11+ being scrapped

[musu]

At one school in Essex here

Interesting development which follows on from Bucks CC overhauling their 11+ and trying to make it tutor proof (although everyone I know in Bucks is still employing tutors).

Nope. That is one of my arguments against selective education.

However, it is a powerful one. Unless you believe that poor children are intrinsically thicker than not poor children. Which I presume you don't. So there must be some explanation for the vanishingly small number of children on FSM in grammar schools........

I thought there was an increasing number seeker.

Also, as far as distance from school goes as an admissions tie breaker for the last available place, the chances are that the furthest away child will actually be from the better off and more 'involved' background. You are of course nit picking about a maximum of one place a year of course, and I'd like to know what your suggestion is for deciding in a dead heat/

Yellow tip- I don't have a problem with proximity for tie breaking- surely there isn't any other way to do it? [puzzled emoticon]

Yellowtip, not really relevant to the main subject of this thread, but relevant in relation to the concept of 'super-selectives', if I am right in assuming that your DCs go to the one selective school left in your county, can you clarify how this came about? Presumably, the LEA did not decide to close all the selective schools but this one - or did they?

Well you claim that even superselectives 'use geography' which they do in this one teeny weeny barely worth mentioning instance. But since it's statistically more likely to lead to the less 'advantaged' child securing the place, it makes sense.

You seem to know a vast amount about the perceived benefits of tutoring seeker. I think you vastly overrate the advantage it gives at least to a child at a reasonable primary. And there must be hundreds of fairly useless tutors out there feeding off parental worry whose tutees nevertheless fail to get in to their grammar of choice.

The maths papers included the whole of the Y6 syllabus in order to allow children the capacity to attempt sufficient questions to secure a pass, regardless of the order in which their particular primary had taught the syllabus. That was fair, not intended in any way to catch anyone out. Obviously if a child covers the entire syllabus by the middle of the autumn term, provided he's dextrous with the concepts, he's at an advantage. But he has to be capable of reasoning first. Some schools require a pass in English first before the maths even becomes relevant. More and more schools are going down the Durham route and more are gearing up on English. There's a widespread consensus in the grammar school circles that the advantages of formal tutoring should be negated. Your own argument against selective education in the future seems to hinge overwhelmingly on the sins of the recent past. That's not a great way to move forward and it certainly isn't a 'powerful' argument - in fact it's quite weak.

I felt that i needed to comment on the 11+ i am on J.S.A and my DD passed her 11+ with just a few bond books that the primary school teachers found me. The Kent test with a score of 416 last year, no one in my family ever passed the 11+ before, i basically left school in year 9 due to becoming pregnant,and have a very poor education. seeker this is my DD"S one chance to escape the cycle that has dogged my family for years. SOCIALLY has been the biggest problem this year. My DD has trouble believing that she belongs with the "MIDDLE CLASS KIDS" but do you not think my DD deserves a chance to do better than me or her close family.

Cecily there are others in the county but not the particular LEA. I can only assume all others became comps (the nearest was about 10 miles away) but I didn't live here during my school years. What I do know for sure is that there was enormous local support for this particular school and there have been various campaigns since to ensure it retained its selective status.

I only mentioned the geography thing to refute Bonsoir's grammar schools are a market place claim.

ok i told a little fib, one of the primary school teaches gave up 1 full day 2 weeks before the exams to help DD with her VR, and little bits of help before that at luchtimes. It is possible for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds like mine to pass, its "HARDER" no one says it inst but it can be done.

Yellowtip-'do you have an explanation for the low number of children on FSM in grammar schools?

MY DD"S on F.S.M

Thanks anyway, Yellowtip. It just seems such a strange thing - could it have been local government changes?

There's is a well documented average gap of 9.6% in FSM between grammar schools and their surrounding areas. Happy to link if you want.

I think seeker is right i think in last 2 decades, the number of people with F.S.M at Grammar Schools has probaly decreased, but thats because not enough kids from deprived backgrounds are getting there.probaly 20 years ago more working class kids % got to Grammar School, than today. Therefore has i have said why not use the "PUPIL PREMIUM" to tutor bright working class kids, that would even out the discrepancies between, those who can afford tutoring and those that cant.

It could also be to do with the fact that many parents,from working class communties,think their kids have no chance and wont even give it a try,and thats down to the schools. Because if a kid as a chance whatever his or her background,the school should be encouraging them to at least have an attempt, and if they dont pass,dont make the kids believe its the end of the world.

I think that recently the percentage claiming may have increased not decreased since more of those eligible are actually claiming. This is due to the economic climate as well as the advent of cashless canteens. Not everyone eligible claims and not everyone who claims wants it known. This is speculation, but I would expect there are more parents eligible to claim in grammar schools who don't than there are in other schools where the percentage claiming is relatively high.

Less well off children will only get a place if they're entered for the test. There isn't the support for selective education in primary schools that there once was and the sort of attitude displayed by seeker, that these are middle class ghettos and the untutored don't stand a chance, creates a momentum of disincentive all of its own. It really is very pernicious, however well meant. These are exactly the same issues of access that Oxford and Cambridge and other top universities have had to address. The two could dovetail really.

I'd like to see superselectives rolled out across the country, kids actively encouraged by primary heads to apply, tests made tutor proof and financial aid given to cover transport so that there are no real barriers to access in the way.

Parents might not claim F.S.M but the numbers who get the pupil premium would probaly tell, who might or might not be eligible for F.S.M and the schools, are no displaying how many kids got the pupil premium and what it was used for.

forget the word no. sorry

"Vanishingly small" does not mean getting smaller.

"Vanishingly small" means very small.

A child will only get the Pupil Premium if its parent actually applies for FSM. A child does not get the Pupil Premium unless it's properly registered for FSM.

Yellow tip. Thanks i thought pupil premium would be automatic based on the families income, and that parents would not need to claim it.