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"

"I can fully understand how disappointing it must have been to only fail by one mark - and I'm sure there would have been some children who felt such chagrin at not getting into GS...but, I suspect that the vast majority of pupils at the secondary modern weren't remotely bothered by failing to get a GS education."

But how do they know? If your family only expect you to go to the high school and leave school at 16, how can you possibly know if you could do anything different? If you're at a school which offers the opportunity to do academic things, to have different aspirations, then you might feel inclined to try. If the opportunities aren't there, you can't. The grammar schools system was created to give the bright child from a disadvantaged background a step up and out. The fact that, even if it ever did, it certainly doesn't now is the real tragedy.

I have made several posts stating why I am in favour of selective education. It is pointless restating those points in successive posts so I now confine myself to responding to other people's posts and of these 'other people' seeker is the most 'interesting'.

Take the latest patronizing comments. Her DS doesn't feel a failure (despite what she said in posts made at the time of the 11+). He is going to do fine because he has her as a mom. But those other poor kids that don't have moms as capable or supportive as her, well, they are just going to have a life of unfulfilled dreams.

Then there is the comment about how her school would benefit from having MC GS moms. That is code for - the SM moms are either to apathetic or dim to effect change with people like her or me.

The choice of NVQ hair and beauty is not offered at the grammar school. The option of visiting universities is not available at the comp. There is no orchestra at the comp. There are language twilight classes at the grammar, again not at the comp. Thats selectivity right there.

... the above post was in response to the question as to why I am making this thread about seeker.

Oh, AMPF don't be so stupid!

Do I know you in real life or something?

seeker - "If you're at a school which offers the opportunity to do academic things, to have different aspirations, then you might feel inclined to try."

In the suburb nearest to where I live in Paris, there are two main secondary schools (11-18, though of course there is a break in the middle as school is comprehensive until 15 in France, selective thereafter). One of those secondary schools historically had an excellent reputation nationally; the other has always been a sink school, despite incredibly similar demographics. Many things have been attempted to try to improve the lesser school, including removing absolutely every single last academic "option" from the better school and putting them in the sink school instead, in order to encourage applications from good pupils. The better school no longer teaches Latin, Russian, Mandarin, Italian, Art History etc etc - it just has a bare bones curriculum. The sink school teaches all the enrichment options.

Several years later, what is the outcome? The sink school is just as bad as ever. And what used to be a very good academic lycée is moving fast down the league tables - it has become an exam factory.

"As I understand it seeker surely all schools have to offer an opportunity to 'do academic things.' Every school has to offer exams, subjects, lessons etc"

I refer the Honourable Member to the comments I made earlier about the difference between grade/level hitting and education.

And High Schools don't offer all the subjects that Grammar schools do.

But APMF the fact of the matter is that a student at a secondary modern who is not expected to achieve and go on to university, whos teachers and parents do not have that expectation will more than likely not achieve their full potential.

However the same student in a grammar school would be expected to go to university.

The point seeker made about how the whole point of grammar schools was to give the disadvantaged children a step up, that is very rare in our area. We live in a "poor" area of North London. There are 3 students in my ds1 class who live in this area, the rest are all from the much nicer parts of North London.

I have known grown up GS 'kids' that are as narrow minded as any creature you may find on God's earth. Academic selectivity does not by default produce a well rounded individual. In fact, some proponents have argues that non academic students are more free thinking because they haven't been heavily schooled to pass exams

In any case, many parents shun GSs because they want their kids to go to a school with a more diverse cohort. You on the other hand seem to be lamenting the fact that your DS doesn't get to mix with these MC kids. The patronising comments keeps on coming.

Tantrums

Our dcs at comp (in an area with a very mixed demographic) can do three languages at GCSE, you are generalising.

At our state primary at least ten children per year play violin, a similar number woodwind. There are many similar primaries feeding into our comp which has orchestra, mini orchestra, wind band, other ensembles, rock school, choirs and so on. There are subsidised music lessons and a Saturday music centre which offeres further groups and tuition. I know three pupils went to top music colleges last year.

I hate the way people do not understand what a good comp looks like. They do work, especially in an area where other options do not exist.

"In fact, some proponents have argues that non academic students are more free thinking because they haven't been heavily schooled to pass exams."

There are examples of this in France everywhere. I normally have much better, freeer and more interesting conversations with small business owners (who probably don't have the bac) than the bac + 5 (or 6 or 7) that I meet socially.

Most of the country has no grammar schools so the only state schools are the comprehensive which is then bound to have a mix of abilities.

In areas where there are grammar schools then presumably the other schools have fewer of the brighter pupils. I don't think you can generalise between areas with no grammars and those that have them.

" You on the other hand seem to be lamenting the fact that your DS doesn't get to mix with these MC kids."

No I'm not. Why do you persist in attribute attitudes and opinions to me that I have not said or implied?

As I said, have I upset you in real life? Because there doesn't seem to be any other explanation for your strange desire to twist everything I say.

Asinine, i did not say that NO comp offers this. I have no idea what other schools in other areas offer. Im talking form muy own experience and not one school other than the grammar school will alllow a student to do the "normal" 11 GCSEs and then the chance to do 2 languages as a twilight option.
And as for not understanding what a good comp looks like, no I do not. Because there are NO COMPS in my area that I would send my dcs to. Because the results are poor, the teachers are too busy assuming all the kids are drug dealers or pregnant, or thats where they will end up in life.

The arguments here are going round in circles. Which perhaps isn't surprising to me given it's been going round my head in circles for the past few years. I keep reading these threads in the hope of enlightenment but instead I find myself agreeing with someone, then later with another who has polar opposite views.

I am fortunate enough to live next to a good comp - it's the sort that people fake addresses to get in to. Not far away is a super selective grammar and it's so selective that it doesn't really have much impact on the calibre of pupils at the local comps. I'm pretty comfortable that my dc won't be sitting the 11+ for it - they're bright but not (as yet) exceptional and I don't want to put them through years of tutoring etc.

My dilemma is whether or not to consider the private selectives. Which I think is much more relevant for the majority of the country that isn't Kent or Buckinghamshire.

The problem is that comps still scare me. I want to believe that the top set(s) can be as good as at any selective school - I really really do. I went to a selective indy myself where I was both unhappy and perhaps counterintuitively also academically frustrated. My own school targeted the middle (which was still "A" grade of course) and didn't really care about the more able. Those pupils in the lower half of my school's ability range all did well. And once I was out in the big wide world; working and meeting those who had been to comps, I have been constantly amazed at how poor their academic record can be by comparison. They are people who really do seem an awful lot brighter and more able than many at my school.

I can't help feeling that the peer group may be significant. In which case, surely it would be an advantage to surround my children with the brightest I can? Unless of course they can't pass the selective test, in which case I'd rather a fully comprehensive system

"" You on the other hand seem to be lamenting the fact that your DS doesn't get to mix with these MC kids."

No I'm not. Why do you persist in attribute attitudes and opinions to me that I have not said or implied?

You want orchestra-ready children at secondary school? Those children, given the current education system, are by definition, middle-class.

Asinine, my DS went to Eton. My niece goes to a Comp. The Comp is brilliant and my DS would have gone there if we had lived nearby. Orchestra? Yes. Great drama? Yes. Loads of sport? Yes.

The Comp can, and does, teach for Oxbridge. It also sends the less academically able out into the world with confidence and appropriate qualifications.

Mind you, the Head of the Comp is the most scarily impressive and dynamic teacher I have ever met.

"You want orchestra-ready children at secondary school? Those children, given the current education system, are by definition, middle-class."

I know. I am not lamenting that my ds doesn't mix with middle class children. He does.

What I am saying is that if- to take my town as an example, if the two schools were combined into a comprehensive school, there would be a orchestra. Because the grammar school has, I think 3. And the high school has none.

Gu, that was our philosophy with the children - surround them with the brightest that you can, indeed in selective schools from age 4 or 5. It worked fine. You buy a peer group (if your child is bright enough to get into that school). It tends to be money well spent. (This is on the comps v private selectives issue which is the only choice in most of the UK).

And what benefit is the orchestra to the children who don't play an instrument and have no appreciation for music? Frankly, as the French example I have you demonstrates, NONE. You are a champagne socialist, seeker, who thinks that you can turn the world to rights just by giving the poor and disadvantaged opportunities at school. You can't. School is not an opportunity to engineer society. You have to improve people's living conditions first.

They won't know if they've got any appreciation for music if they've never heard any will they?