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.

To be honest I don't see how it furthers your argument - it furthers the pro argument. If comprehensives and secondary moderns are showing more progress then why do you dislike the system? Isn't it right for the children who go there? And how do you know a grammar student wouldn't coast at a comprehensive and show no progress - so it woudln't be right for them?

I suppose I think it's not relevant to YOUR argument. It's relevant to mine, but I don't know the details, so I wouldn't bring it up.

It's relevant because it shows how much progress children make, regardless of the type of school. A selective school is always going to get better GCSE results, but it doesn't follow that those DCs have made more progress. It's relevant because the "better results" argument is often used by those who claim grammars are better. They aren't necessarily. I simply believe in equal chances for all. All state schools should be equally as good. I do not believe that grammar schools are better, but they are often better regarded, which puts DCs who don't go there in an unfair position. They ought to go.

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

Again, nasty personal smear because someone doesn't understand or doesn't have an argument.

" 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."

Tell Evil, she's a little fuzzy on this. Though she may accuse you of believing that all students with SEN are stupid.

" I do not believe that grammar schools are better"

In that case you believe that all state schools ARE equally as good and that children denied access to a grammar are not denied access to a better education.

Yes. That's right Brycie. Suddenly it's clear. You are completely correct in everything you say. Thank you for showing me that I am nothing but an ignorant, misinformed hypocrite. Really can't be bothered to argue with you any more- it's like trying to debate with a toddler. Feel free to take the last word.

This is a bit scary looking from the side lines (actually on may levels) but as a dyslexic, lets be clear, it's not just those with SEND who are in a wheel chair who are not intellectually impaired. Specific Learning Difficulties affect 10% of the population regardless of ability. Lots of children with SpLDs get into Grammar Schools especially where they test by VR/NVR. The most selective private schools recognise that, and the intellectual strengths as well as weakness of dyslexic pupils, by having extensive support for them. The ignorant remark reported by a Grammar School teacher does manifest an attitude that seems to be pervasive in Grammar Schools.

Pragmatically there is no political will to get rid of Grammar Schools or create more (unless you count that other means of selecting the middle classes, the oversubscribed exclusive VA faith school). However surely they should be under an obligation to widen access and provide facilities for the disadvantaged socially and in terms of learning and physical disability as a condition of public funding in the way that universities are?

"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."

Evil you are quite deluded here and as someone who is "blethering on claiming to be an expert" you are all over the place.

You said SEND and EAL students have a detrimental effect on academic results. YOU SAID THIS, not me. YOU.

I pointed out that being in a wheelchair does not affect your intellectual ability. I said this "The thought of wheelchairs was not in my head as I do believe that using a wheelchair doesn't affect your intellectual ability" - is it all coming back to you now?

YOU are the arrogant one here. You think no one who isn't a teacher has a valid point of view, and you arrived on the thread with a sneer and you've carried on that way ever since, resorted t.o the lowest and most twisted arguments because you were caught out.

"I was never in the wrong" - Oh yes you were. You said EAL and SEND students brought down results, then you said you didn't think that, it was just that someone said it at a meeting, then you said you'd be an idiot not to think that, then you said anyone who thought that thinks SEN = stupid - oh it's been a rollercoaster.

Whatever will you say next. It could, literally, be anything.

"I do not believe that grammar schools are better"

In that case you believe that all state schools ARE equally as good and that children denied access to a grammar are not denied access to a better education. "

I'm not suprised you gave up when presented with this facer.

And the final last little insult. Evil - you couldn't make a case so you're throwing nastiness over your shoulder on the way out.

Look, brycie, it's really quite simple. In GS areas, the 'top' x per cent on one day in November when they are 10 years old sit some tests. A few week/months later they get told whether they are GS material or not, and then their parents apply for their school places on the basis for that.

If they 'pass' they might still not get a place at the GS. If they 'fail', even by one mark, they don't get a GS place (unless, as in my area, falling rolls means that GS are taking kids they wouldnt have done a few years ago).

If they all go to the same school, the ones with the highest marks will be in the top sets with others of the same ilk. The ones on the borderline could go into those top sets immediately, or they could go into a slightly lower one and have the opportunity to move up/down, and the ones that didnt have an 11+ chance could actually suddenly 'get' the whole thing and fly high. Meanwhile, the ones who struggle are getting the support they need at their level.

In a fully comp system, the ones that are brilliant at maths but crap at french get the support/extension they need in each subject. And everyone can see that people's talents are enormously varied, and that being top set in maths does not necessarily mean that you are god's gift to the world, while being crap at maths and brilliant at dance/drama/textiles means you have a talent which is being rewarded - while at the same time, you are being supported in your weaker subjects, and have the opportunity to be stretched as you get stronger.

It's not that us parents at sec mods want the GS genii (is that a word?) it's that we don't want children put into little boxes when they are 10/11 years old.

That final last little insult being, of course, "toddler". You mean I won't admit you're right just "because"? Damn right I won't.

Boschy what benefits would closing the grammar bring. How would it change that situation. How would the changes you want be imported by importing the children. The change needs to be with the teaching, the school, the ethos.

Also I would say: LeQueen wrote a very eloquent post earlier about grammars and what happens there. I can't quote it but it speaks to a lot of what you're talking about.

It's not as simple as you say.

Brycie. SEND and EAL students results can bring down the schools' percentage of A*-C grades. That is a fact, and one I haven't denied. At the same time, it is also true that NOT ALL SpLDs will do so. The fact that you said that you were not referring to physically disabled children when you suggested that SEND & EAL children should be educated in a separate set or separate building (YOUR words) proves your ignorance of what SEND means. I have said several times now that the existence of students with certain special educational needs, and the existence of those who speak little English will inevitably bring down the overall results of a school. I have no idea why you continue to wave it at me- I stand by what I said. I also stand by the fact that your ignorance of certain terminology has led to you making certain bizarre statements - including that about SEND/EAL students being educated in separate sets/buildings. This is one reason why levels of progress is a better indicator of success. If Child X is predicted grade E for GCSE Maths, he is unlikely to have gained a place at a grammar school. However, if he achieves a grade D, his school has succeeded in teaching beyond expectation. If Child Y is at grammar school and is predicted an A at GCSE Maths, then goes on to gain an A, it is actually Child X's school which has done a better job, though of course Child Y's school would do better in the league tables.

Brycie, did you READ boshy's post? It answers your question. In a grammar system, the child who misses the pass mark doesn't get the chance to move into the grammar school later that term. In a comp, the move to top set is very likely. Education must be fluid- it must take into account changes in growing and developing children.

Well, if all children are educated on the same site and they realise that talents are different but equally as valued, they tend to see that the world is made up of a whole kaleidoscope, not just one little, and I think, quite narrow, perception that being 'academic' is the be all and end all.

We need EVERYONE, doctors, scientists, hairdressers, dustbinmen, lawyers, shop workers, carers, etc etc etc. Every child has the potential to do something good, and by segregating the top x per cent at a certain age I think children are denied the ability to see that every occupation, every person, has something to contribute and that they can and should respect that.

But then I would say that, wouldnt I, because mine aren't at GS!! (even though I wouldnt have sent them there anyway, partly because I dont believe in single sex education and also because I dont believe that GS adds much value - they take 'good' raw material and improve it a little, while comps/sec mods take a much wider range of raw material and improve it a lot - whole other debate I guess).

But thank you for asking the question, and so politely.

EvilTwins: "when you suggested that SEND & EAL children should be educated in a separate set or separate building (YOUR words)"

I have just reaad the full exchange between us earlier and your sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking.

YOU suggested such students bring down academic results. You are in favour of setting. Who do you educate in separate sets? People with different academic abilities, or similar academic abilities? Anyone who is in favour of setting is in favour of educational separation by academic ability. Unless you teach the same sets in the same room at the same time.

You knew that the D in SEND involved physical disability - I didn't. In no way have I at any point suggested that people with a physical disability would be academically lower achieving and it's a damn lie to suggest or imply it. I pointed out twice that it was not true. I thought YOU were suggesting this yourself.

So your horrible mendacious claim that I am in favour of educating people in wheelchairs in separate buildings is an absolute lie. But you were stuck, and you resorted to it.

Don't worry Boschy - I am pretty polite but faced with lies, smears, sneers, nastiness and hypocrisy (not from you) what's a girl to do?

Tbh Boschy that's just about the only decent anti response I've read on the thread. The one about kaleidoscope. I disagree, but maybe I'll disagree with you about it another time when I'm in a different mood and it will be an interesting and peaceful conversation.

Brycie, you dont understand about setting I think perhaps?

Setting takes children, subject by subject, to allow teachers to cater for different ability levels. So top set: brilliant at the subject, covers the curriculum in 2 mins, needs lots of extension work; bottom set: struggles like mad, needs more support and lower level of work. Within each set they will also differentiate child by child.

Streaming, which is not widely used these days I believe (teachers please correct me if I am wrong?) is a much more broad brush approach - ok, your IQ is a zillion, you are top stream for life, your IQ is 70, you're bottom stream for life.

Setting enables teachers and children to move at the pace of their group, but with the added benefit of individual differentiation.

Streaming, effectively, is a blunt version of GS/sec mod.

Boschy: I am not talking about streaming but about setting. So You might be in a class with XYZ brilliant French speakers for French, but another class with ABC poor mathematicians for maths. You are not with XYZ for maths, because they are better at maths than you, and ABC are not with you for French, because you are better than them.

I was asking earlier - if you are being separated academically, what difference does it make if it's a building, rather than a room. You are still talking about academic selection. LeQueen's point was that gs students tend to fly at most things: they are the children who would be in the top sets for everything at a comp.

by "you" there, I mean "one is still talking about academic selection"

Because if you are in a separate building - probably a whole other separate institution some miles away actually - and you are brilliant at french AND maths, you don't get to see that the kid who is crap at both of those is actually superb at DT or animal care, and a really nice person to boot?

So the GS academic kid is in an academic bubble, and the practical hands-on kid who wants to be a plumber, or a zookeeper, never get the chance to learn from each other in a normal social setting (and dont give me all that bollocks about Scouts/Guides etc etc!!! not that you would necessarily but I hope you know what I mean).

And in the current system it is quite possible that each looks down on the other! GS kid: god only thickos go to that school; SM kid: stuck up wankers at the GS - and so the divide continues.

I do truly believe that proper comprehensive education is actually the key to social mobility - and I say that as the product of private education.

fuck, misplaced a comma in that last post, private schooling obv complete waste of parents' money!!!