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"

Schools can't level out disadvantage. Parents who value education are always going to help their DC. My great grandparents were encouraging their DCs at the end of the 19th century - that is why they didn't end up as farm labourers. I am where I am today largely through pushy parents- and very grateful and have done the same. Schools can do a lot but the greatest influence on a DCs education will be the parents. A 2 year old who is conversed with, read to, shown how to do jigsaws etc is always going to be more advanced than the 2yr old without stimulation in the home.

Exotic: no they cannot level out all disadvantage. Yes, parents will always help their children. They should not have to help their children grasp the very basic essentials of education.

The starting point of all education is language - learning to understand and speak. Who but parents is best placed to do this? Parents are always going to be the first source of education.

Yes they are. And?

"They [parents] should not have to help their children grasp the very basic essentials of education."

Why do you say this? I'm afraid I think it is just silly.

• assuming you intend "first" to mean initial, and not primary.

Of course, if you mean primary, I would rather disagree. Somewhat.

Why is it silly?

It does the children from less affluent and advantaged homes a massive disservice when people claim that school should be responsible for basic education - it sends the message that parents shouldn't have to bother. And the least advantaged parents are most likely to listen and believe that very irresponsible message.

I think some people don't live in the real world. I really do.

"Sending messages" to disadvantaged groups is much more social engineering than teaching children their times tables.

You are the one with the message, Brycie!

Bonsoir - I don't think you understand. You want to send a message too - pull your socks up, disadvantaged people, badly educated people, overworked and stressed single mothers, alcoholics, drug users, absent parents, young teenagers, people who can barely feel themselves and their families, illiterate folk and life's strugglers in general. Pull your socks up, pull your finger out and stop loafing about.

Do you think state education is some kind of organic, self-generating entity? It really isn't. It's designed. It can be designed to help as many people as possible, as much as possible, and improve their chances and all our chances as a result. Or it can be designed to help a certain group of people and leave others to the mercy of their backgrounds. I prefer the former. You prefer the latter.

Er feed themselves. They might be good at feeling themselves but that's not much help to anyone.

I haven't said anything of the sort, Brycie. All I think is that parents shouldn't be infantilised by teachers.

To all who could be offended: I should say single parents, not single mothers: they're in there because of the extra stress and time pressure they are under, possibly holding down jobs, looking after children, no respite etc.

I think you don't know you've said it Bonsoir. Each technique sends a message: these are the alternative messages. Of course my message could be - education is important and we want your child and all children to do well. For your message see above.

I know exactly what I say, and also what I do on a weekly basis to counteract that very issue, Brycie.

Each philosophy sends a message. My philosophy says, according to you - don't bother - according to me - we think education is important and we want children to do well. Your philosophy sends a different message. It can't not send a message. It's not free of meaning or consequence.

And now I must go.

But not before saying: the outcome of my philosophy is: children are educated despite their backgrounds and social development occurs. The outcome of your message is that children are not educated and social development does not occur.

Education to "help as many people as possible, as much as possible, and improve their chances and all our chances as a result"

I totally agree with you, Brycie, and that's one of the best arguments to get rid of academically (and socially) selective grammar schools on the thread.

Evil: 'and all our chances as well'. A soundbite worthy of a politician but what does it mean?

How does seeker's DS now having a descent orchestra to join improve my DCs 'chances'?

oops. misquoted you slightly. Should read '... as a result'.

I was quoting Brycie - ask her.

I disagree with selective education. State education should not select. All children should be given the same chances to reach their potential.

As for the orchestra, I teach in a school that doesn't have one. We are in a grammar area. I teach chidlren whose parents cannot afford the extra money for music tuition, and therefore we don't have sufficient instrumentalists for an orchestra, which is a shame for the few who do play.

"All children should be given the same chances to reach their potential."

Absolutely. But why do you think putting them all in the same school does this? It doesn't (I live in a country that has all the problems associated with comprehensive education from 3-15).

Because in the same sort of school, every child has the same sort of chance to achieve their potential (idealist I know) whereas deciding at 11 whether or not a child is acadmic creates myriad issues and problem, in my opinion - not least the issue of children being branded failures, or the issue of children who were so heavily tutored to get into a school that they can't cope with the workload.

It's all so subjective though, isn't it? For every anecdote I have, there will be one that contradicts it. This afternoon I have spoken to a parent who wants to transfer her son from his current 6th form (grammar) to ours (not grammar) because he is not enjoying being part of an enormous grades factory (her words) Our 6th Form is smaller and more of a community. On paper, his 6th form is more academic, but our results were fabulous last year (62% A*-B grades at A2 - not bad for a secondary modern) and we have a much stronger pastoral support system. But I can guarantee there are MNers out there who think that the pastoral support is perfectly fine at their DC's grammar. There are no hard and fast rules, obviously. In my view, though, all state schools should provide the same opportunities for all students.

IMO opinion the conversation should be about parental involvement and aspirations and their impact on their children and teachers and their attitudes towards education.

All this other stuff about comps being better or worst is a red herring. Some comps have proactive parents and teachers. Other comps have apathetic parents and teachers. The problem is with these groups of people as opposed to whether 25% gets creamed off.

Apologies for going to the Asian stereotype but Watford Boys is heavily working class Asians. Many of their parents (usually the moms) speak little English. Kind of punctures the argument that GSs selection favours educated MC white people.

Bottom line: some comps do really well because they have involved parents and dedicated teachers as opposed to it simply bring a comp.