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"

Exotic: But this is not a problem that needs to be solved "the long way round" - i.e. by getting parents to help the children with their basics, involving adult education, social services? local support and intervention, all of which can take years. Another report this morning indicates how poorly educated amny parents and aduls are. By the time their parents are"educated"and "involved" the children are older, have left primary, it's too late. Why go for the trickle down approach with uncertain results when you have the children right there in school and have the access and the opportunity to ensure they know what they need to know. What is so hard to understand about that? Why go round and round the problem, bemoaning uninvolved parents, when schools have the children and can do something about it?

You asked earlier exotic what I would leave out of the primary curriculum.

Here's what I would do. I would establish what children must know by eleven. They need to be able to read and write well, and they need to have established competence with arithmetic and early mathematics. They need to play sport, they need to speak English properly and be able to expresss themselves. I would establish a timetable that ensures they can learn and acquire all of this within school hours without resort to the parents. And whatever else there's time for could go in.

I think that you misunderstand me- the toddlers would be picked out and given the very best of nursery education.
I don't understand what you would leave out - are you saying they would simply do English,Maths and Sport?

If there's time to fit anything else in, fine. But up to y4 I would say - how much time do we need for children to have a good grasp of what they need to know without resort to parental help. I would allocate that time. If there was no room for anything else, I wouldn't put it in.

Don't forget - in Y5 and 6 with a good grasp of the essentials education in other subjects would fire ahead.

I owuld considgn history to the story at the end of every day up to Y5 and by Y5 and 6 I would introduce geography with mapping, the physical geography of the UK, Europe, the continents and oceans ie where places are and the sorts of climate they have.

And yes if there's no time for art I would leave out art. Interested and involved parents can do art with their children. Then if children don't have such parents, they miss out on making pasta collages instead of missing out on essentials. The only art I would do if necessary for fine motor skills would be specifically directed towards developing fine motor skills, otherwise leave it out - if there's no time for it.

There is a limit to what the schools can do to compensate for a lack of parental interest/involvement given budget constraints.

Sure, we can have free nursery from an earlier age, smaller class sizes in Year R so that the child gets more help with basic literacy. But all this means time and money would get diverted from somewhere else.

IMO children should get the best education the country can afford as opposed to the best education possible. So its pointless looking to countries with a different socio economic make up and going how we should have free nursery places from a very young age. These countries offer it because they, as a country, can afford it.

What is sounds to me like you're saying , Brycie, is that you want the current national curriculum, but taught better.

I think the thing to do is have more good TAs. A lot of the children who need school to provide the sort of support some children get from home don't actually need more formal teaching, in my opinion, they need some one to one attention, and more time to practice the stuff they learn in class.

At my ds's school, they have a a lot of children joining year 7 with poor literacy skills. They have programmes in place for the ones who need proper professional help, but they also have a volunteer programme to help the ones who have reading ages up to 2 years below their chronological age. A regular 30 minutes a week with a volunteer is enough for most of these children to go up two reading age years in one school year, and it has a significant impact on their self esteem and confidence.

APMF

There is a limit to what the schools can do to compensate for a lack of parental interest/involvement....

You took the words right out of my mouth.....as much as schools should try and even out disadvantages, in the realms of reality expecting that those disadvantages can be compensated by the 3 odd hours at school compared to children who come from homes where there are parents who are heavily involved in nurturing their childrens' education one to one at home be it help with times table, reading, visiting museums, going to see plays, extra curriculars etc. The children of parents are not involved at all are likely already significantly behind in their development even at the age of five....that doesn't mean schools should write them off at all...on the contrary, but parents also need to own responsibility for educating their child ....and many do not. They don't have to be educated ....but they do need to create an educational environment at home, if they don't then yes, they are putting their child at a severe disadvantage to other children who do come from such an environment and expecting that somehow the school can remedy that is not realistic.

i should have said 30+ odd hours

" if they don't then yes, they are putting their child at a severe disadvantage to other children who do come from such an environment and expecting that somehow the school can remedy that is not realistic."

Absolutely- school probably can't completely remedy the disadvantage. But, as with the reading intervention I described, there is often a lot more that can be done relatively easily. And also, education should not add to the load of disadvantage some children carry.

I did a few terms as a primary school volunteer. Specifically I did reading with Year 4/5. It quickly became obvious that some kids had poor literacy and there was little weekly progress despite my efforts. It was obvious that, apart from our one to one sessions, nothing was done at home.

So I question the assertion that all it takes is reading to a volunteer 30min a week in order to make a difference.

As a side note, there is something seriously wrong with a system where the school is looking to a volunteer to help this child.

Brycie - you seem to be underestimating the amount of work schools need to do in helping to socialise some children, get them to a point where they are comprehensible enough in their speech to be able to tell whether they are reading accurately, help them develop fine and gross motor skills. Even with involved parents, different children need utterly different degrees of input at a young age in completely different areas of their development. You make things sound far, far more simple than they are in reality (maybe because your children all developed in a fairly typical way, unlike mine?). Unless, of course, you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and pay A LOT more tax to do things properly. You also seem to be aiming at the lowest common denominator in academic terms and requiring school to be utterly boring for children who do NOT need nothing but literacy, numeracy and sport until they reach the top end of primary school. In other words, you are arguing for pushing a lot of people out of the state sector altogether, or creating tiers of schools even at primary level, not just grammar schools at secondary level, which is not a proven way of narrowing the gap between the haves and the have nots.

interesting link, rabbitstew, to the piece about the education situation in the US, and it's worth reading the readers' comments below, too.

I think it's true that education was once something to be prized, then something to be aspired to, then taken for granted, and finally resented.

One teacher from Knoxville states that many of his students can't get their heads around studying and going to college for $28K a year, when they see what pop stars/sportspeople and indeed entrepreneurs earn. It always makes my shoulders slump when XFactor judges say "You're an inspiration!" to contestants. So competing in a talent contest is better than - for the runner up - working in Asda. What does that say to all the schmucks currently working in Asda? Clearly that it's not at all worthwhile.

In response to posts above, my dcs are at a very good state primary school, where they work 'em hard. Children are mostly what might be termed lower middle class. And nearly all the parents are involved.

Still you have a huge gulf in ability and achievement. Sure, they all reach a minimum level by end of year 6 but there still pupils who are streets ahead of the others. And the top two pupils in dd's class both have English as a second language. You can't possibly achieve parity in achievement unless you introduce some sort of handicapping system.

"So I question the assertion that all it takes is reading to a volunteer 30min a week in order to make a difference.

As a side note, there is something seriously wrong with a system where the school is looking to a volunteer to help this child."

It's more thqn juat "reading to a volunteer".I am sharing my experience. And the school hs th stats to back it up.

Seriously wrong? Thw only thing that is seriously wrong is that the education budget is not big enough pay people to do what in many families would be done by parents. But as you said, we can only provide the education we can afford. In my book, something is seriously right with the fact that volunteers are prepared to go in and help fill some of the gaps.

Volunteers are of variable quality, just like teachers, teaching assistants and parents...

Why would we expect equal outcomes at primay level when some children will have an IQ of 80, the average is 100 and some will be 140+? of course some will be useless and some really good no matter how much you flog the dead horse. Obviously the aim is to ensure the average can function, read, write and do their best and that those who are very bright but from difficult homes are allowed to reach the potential of a child from a great home who has an IQ of 140.

Is everyone expecting equal outcomes? I'm not!

' In my book, something is seriously right with the fact that volunteers are prepared to go in and help fill some of the gaps.'

Entirely agree.

Nobody expects equal outcomes and it's facetious to pretend you think they do. However, some people have uneven abilities - phenomenally gifted in one area, possibly, but with significant difficulties in another. Such people can make a colossal contribution to the economy if someone gives them extra remedial input where it is needed, and extra stretching where they excel. In Xenia's model, only the boringly normal will be catered for, and, whilst they are always useful to society, society has benefited hugely from people outside the norm. And some people, who have difficulties in all areas will nevertheless do more for the economy if they are given extra input than if they are rejected as never being capable of being average. So Xenia's model, in conclusion, is a pile of cr*p.

Me too.

oops - xposted with rabbit!

'me too' was meant to echo abraid.

But hey, if everyone wants to cater only for the average or the all-round able, then that's their look out.

seeker: You said that a lot of kids at your SM entered Year 7 with poor literacy skills and that some had reading ages that were 2 years behind their chronological age. You then go on about what a good job the school is doing in addressing this. You even got a bit uppity when I challenged this and went on about how you have the stats to prove what a good job the school has done.

Yet you regularly post how the education of the 77% of kids that are left behind by the GS system suffer.

You can't have it both ways. I mean, you can't get all defensive and go on about the great job your SM is doing in raising literacy standards and AT THE SAME TIME go on about how kids like this are being penalised by the GS system.

Also, if these kids came out of your 'comprehensive' primary school system barely able to read, do you really want to make the argument that people should take their kids out of their GS and form a comp and that their DCs education won't be affected?

The only way round it is to create huge schools, I guess, so that there is a reasonable cross section of all types of ability for setting purposes.... and then we wouldn't need as many headteachers, which is good, because there aren't enough to go round. But do people want huge schools???? Also, something would need to be done about transport to and from such schools...