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.

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

I think this is the crux of the matter. If you combine a high school and a grammar school you end up with a comprehensive school. The children will still be the same. The grammar school children will populate the top sets. They will still be doing th same work. And will get the same results.

Why are you saying that their education will be degraded by this process?

I'd like to know that one too.

Goodness me, Brycie still going on in her aggressive and argumentative way at full steam I see.

For what it's worth, I don't like grammar schools regardless of whether they are better, worse or the same as a comprehensive system, primarily because there is no fair way to select who goes and who doesn't (or even full agreement on what the correct criteria for selection should be) and it's a divisive system. If the same outcomes can be achieved under one roof then that is obviously a far superior solution for a modern inclusive society.

Grammars are not the only, or even the most, unfair things in our education system though, so I'm not as against them as some people, and might possibly be pursuaded that super-selectives aren't too bad an idea either.

Good, well managed comprehensives do seem to work as well for bright children, but there are also plenty that don't quite manage it, and generally you do seem to need to pass a certain minimum 'leafiness of catchment threshold' for comprehensives to operate well, so it's difficult to know quite what the best solution for other areas might be.

Our catchment is not leafy. I should hang fire until the third Thursday in August, but at present I couldn't complain about where my year 11 is. And I include in that having sat next to children who don't always behave well, some mixed ability teaching and some not very motivated children.

I think this is the crux of the matter. If you combine a high school and a grammar school you end up with a comprehensive school. The children will still be the same. The grammar school children will populate the top sets. They will still be doing th same work. And will get the same results.

This is what I can't understand-it is all the same-it just happens to be under one roof and the beauty of the system is that those who are late developers (very, very, common) can move up and those who can't cope (very common among those drilled to pass the exam) can move down.

If people can't stand the thought of the same roof they could have 2 buildings and the same uniform to make it workable-but much simpler to share facilities.

More mixed teaching groups suit some children TOSN, dd achieved excellent GCSEs in teaching groups where a few were sitting foundation papers, (so wide ability spread) but low numbers. I think being one of the top ones suited her better than being average in a selective school. Our catchment school is a leafy/unleafy mix (not very unleafy), but has never done very well, though has been academised and is improving now, so the catchment thing isn't hard and fast I agree but seems to work as a rough guide quite often. Dd currently attends another comp that I am very happy with. If her August results aren't that great it will be due to her own lack of effort not the school's.

I think it all needs a rethink anyway-life is completely different to the way it was when the system was designed.

I was annoyed that by the time I got to the grammar school aged 16yrs many who passed the exam had left.But really I shouldn't get annoyed because people used grammar schools in order to get a good job at 16. Very few went to university-even from the grammar school.
The grammar school worked with 'the elite' in the school. I have a much older friend (born in 1940's) and she was written off in her grammar school and put in a class called 'the remove' and nothing much was expected of them! She is an intelligent woman.
I met a woman last week who left grammar school with one O'level but the fact that she went to grammar school got her a good starting job!

Now everyone is expected to go. A friend of mine has a DD who was in top sets in the comprehensive and she was under tremendous pressure from the school to apply because 'everyone with your results goes to university', to quote. (she didn't)
It is very difficult because jobs that you could get with good O'levels now need a university degree (from a good university and at least a 2:1)

The Times today has a very good article headed 'Do stop obsessing about Oxbridge, darling' and I immediately thought about MN! It was saying that Oxbridge was a middle class parent obsession and parents are planning their children's entrance aged 4 when they are still reading Biff and Chip ( it would be laughable but sadly it is true) I can't quote it all but it is very funny! Apparently one primary headmistress said that a mother broke down when her DD didn't get into Wycombe Abbey and said 'she'll never get into Christ Church now, her life is over'!!!
It goes onto say that we need more career advice to discuss the best options whether it be university, a technical course, art school, apprenticeships, the workplace etc.

I think that we need a complete re think -the grammar school/secondary modern is outdated and the comprehensive could be much improved.
In my mind it boils down to the fact that everyone wants their DC to have an excellent working environment without disruption but why the bright child should get this and the average and below average has to put up with it beats me!! Why shouldn't the DC who struggles with academic work not have the same calm, purposeful classroom as the bright child? Why does one deserve it and not the other?
We do not need 50% going to university-it is a complete waste of their money. As it finishes up in the Times article it says 'one of the few upsides of the tuition fees is that they are making school leavers consider hard where their best options lie'.

I also think that some people don't understand the term 'average'. There will always be the 'below average' -in the same way there will always be 'above average'. Most DCs will be average and most DCs deserve just as good an education as the above average and the below average need the very best!

"Goodness me, Brycie still going on in her aggressive and argumentative way at full steam I see. "

Typical personal sneer.

"you assumed that SEND means students with intellectual difficulties"

No Evil - twisting again - YOU gave that impression by saying they brought down results. That was YOU. Remember? You were trying to distract attention from league tables. Which were brought up in conversation because YOU said comprehensives would do as well as grammars, in fact do do as well as grammars. In your attempt to deny this YOU said SEND and EAL students brought down results. And then YOU tried to deny saying this and to claim that to say so meant saying that SEND students were stupid.

Do you remember all these facts? What you risibly refer to as facts are your own twisted interpretation because you were caught out contradicting yourself.

"Why are you saying that their education will be degraded by this process? "

Actually I have asked, again and again and again, whether the antis thing grammar schools are better or not. And got highly contradictory replies. Ranging from basically

they are the same

to

students are being denied access to a higher standard of education

So when you get your story sorted out - you, or LaVolcan, or EvilTwins - let's hear it.

What's happened basically on this thread is people who are getting confused and caught out contradicting themselves have resorted to being nasty, bitchy, and sneery. One poster did start off being bitchy and petulant and now others have been caught out you've all joined in.

"Through your general ignorance and arrogance"

I think we're back at - you're not a teacher so you know nothing. This is the nasty attitude some people always bring with them on all their threads.

"In my mind it boils down to the fact that everyone wants their DC to have an excellent working environment without disruption but why the bright child should get this and the average and below average has to put up with it beats me!! Why shouldn't the DC who struggles with academic work not have the same calm, purposeful classroom as the bright child? Why does one deserve it and not the other?"

They all deserve it. If you are a teacher you are allowed to suggest it. If you are not a teacher you are not. It would not be achieved by abolishing grammar schools.

Because you are still in favour of selection - you want to "select out" the children who detract from the excellent working environment without disruption. You want your child to be selected and separated from those children. You are not against selection: you want your child included in it.

"Actually I have asked, again and again and again, whether the antis thing grammar schools are better or not. And got highly contradictory replies."

This isn't at all surprising, since there have been numerous studies on this and a whole range of contradictory findings. It's extremely difficult to compare exactly similar catchments within the different systems and as with all statistics there's a tendency for people to make the results show whatever they like.

The best research I saw which was a meta study of various other studies showed that broadly, the very most able did the same in both systems, the borderline children that went to the grammar did quite a bit better (especially if they were FSM or lower social status although there were very few of these), the rest did very slightly worse and the average result was about the same.

It's the 'very slightly worse' bit that makes the system most difficult to defend. The randomness of the borderline ones that get the advantage over their equally able peers who just miss the cut-off that miss out (because we all know that on a different day with a different test that group would divide very differently) is also rather unpalatable.

As for the alleged personal sneer - look back at your posts Brycie. If they're not argumentative, aggressive and prolific what are they? A friendlier style would go down a lot better for me at least.

Well seeker thinks she knows, LaVolcan thinks they are and at the same time they aren't, EvilTwins thinks they aren't, parents I know think they are. So why are you asking me?

You need to come up with watertight reasons for dismantling them. So far you haven'tcome up with anything except "because I think so" (EvilTwins) or because all children should be educated "nearby" children who are deemed intelligent.

Some people think the acquisition of this group would make a difference to schools: some don't. Among the anti's, this is. Some people think grammars cream off the brightest, some that they don't do anything of the sort and just take the ones who can jump through hoops.

I've asked clear and simple questions and in response there's been nastiness, bitchiness, smears and sneers.

Is there something wrong with being prolific? It's not my fault if you've got less to say.

Is there something wrong with arguing? Why don't you just agree with me then and not argue?

And aggressive? No - except in response to the nastiness encountered. In which case I would say - if you can't take it, don't dish it.

Yawn.

You assumed wrongly that SEND referred to the less academic. I already knew it didn't. You had to look it up. I have explained, more than once, how certain students with certain SENs wouldn't get into grammar schools and have explained exhaustively why it is that grammars get better results. I am allowed to object to selective education on principle.

You moan about people not answering your questions but have ignored my direct question to you twice- do you agree that levels of progress is a better indicator of the effectiveness of a school than the % of A*-C grades at GCSE? It's not a trick question.

prolific isn't too bad until it derails the thread or becomes repetitive - by your own admission you've said thing 'again and again and again', which is rather hounding people for answers which can be seen as aggressive.

argumentative - well I wouldn't be here if I didn't like to debate, but there's a subtle difference.

I don't find your style easy and I'm still not entirely sure what your point is that you want me to agree with (it must have been lost somewhere in all those posts).

Yawn right back atcha. You deliberately gave that impression by saying they brought down academic results. Can't admit you're wrong can you?

Gelo: you're right. I should just admit that people can't answer the questions because they don't know the answers and don't have anything cogent or sensible to say. How true.

"do you agree that levels of progress is a better indicator of the effectiveness of a school than the % of A*-C grades at GCSE? It's not a trick question. "

How is this relevant to grammars? Progress is a better indicator but it doesn't have any relevance to this conversation.

The irony.

Are you going to answer my question?

And you only say I deliberately have the wrong impression because you didn't know what I was talking about but blethered on in your usual "I am the expert" way until I derailed you by pointing out that a child in a wheelchair wasn't automatically less intelligent. I was never in the wrong. You were misinformed but your arrogance meant that you failed to realise that. I do NOT think that those who aren't teachers don't have a right to comment, but those who do not work in a particular area ought perhaps to have the maturity to admit that they don't know what every acronym means.

Anyway- levels of progress vs A*-C grades?

Laughing at brycie twisting like a fish on the line...

at a recent tour of one of our local grammars (not as prospective parent btw) I asked about levels of and how they handled SEN/AEN. the response was "oh we do have some dyslexic students".

I think that's a pretty clear example of the fact that GS generally do not face the same issues as a sec mod, and therefore their exam results damn well SHOULD be better. (Quality of teaching is a separate issue AFAIC - and not in favour of GS either).

Oh dear. Do you really think that? It has massive relevance since it is something all schools can be measured on in a more equal way. Why do you think it has no relevance to grammars?