, random accusations etc etc. Whatever is the point of that?

LaQueen - I was talking about comps, really. In a Grammar school, it is highly likely that a DC will shine across the board - they've passed an exam to get in, after all, but we have students who are A* candidates for English, but B grade for Maths or Science, and so set accordingly. I have G&T students in my own subject who are only hitting Cs in others.

Having taught in what was the top comprehensive in the area at the time, in a non-grammar county, I have seen the more more more approach work perfectly well in a non-selective school, where all the students in the top sets were getting A* and A grades. I don't think grammars are necessary to ensure that high achieving kids do well - if they were, then a) every county would have them and b) counties without grammars would get poor results across the board.

Brycie - they ARE. I would be an idiot to suggest otherwise.

And I'm glad you looked it up. Perhaps it would have been wise to do so earlier, before making the embarrassing assumption that SEND means intellectually inferior. It doesn't - not always. Sometimes it does, yes - as I have said - no point trying to deny it. The problem with you on these sorts of threads is that you make yourself out to be an authority and then find yourself in an argument with people who do know the facts. We started from a different point - when I said SEND, I knew what I was on about. You didn't, hence my when you said that thing about SEND kids being educated in separate sets/separate buildings.

Oh bless - you think you've scored a wee point there with the SEND.

Still you've contradicted yourself and backpedalled impressively on the central issue of SEND and league tables. So I guess you need to make the most of it.

I have another idea. Let's get rid of all grammar schools and stop testing at 11.

I didn't make that "embarrassing assumption" by the way - you gave that impression.

Want to apologise for that? Say - look, I was wrong, I shouldn't have given that impression? No?

"I would be an idiot to suggest otherwise." You did suggest it. When you said you were repeating an anecdote, not that you thought that yourself.

Let's just get this right here. Just so you can't twist it any more.

I suggested looking at league tables as a measure of performance.

You suggested these would not be a good indicator because of the presence of SEND and EAL students.

You have since acknowledged that the presence of SEND and EAL students affects results and league table performance.

So stop twisting things to try to imply that I brought it up and that I think people in wheelchairs should be educated separately

Oh dear. You are totally incapable of admitting you were wrong.

Here are the facts:

1. Through your general ignorance and arrogance, you assumed that SEND means students with intellectual difficulties. Now you realise what the D stands for, you are refusing to admit that you were wrong.

1. A colleague said that there was no point in her doing a workshop on inclusivity because she doesn't have many SEND students. She said nothing about league tables.

1. League tables currently focus on A-C grades. A grammar school starts with children who have been selected for academic achievement and is therefore going to get more A-C grades than one which doesn't.

1. Some additional needs mean that students are less likely to achieve highly at GCSE. These students would not get into a grammar school.

1. Some additional needs have no impact on academic ability. These students may well get into a grammar school.

1. A comprehensive school will have a mix of SEND students who fall into both 4 and 5 above. A grammar school will have students who fall into 5 but not 4. Therefore a grammar school will have fewer of the SEND students whose academic achievements will be lower. Therefore a grammar school will do better, for this and other reasons.

1. A*-C grades does not show how effective a school is.

So, Brycie -rather than crow about what you think I'm on about, why don't you answer my question - do you agree that levels of progress is a better indicator of the effectiveness of a school?

That's not the same thing as additional needs, Brycie.