Middle class access to grammars via tutorproof 11+ part 2

[boschy]

May I do this? only there were some contrasting views at the end of the last thread which I found interesting.

One was mine (sorry!): "I think fear actually drives a lot of those parents who are desperate to get their child into GS, so they can be 'protected' from these gangs of feral teenagers who apparently run rampage through every non-selective school in the country.

Because clearly if you are not 11+ material you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who likes nothing better than beating up a geek before breakfast and then going to score behind the bike shed before chucking a chair at the maths teacher and making the lives of the nice but dim kids a misery."

And one was from gazzalw: "If you had the choice would you opt for a grammar school or a comprehensive that has gangs?"

Soooo, do people really think that all comprehensives have vicious gangs, and all GS children are angels? Or that only those of academic ability adequate enough to get them through the 11+ should not have to face behavioural disruption of any kind? If you are borderline, or struggling but still work hard, should you just have to put up with disruption because let's face it you're not academic?

PS, re the knuckle dragging Neanderthals I mention above, should have said - "and that's only the girls"

That's a hell of a lot of straw mumsnetters there, APMF!

Nit, exoticfruits said this:

"have to say that the teachers in the secondary modern were very good because they told us, in the A stream, that were were just as good as the grammar school"

Obviously there will be more to it overall. But I don't see that this is unachievable by other sec mod teachers.

To be fair I have read comments such as APMF describes. I don't think she's making up straw people.

I suspect APMF is getting frustrated with further rounds of self-contradiction and circular argument. You must be APMF because your last sentence is a SHOCKER.

A lot of anti-grammar school people have very different arguments and some of the DO contradict each other. Boschy and Nit have been great in explaining things.

I mean, great in explaining what they actually think is the case and putting it flat down so that one can consider it and address it.

Thanks Brycie...

However well some teachers dealt with the issue for some people, I still don't think the problem should be laid at their door. The top set might have been amenable to and appreciative of the idea that they weren't too far off their erstwhile peers who went to grammar, but that doesn't mean it's fair to leave the fallout to the teachers of those who failed, in my opinion.

"No I did not find that because the DFE have not yet released those statistics.
The data set to hand is the 2011 set - that looks at VA across whole schools.
The 2012 data set - that fully splits VA by bands will not be out till January
and then I will merrily waste spend many hours data mining it "

I just saw this TP. I think THIS is crucial data, do you? So about mid Jan I think you owe it to all of us to bring it back to mumsnet and reveal all.

I thought I was being perfectly clear but obviously not.

A number of posters have in previous threads about private schools painted a picture of private school parents as snobs that look down on people who aren't well off or clever.

These posters now come onto threads about how the GS model is bad because they or their children have been labelled as failures by friends, neighbours or classmates.

I was just making the observation that if they wanted to find snobby people they only had to look in their backyard as opposed to the school gate at the much despised private school.

Ŵell you have that conversation with 'them', then....

Bloody computer, just did a long post and it has been eaten by the ether!

What matters most is that every child gets to achieve to his or her own level. The beauty of a comprehensive system is that every child gets to see that achievement means different things, so the maths geek is appreciated as much as the kid that brings prizes into the school farm for his/her animal handling skills.

For me it boils down to strong management: I/we are lucky that our SM has that. Every child is monitored on a virtually daily basis, and if they are not meeting or exceeding their targets then it is picked up on and action taken.

I think it is spectacularly unfair that GS and SM are being judged on their exam results when they have a completely different intake. Of course the GS should get the string of As, they have the raw material and they dont have to work very hard to deliver it. The SM has to take anyone and everyone - A to F candidates, and support them to what they can achieve.

I really didnt like Laqueen's 'rip the shit' comment earlier on this thread - for me that represents the arrogance of (some) GS students and their parents, and only serves to increase the divide between the academic and the non-academic (and the zillions in between).

I mean 'well', and I do not know what happened there!

Nit: the problem then may be laid at the door of the top 20 per cent of children. Data such as TP is talking about will be key to finding out what the potential loss is to the top 20 per cent. Gelo's paper (too old and out of date) said the loss was about a grade point or half a grade point in exams. It's there if you want to look at it. I think I read it right. There's a similar gain for the 77 per cent in comprehensive education. But the causes were given as low expectations and low level work - resolvable in class.

I think there is no reason not to lay this problem at the door of teachers. If it's a choice between the teachers, the head and the local authority - or the children - it's a no brainer for me.

"What matters most is that every child gets to achieve to his or her own level."

In some ways that supports the case for selection.

Yes, 'rip the shit' was both rude and crude. Bad luck for me that no matter how well my dd does, the fact that she has not got her math GCSE already at 15 means that apparently she's fucked.... I still think she'll do some shit ripping, if that's the appropriate term, and I'm still right that admissions tutors are not that keen on little prodigies who sat maths early.

Well, I'll be interested to see that data when it emerges too.

New post coz computer is annoying me. I did a lesson observation last week, and it was a joy.

The teacher knew exactly what each pupil in her class was expected to achieve (from A to D, like TOSN* said above). She knew which pupils needed extension work, which ones needed pushing, which ones needed bringing back into line, which ones needed support. In the space of 50 minutes she got each and every child to meet or exceed the lesson objective, and as this was the first or second lesson of the day, she then went on to do the same thing 4 or 5 more times... with different students, different subject matter.

The thing I found really touching was that there was a child in that class of clearly low ability, and her management of that child was so gentle and subtle - emotional intelligence can never be over-rated in my view.

I couldnt teach, far too much like hard work for me, but when you see a good teacher in action it is fantastic. to teachers, and especially those whose raw material is not so precious that it has to be educated apart from the lesser ones...

How can it be the teachers' fault or problem though? If only 25% pass, then 75% have to fail. So all the onus lies with the teachers to make sure that the inevitable 75% don't feel like failures when they've.... Erm.... Failed?

Nit: I don't think we are going to agree on this I think there's a problem generally with low expectations and it seems to be even worse in Sec Mods from what people say. Gelo's study talked about low expectations and low level work. Why is it a fault or a problem if teachers are doing this:

The teacher knew exactly what each pupil in her class was expected to achieve - she knew which pupils needed extension work, which ones needed pushing, which ones needed bringing back into line, which ones needed support. In the space of 50 minutes she got each and every child to meet or exceed the lesson objective, and as this was the first or second lesson of the day, she then went on to do the same thing 4 or 5 more times... with different students, different subject matter.

as described by Boschy. This is what teachers should be doing.

Not only do I see a problem of low expectations of pupils : I also now see a problem of low expectations of teachers.

Brycie hello again!

"What matters most is that every child gets to achieve to his or her own level."

In some ways that supports the case for selection.

NO, because achievement is not just one thing, it's not just being frightfully academic and therefore needing protection from the madding hordes that apparently riot through our comprehensives. You can be elite and elitist without being divisive.

If future doctors, vets, lawyers dont rub shoulders with future hairdressers, plumbers, dustbin men (people?!) - and vice versa - how can they all work together in society? If you are a top cardiac surgeon but the hospital cannot recruit enough cleaners/porters/reception staff you're a bit fucked really arent you?

I just dont think that if a child is so frightfully clever to be able to go to GS and get the normal string of A* at GCSE and A level they should really need so much protection from the proles. And equally, the proles should be able to expand their horizons if they want to and are capable of doing so.

I hope no one thinks I am really calling SM students proles, given that my DDs are at one.

Brycie: 'I think there's a problem generally with low expectations and it seems to be even worse in Sec Mods from what people say'

Well it would be, surely? Because this is the group of students of whom least is expected. Because they failed.

Also: ' This is what teachers should be doing'

In the non leafy comprehensive where my children go, it is. That is normal.

'brycie Nit: I don't think we are going to agree on this '

^^Understatement

If this thread (or the one before) was a horse it was dead and flogged about three days ago.

But it is strangely addictive

HI Boschy
Elite though is not an intangible social ideal: it's a real, valuable set of skills and knowledge.

"If future doctors, vets, lawyers dont rub shoulders with future hairdressers, plumbers, dustbin men (people?!) - and vice versa - how can they all work together in society? "

As an aside - sorry to disappoint you but - in my experience - elite surgeons and specialists for example are lovely people with professionally attentive manners - but who think of their patients as numbers and everyone else as civilians because it's how to cope with the workload and the down and dirty of what they do. This will not change if they are educated next to hairdressers I think. Nor should it, really. I don't see the benefit of educating them next to dustbin: it will not make the hospital more able to recruit dustmen.

I think of this as a sort of "let's all hold hands and save the world" type of argument. It's lovely but I don't think it's a very strong argument. Sorry to be blunt.

I am absolutely pissing myself laughing at the idea of low expectations of teachers. I am sat here still bleeding from a miscarriage working into the night writing reports after having spent the day flogging my guts out in the classroom.

Every lesson is supposed to allow every pupil to make excellent progress, if one pupil is seen not having made this progress you are hauled over the coals. Certainly in my school no one is allowed to slack or even by mediocre .

Asinine I agree, it is definitely strangely addictive!!