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"

Thanks exotic.

brycie youre right IME the SM doesn't offer the same education as a grammar. Not at all.

exotic see that's what I would have wanted, all 3 of mine to go to the same school, yet all reach their own potential and be treated individually.
But that doesn't happen here. I wish it did.

Tantrums in that case you would want a comprehensive system, yes? A good one?

Why do people go on about the 77% being shafted by the GS system?

I accept that some kids in a Sec Mod should be in a GS if only the 11+ went better for them. But they probably now form the top set at the Sec Mod. What is so magical about a GS that people automatically think that a top set SM kid is receiving an inferior education? Seeker has even recently posted that her Yr 7 DS is receiving the same level of education as her GS DD. I know her intention was to show how bright her DS is but as usual it just served to show how flawed her opinions are.

Even if you accept that these top set SM kids could do better if only they were at the GS, for the rest of the 77% they are receiving an education that is appropriate to their abilities. I mean, if you are in the third set at a SM how does the top 23% being creamed off affect you? Ah yes, there is the being labelled a failure argument.

The people in Kent must be an angst ridden lot. I can imagine the kids walking around the town centre with a big 'F' around their necks, careful to avoid the eyes of adults.

Where I live there is two private schools, a Catholic school and three comps near the town centre. The comp catchment varies. One is in the posh side of the town, one in lower MC part and the other in the mainly low income / council part. After school on a Friday they all head into the town centre and hang around a few popular shops like the sweet shop or the milk shake shop. Judging from their uniforms, the rich kids, MC kids, WC kids all happily mix.

So those in Kent must be a very status conscious lot. Not to mention mean for making the children feel like failures.

Spoken by someone who was never in the top set of the Sec Mod, APMF.

@tantrum - the 'solution' is obvious. We get rid of parental choice and get everybody to share the pain. So if the comp is sh*t then no one will have the education advantage ...... except for those that can afford a private education [inserts irony emoticon].

The solution is and will always be to improve state education and to improve inclusion / exclusion policies, and to ensure local authorities and heads are supportive of teachers' efforts to maintain discipline.

Actually I was in the top set at a Sec Mod. It only became a comp a couple of years later when the legislation kicked in but basically my year were the GS rejects .

"And the comments regarding deprived areas? That's the reason the flipping teachers expect nothing of their students."

That's not a reason - that's an excuse. Expectations should be just as high - this is how social mobility happens.

Mine didn't go comprehensive so I was segregated until 16yrs when I eventually got to the grammar school.

So once again, it's all the teachers' faults for inventing/exploiting any social issues which may be relevant...

Yes brycie but take my eldest son for example.
He's 13, lives in a "poor" part of north London. He's mixed race. So off he goes to the SM. and they look at him, without having the faintest idea about him as someone who will scrape through school, cause a bit of trouble, my friends son of the same age was told by his teacher "oh you look like a drug dealer with your hair like that. Have you got any weed?"
This attitude is disgusting and it is the major difference in what my son will achieve at GS and what he would have achieved at a SM in this area.

I am all for a good comprehensive system. Good for everyone with the top set students expected to achieve A*s, where the teachers push the very bright to achieve more, things like twilight classes, extra languages.
Good teachers who take time to get to know students and don't assume because of the area they live in or their hairstyle that they are never going to achieve.
GS are not the answer to the problem of poor SM and comps, they are just an option for people who expect this education but cannot find it anywhere else.
So yes, I would be in favour of an excellent comprehensive education.

There is no contradiction- I think people are being deliberately obtuse.

A comprehensive school can offer the same education as a grammar school qnd an high school combined.

A high school cannot offer the same education as a grammar school.

Is that clear?

It's not the teachers fault,no.
Every other person looks at my son the same way.
Everyone assumes we as parents don't get involved with his education.
He gets stopped by the police walking the dog after 5pm because they think he's going to rob someone
He doesn't go to the park because the park patrol think they are smoking weed.
So no it's not the teachers fault. They teach some kids that are like that. They then tend to assume everyone's the same.

And the comments regarding deprived areas? That's the reason the flipping teachers expect nothing of their students.
Inner city north London, poor area. Oh so all the kids have parents that don't care, they will never amount to anything.
That's a very sad perspective.
There are plenty of families living in poorer areas that care a great deal about their child's education and plenty of bright kids who don't achieve their potential because of that attitude.

look im not saying that all parents in deprived areas dont care some do,they dont do stats on which parents care and which dont.

I have a freind who works inner city primary who says most parents dont care.

because of their location its harder to attract people to send their kids thier as some areas of our city have very bad reputations.

parents calculate risk.is my child safe, are their freinds going their, is it too far, is it affordable, whats the results like.

so even though there are many comprehensives an no grammers here infact most shut down an reopened as academies, shiny new buildings , blazers ect is still mostly same intake as before and similar results.

our results are skewed by such a high independant sector.

The 2independants that turned academies-use to be selective now only 10%selective rest lottory everyones waiting for their mixed ability results to show.I guess with lottory everyone has fair chance think its was 800+applications for 160places last year something mad like that.

Another theme is linking good school with bad school as federation thinking they rub of on each other yet they totally diffrent sites and different intake so even im dubious if will work.

sharing facilities like sports/music, arts I think could be good as thats talent.

Only few weeks ago said they said parental inputs makes difference an kids from deprived area have disadvantage at preschool, primary imagine gap even wider at secondry unless their parents are dedicated of which a few are.

I think parental choice is very important not limiting choices.
I went to only comp in my rural town
only catholics, private bused put.
nearby town had high school mam said no dont have ideas above my station. when passed my exams thats great as we never expected you to pass. luckily my dad was slightly more interested.

my parents one went sec modern with her 4siblings
1sister went grammer
they equal now

dad was only 1 out of 5to go grammer and hes done the best

its dependant on individual not the school they attended.
sopme do better inspite of their school although can be a battle when so little expected..

I would rather my dds wherever they go be right school for them.

My preschoolers turning out to be little performer.
but theres no ballet/stage schools outside london,

I dont think the uk values other talents as much.
which is why most olypinans from private.

It seems lot of academies specialise into sports, science or language im unsure if they acheive better results than the normal comp just sounds good. do they honestly focus on these subjects or is it name alone?

if we select on academics why cant we select on other criteria rather than 11+.Why are all specialist academies non selective?
if they a states sports academy what are they doing to attract the very best at sport in that area?

I ask this as know lady in kent whos town has grammers yet her son goes to sports academy-secondry modern and belives its must be a beacon of sport. not a``ll who miss 11+will be sporty bias.

yet ask a freind in reading what she thinks of local sports academy and its dire sink school rebranded-never send her kids there.

Its all about perception and spin.
when you go open days.
see glossy prospectus
shiny new pfi building
local rag manipulating exam results talking it up.

Its very stressful picking a school and in some areas very tricky there are all sorts of hoops 11+is just one of them but still think its fairer than living in affleunt catchment.

@seeker - You have gone on record as saying that your SM DS is receiving the same level education as your GS DD.

You are either saying that your GS isn't that brilliant OR there is no noticeably difference between standards at the SM and GS. You may try but you can't have it both ways.

Also how do we think most children get a*? as numbers rising
whats the recipe

I imagine lots of factors

good attendance record in lessons
completing homework
revision-do parents help or push child to revise?
extra tutoring?
Childs work attitude wants to do well, tries their best.
Interested parents who attend
child came from good primary with good sats and performed well in cats.
good set, not much disruption in class

parents evenings
work in partnership with school
get involved in their childs school, attend information evenings, well read on education themselves, look at childs work and homework on regular basis.
end of term reports-if child does badly are their consequences?
I dont remember fondly year 7parents evening with very cross father who said I could do better and threatening to pull me from that school but mam said no in hindsight I wish he had.

Teachers and school can only do so much.I have no doubt must be harder teaching in comp than a grammer as in a grammer the child wants to do well as they chose to enter selection and their parents maybe more involved.

No. I have gone on record as saying that at this stage in year 7, my high school DS is working at the same National Curriculum level as his GS sister was.

He is not receiving as good an education as she did.

And, as I have said many many times, for me, this is not about my children. They will be fine. For me, is about what happens to the whole cohort of children in grammar school areas. In particular, what happens to disadvantaged children in grammar school areas.

what happens to disadvantaged children in a grammar school area is a scandal. 11+ seems to be biased against them, very few make the grammar (those that do incidently derive the very most benefit from the grammar of anybody). Those that don't make the grammar often don't get put into the top sets at the other schools either. Perhaps a way forward would be to insist that grammars have to accept a quota, lets say 10% of disadvantaged children - force them to do a bit of positive discrimination as universities are pushed to do. I wonder what effect that would have?

Just so there is no confusion as to what you previously said, your SM son is at the same level in Year 7 as your DD was when she was in Year 7 at her GS. And you are not happy with his education.

Don't you see the contradiction? [bangs head against table top]

Upthread you said that your DD got into GS with KS level 4. That automatically tells me that it's not a particularly academic GS. If your DS is at the same level as your DD and you aren't happy then the inference is that you aren't too happy with DD's progress at the GS.

So why do you spend so much time posting about how the GS model is inequitable when your posts suggest that your GS isn't that brilliant and that your DS wouldn't have been better off if only he had gone to the GS?

You obviously don't understand a) the difference between hitting levels and getting an education. And b) the grammar school selection process. SATs are not relevant. Dd passed the 11+. so she got a place in what is actually a very academic, although not super selective, grammar school.

You are doing it again seeker. You just can't control it.

The GS selection process got it right with your DS despite it being an academic GS and your DD was level 4 maths which is a bit low.

But when your DS didn't get into the DS it spawned a 1001 posts about the inequities of the GS selection process.

Maybe Santa will give you a T Shirt that says 'You Can't Have It Both Ways!'

Nope. I have been posting and campaigning about the iniquities of the grammar school system for 6 or so years now. In fact I think my first ever mumsnet post was on the subject. I remember sharing outrage with UnquietDad of blessed memory.

It doesn't matter how many times you post that I'm only involved because my ds failed, it won't make it true.

I am not disputing your historical positions. I am merely pointing out your contradictory comments, comments that you seem keen to avoid addressing.

Why did the GS selection work when it came to your DD but was flawed when it came to your DS?