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"

"Add message | Report | Message poster rabbitstew Thu 13-Dec-12 16:18:50
But could a badly run huge school just lack any proper sense of community and shared enterprise???"

But so could a badly run small school!

I know, but isn't it more likely in a really huge school with a wide range of children of completely different abilities and backgrounds?

nit: by 'school' I meant the primary school and not the SM. Kent is a predominantly white English speaking area. There is simply no excuse for a 'lot of children' to leave primary school and be two years behind in literacy.

Also, although it wasn't your intention, you make seeker out to be a bit snobby. I mean, the school is great. Seeker is just not happy that it is a SM

I'm not sufficiently interested to trawl through seeker's posting history and to cut&paste a quote but feel free to search for the post where, when asked why she thought her DS was getting an inferior education she cited the absence of a decent orchestra. This led to a few patronising comments about the difference in attitudes towards classical music and music lessons displayed by the parents at her SM compared to the parents at her DD's GS.

If that isn't saying she is unhappy with the SM then I don't know what is.

Bonsoir's idea that those things which are not curriculum planning are just 'bureaucratic details' is so way off the mark that they are laughable. I have been a school manager in the past and I can tell her that there is a vast amount of work you are required to do by law.

So you don't maintain your buildings, and someone breaks a leg falling in the playground; you are liable. You don't bother to purchase equipment so there are no books, paper etc. If the furniture needs replacing ,where will the children sit, what will they write on? You decide you won't bother to make the annual return of the number of pupils you have, which decides how much funding you get, and so you get no funds. You decide that you won't collect the dinner money, money for trips etc., or worse, decide that you will collect the money and fail to bank it and account for it. Big trouble on that one.

Much of it was previously done by the LEA but then got delegated down to schools but the work doesn't disappear just because it's done in a different building.

Kent has many areas of significant social deprivation. It is not surprising that in such areas there will be children who leave Primary school not where they should be academically.

You used the term "churning out". As I said, our "satisfactory" Primqry school had about the same numbers of 11+ passers as sub level 4 readers. I would not say it was "churning out" grammar school candidates!

And for what seems like the millionth time, I think ds's school is an excellent example of high school. However, I don't like high schools. I think dd's school is an excellent example of a grammar school too. However, I don't like grammar schools!

This was an interesting discussion until AMPF decided in her usual somewhat deranged way to make it about me!

APMF
while nit picking at Seeker, you have not responded to my general point about why inclusive schools are better.
This thread is about to run out of posts.
How about you stop being personal and come up with a positive response.

LaVolcan
and even in private schools, the financial side is incredibly important to the smooth running of the school.
Maybe Bonsoir's view is tinted by living in France, and if that is the attitude in the schools there, it explains a lot about why the schools do not excel.

I answered the point upthread but I'm quite happy to recap.

Selective schools do well academically because parents and staff share the same pushy ethos. You put those kids into your bog standard comp and they will get taught by teachers that are, well, like the teachers here on MN. You, know, it's not all about grade A* but about being a well rounded individual. There is more to school then getting the grades to go to Oxbridge. The education system is biased in favour of the middle classes blah blah blah.

So I disagree that the top set at a comp will have the same ethos.

As for comps being better than the GS model, a small number of kids that went Sec Mod would probably thrive at a GS but I can't see that number being significant. I don't see why kids who are at a GS should be deprived of a selective education simply because a relatively small number of kids missed out on the 11+

APMF,

As I have said elsewhere, the number oif children who NEED to be in a separate educational institution because they cannot get what need in a comprehensive is probably less than 1% - ie those who have the SEN of being exceptionally able.

The other children at a GS do not NEED slective education - they could thrive at a good comp. All the other teachers on MN who i have encountered talk about progress for all, not about A* for the few and nothing for the rest. I fail my most able pupils i I don't extend them - so i entend them. I fail my least able children if i don't support them - so i support them. I have said nothing about well-rounded individuals - just that EVERY child deserves an education that enables them to make the most progress they possibly can.

Only for those very few children who are SEN-level unusual in their high ability does that have any reason to be provided in a separate instituion - after all, all the comprehnsive-only counties in the country manage it fine....

APMF as usual appears to be reading a different thread. Or to believe that everyone on here is lying. Or something.

I don't see why kids who are at a GS should be deprived of a selective education simply because a relatively small number of kids missed out on the 11+
but because the 11+ is such a narrow exam, they get a narrow education
and a narrow minded view of the world.
Sorry, but I'm glad there are so few Grammar Schools.

APMF,

Apologies for typos in my last post.

I think it is interesting that each county where there are grammar schools thinks that their way is 'right' - from Kent with its 23% of children in a universal grammar / SM system to other counties where there are superselective grammars containing 5% or fewer of children.

Certainly the difference between Kent and other counties implies that there is no 'need' for all 23% of children to be in grammar school.

It seems to me, therefore, that probably 20% or so of the children in the Kent system would see no disbenefit at all from not being in a grammar school - as children of exactly equivalent ability in other counties obtain similar results without a grammar school education.

Any of the data miners out there - is there statistical evidence that the top couple of % of children do worse in non-GS counties (far from GS areas to elimiate border effects of children travelling over county boundaries) compared with in GS counties? Ie is there any 'deprivation' involved if a grammar schoiol education is not available, or do those children, statistically rather than anecdotally, do equally well when a GS education is unavailable? I realise that there are some corrections to do for demographics etc al but is there a 'borad brush' picture available?

The 11+ was something my DCs spent 6 months prepping for because that was the hoop that the school wanted us to jump through. The books have long been passed on to the next crop, worksheets have been recycled and the exam forgotten. I fail to see what lasting impact, positive or negative, the 11+ has on kids.

APMF - the test itself, hopefully not. The results of the test - well, sadly, in grammar school counties, it does have a lasting impact.....

APMF
On the Dfe website data it is possible to sort LEAs by destinations of school leavers.

I'm working on VAT return at the moment so will not do it right now

but chances are that the negative impact of Grammars on other schools totally outweigh the positive impact for those few children.

(Talkin - do your VAT return, that's fine. I just wondered whether the claims that e.g. the poor children in Kent would suffer because they were 'deprived of a grammar school education' had any actual basis in fact.)

2kids
yes, the average results for kent as a whole are below expectations for its demographics....
gove introduced the ebacc to show that grammars were the answer and kent shot him in the foot

It is my understanding that the average results for Kent as a whole have been below expectations for its demographics for a great many years (since I was a girl, if not before...). It would also be interesting to see what proportion of schools deemed to be failing in Kent are secondary modern/"high" schools (the replacement word for some Secondary Moderns in parts of Kent where grammar schools take 23% of children rather than being "super selective"). It would also be interesting to see what happens in parts of Kent where the majority of the grammar schools are super selective (mainly West Kent) - does this result in results at the more "comprehensive" alternatives similar to those of proper comprehensive schools in other counties, with phenomenally better results in the super selective grammar schools, or does that make little difference? And what proportion of grammar schools are deemed to be doing a bad job?

the data is here www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001056/index.shtml
~I'll try to put kent up as a google doc

So, on average, a child attending a school in Kent (of whatever type) will do worse than a child attending a comprehensive school in a non-grammar county?

I suppose the pro-grammar brigade would say 'well, that doesn't matter, as long as my able child gets the grammar education that they deserve' ... it would be interesting to know whether on average someone, say, at the 80th centile (so grammar material in Kent but not elsewhere) does better or worse in Kent than they would in a fully comprehensive system. Or isn't there something odd in the research, that grammars don't actually advantage the brightest, they actually most advantage the bottom few % of their intake? So the top and the 75th centile downwards would do the same or better in a comprehensive system, while a few % at the bottom of the upper quartile do better in a grammar system?

I suppose the 'haves' say that it would be OK to have a system that on average does worse than the comprehensive system is fine because it 'doesn't disadvantage' [or may slightly advantage] the top 20%, while the 'have nots' would point to the fact that it disadvantages the majority, who bring the average down.

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

Yes there is, there always will be because equal outcomes will not be achieved. But we haven't reached the limit of what we can do, and you assume that every change costs money, which it doesn't.

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

No, not really, not at all - did you read?!

Seeker: "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."

I agree wholeheartedly and I think this is very well put. In general I heart TAs as they seem to know what's what.

Kent Data docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiZqlQ7-gn07dEZVNUJQTHNxSW9BUlZCT21MSUFqT3c#gid=0

LEA total data docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiZqlQ7-gn07dGpuUXBkcnViUlY2TmU0cFdfeEZQQ1E#gid=0

sort and play ...
direct extract from the dfe sheets

Rabbitstew: "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."

No, no and no and no again.

Firstly, it's not the lowest common denominator if these children have excellent and and established literacy, and excellent and more than competent arithmetic and maths. These things will be the highest common factor they share. And how depressing that you imagine children will be "utterly bored" by them.

Do not underestimate children and teachers. The more known about something, the more interesting it becomes. What could be boring is a dilettante knowledge about lots of things rather vaguely. Seeker asked earlier about the impact of vastly different reading levels in the same class. It does have an impact. A vast difference in comprehension, vocabulary and understanding will affect the bar of the whole class. If you are moving on to other humanities subjects that difference will affect the way they have to be taught.

Brycie
What experience do you have of schools outside Kent and away from London?
Why are you so scared of comps?
is it that you do not like the thought of kids who failed the 11+ turning into late developers and overtaking your kids?

I find it really puzzling, depressing, astonishing that teachers and parents shrug off these literacy and numeracy needs so easily. Eight million adults have the numeracy competence of seven year olds. And a seven year old these days isn't all that competent, it sometimes seems to me.

And yet, it doesn't matter, apparently? Shrug shrug shrug.