For anyone who still thinks that access to selective state education is a level playing field.....

[curlew]

I have just read the latest OfSTED for my dd's grammar school.

There are no children in Year 7 who are eligible for FSM. None. Not one.

*Add message | Report | Message poster LaQueenOfTheTimeLords Sun 01-Dec-13 20:25:

Why is it distasteful to not want my DDs to have to share their lessons with kids who disrupt the lesson, and who back-chat the teacher, and where the teacher has to waste time on crowd control, rather than actually teaching?

But we have established that isn't this case in your local comprehensive , but it is still not good enough for your children?

I quote from a previous post of mine on this thread:

"Local superselective: 0.6%

Comp round the corner from said grammar: 24.2%"

Although I do live in an affluent town, the grammar is in the least affluent part of it, and the 23% difference in the FSM rate between the grammar and the comprehensive only a few hundred yards from it is a true reflection of the contrast between area and school.

Add message | Report | Message poster LaQueenOfTheTimeLords Sun

I don't find it remotely threatening. I'm perfectly happy for other children to do very well at their really good comprehensive

The existence of grammar schools denies parents,in some areas, access to comprehensives. They also add to the irrational fear of normal children, like mine in comprehensive schools which leads parents to needlessly part with cash to enter the independent sector or to feel like they are failing their children by using the schools that 93% of us use.

Talkinpeace -

You have no case to rest. The table on that page clearly shows that the AVERAGE rate of FSM in the grammar schools of the top 200 is 11.7%, whereas the AVERAGE rate of FSM in the comprehensives of the top 200 is 15.7%. 15.7 is higher than 11.7, and reference to individual cases does not in any way nullify these averages. If you'd gone to a grammar school you'd be able to work that out.

The only reason why the article cited the differing FSM rates of the top grammars and comps was to show that the DIFFERENCE between those rates and the rates of their surrounding areas was ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. Bear in mind too that this is only comparing the comprehensives' FSM rates with the averages of their own areas. Since most of them are likely to be in affluent areas, presumeably these averages are low to start with, and the gap between FSM rates of these comps and those of the country as a whole is even greater.

IOW, when people go on about how well SOME comprehensives manage to cater to the needs of the top sets without selection, in many cases that is simply because of the covert selection that they try to pretend doesn't exist - selection by postcode.

Sorry, to correct the above: I meant the average rate of FSM in the AREAS of the grammar schools was 11.7, while the average in the AREAS of the comprehensives was 15.7.

fastloris
and the FSM in an area bears no relation to that in a school.
Show me the FSM rates for the SCHOOLS (all available from the dfe website)
and you've still not answered about the University statistics for Secondary modern kids
( you do know I've got the whole KS4 data set downloaded and sorted on my PC don't you )

ah yes the cod answer of selection by postcode
except that my postcode is the feeder for a shite academy but because we have wide catchment comps, 500 kids go from this area to the naice comp up the road

LaQueen
what would you have done if they had missed the cut?

there is no grammar School in Grimsby. Oh i Forgot Buckinghamshire Stupid me County no. 20.

Stretford Grammar is probably the Grammar School with the highest FSM intake along with the inner city Birmingham Grammars.

Stretford Grammar FSM: 10% 95% GCSE 2012 on a 13%/87% Split
Stretford High FSM: 35% 49% GCSE 2012 on a 26/56/18%Split

Edwards Handsworth FSM 6.9% 100%GCSE 2012 on a 7/93% Split
Handsworth Girls SM. FSM 45% 63%GCSE 2012 on a 35/31/14 Split.

Some interesting statistics, i think the winner on this particular set of statistics is Handsworth wood girls school. Well done to them, showing that it is possible for a non selective school with a economic deprived intake to achieve very respectable results.

LaQueen
we'd probably send them to private school, I think.
so that puts you in the top 10% by income
and well and truly into the sharp elbowed "we moved here because"
most people cannot afford to move

do not worry, you've probably done the right thing for your kids, but be very very aware that your wealth gives you a definite uphill place in the level playing field

LaQueen
what would you have done if they had missed the cut?

Probably had a complete nervous breakdown.

Fast Loris. I think the average rate for grammar schools is more like 1.7% .

That is not to say that many of the kids at grammar school don't come from families in economic difficulty because the FSM level is only set at 16K family income. I think the FSM measure is does not give a true reflection. I am sure grammar schools probably have many kids whose families are not that are not that much over the FSM threshold.

I am sure grammar schools probably have many kids whose families are not that are not that much over the FSM threshold.
evidence please
especially as in Kent some grammars take 33% of kids ex private school

I would have to ask HRMC to release families tax returns to prove that.

I BET TALKINPEACE IS NOW HAVING A LITTLE GIGGLE TO HERSELF aBOUT THAT.

only because I know that HMRC do not have a clue what any family "earns"

Why does it matter? If the DC are getting a good education in a comp, why does it matter the GS has no FSM? Complete non-issue.

I am going to have to start "CUT AND PASTING AGAIN" those from another thread who were rude to me will know what i mean.

The HMRC are a very inefficient organisation who spend far too much time chasing small business for £1500, when they should be chasing major fraud and financial irregularities committed by the elite.

THAT WAS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF THE SOUL 2000 PARTY.

NOW WE RETURN TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAMING ......

Fast - are you working from a 2005 document? Much more up-to-date information, down to school level, for 2012 is available on the DfE website.

Talkinpeace -

and the FSM in an area bears no relation to that in a school.

Of course it does. If the school were an absolutely "fair" reflection of the local area, it would have a similar rate of FSM as the average in the area. So the DIFFERENCE between the rate of FSM between the school and its area is a measure of the extent to which entrance to the school is skewed in some way, disadvantaging the poor.

As that article clearly shows, this difference is almost identical for those grammar schools in the top 200 nationally, as it is for those comprehensives in the top 200. Of course the difference would be much less for comprehensives generally. My only point was that you can't point to single or anecdotal examples of comprehensives doing well for those at the top as evidence of the general success of the comprehensive ethos. Many of those comprehensives will be so in name or theory only.

Show me the FSM rates for the SCHOOLS (all available from the dfe website)

The average FSM rates for the top 200 grammars and comprehensives is there on that page. For grammars it's 2.1% - 9.6% lower than the average for their area. For comps it's 6.0 - 9.7% lower than the average for their area. So actually the difference is slightly greater among the comps.

and you've still not answered about the University statistics for Secondary modern kids (you do know I've got the whole KS4 data set downloaded and sorted on my PC don't you)

I answered your question: I have no idea. I tried to google it using a few different terms but couldn't find it.

And strangely enough no - I don't have a telepathic connection to your mind that tells me exactly what you have on your PC. If you already know the answer why don't you just tell us? Are you playing some kind of game or something?

ah yes the cod answer of selection by postcode, except that my postcode is the feeder for a shite academy but because we have wide catchment comps, 500 kids go from this area to the naice comp up the road

As yes the cod answer of how anecdotal reports of one particular school prove general arguments. That seems to be what most of this thread is about.

Britain is an extremely diverse country with a hugely complicated mish mash of schooling systems intersecting each other and massive differences of wealth and culture then interacting with these. I honestly don't understand where people get off insisting that because X Y or Z works well in their school, it must be the answer for everybody. Some people are just not in situations where that answer is available to them.

Of course I have provided anecdotal evidence of grammar and even secondary modern successes, too. The difference however is that I'm not the one attacking other peoples' educational choices on the basis of them.

If you'd send your child privately if their coaching didn't enable them to 'walk it' into grammar school, you don't support the grammar system... You support free alternatives to school fees for the middle class.

Oh my poor nervous top set comprehensive girls... Deary me.

Fast, I ask again - are you rferring to a 2005 document?

It seems to me that, with the economic downturn, the sharp-elbowing into grammars has become significantly sharper, with families turning to that route who would previously have unthinkingly gone private.

Do you have similar up-to-date data?

It does, also, depend on what is eant by 'area'. If it is e.g. a circle of quarter of a mile around the school, that is one thing (though even that is meaningltess in many urban contexts). If youy mean 'county' or even 'whole town', it is so generic as to be meaningless.

Apologies for typos.

Add message | Report | Message poster LaQueenOfTheTimeLords Sun 01-Dec-13 21:14:12
Talkin not entirely sure, we did discuss it once and decided we'd probably send them to private school, I think.

So you don't really agree with the grammar system, because you would not put your child in a secondary modern. You just want to keep your children away from the riff raff but want to do so, preferably, at the taxpayers expense.