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.

Read something not so long ago saying even in seaside towns with high unemployment issues Alevel results I think it was were higher across the board,will try and find it.

curlew, so the schools in Kent that aren't GSs are offering an equally valuable non-academic education?

My point is that the SMs were never mean't to have a top set.

Also some parents apply for grammar because their kids haven't a hope in hell of getting into their local decent comp via catchment.

As stated in a similar thread, the Sutton Trust found earlier this year that the top 500 comprehensives (out of 3000 secondaries) are "more socially exclusive", "teach fewer than half the national average proportion of children eligible for free school meals" and very often didn't even represent "their own local authority area." "These schools open the door to social mobility. Yet the bottom line is that how good a school you go to depends on your parents' income." The Trust pointed out that covert selection was taking place either by catchment area or faith and that 106 of the schools in the top 500 had fewer than 3% on fsm.

Yeah but . . . yeah but . . . that's different. The people sending their kids to those schools can still indulge their pretense of inclusiveness because there's nothing stopping all the failing kids in inner city sink schools from traveling 3 hours each way to their excellent comprehensive. And don't forget that if one comprehensive is good, it proves that the whole system works everywhere. And that fewer than 3% FSM is a savage indictment of the grammar system, but just one of those things when it happens in the comprehensive system.

So let the smug lecturing continue. After all, little Tarquin may not actually have any FSM children in his class. But at least he theoretically could have if they could afford half a million for a house. And that's what counts.

And, considering the actual very small percentage of pupils who attend grammar schools...even if you did inject them back into the comp system, I don't think their small numbers would do much/anything to improve our educational standing on an international level.

The children at grammar schools are of course counted within the overall statistics from which our international standing is measured. As for how "injecting" them back into the comprehensive system is supposed to raise the attainment of the others - that's a commonly expressed assumption but a complete mystery to me. As far as I know noone has ever produced any evidence to show that average and low achieving children in a school get inspired to greater outcomes by the presence of high achieving children in the same building, but that doesn't stop people claiming it as a given.

And then quite apart from the facts of the matter, there's the moral question of whether it even should be the responsibility of the highest achieving children to be used as pawns to lift up the others.

Banding with other nice, middle-class children is what many of the top comprehensive schools have already - a lottery would rather spoil the mix wouldn't it? The Sutton Trust pointed out that the Converter Academies were amongst the worst offenders for social selection. However, when I was at grammar school in the 1980s there must have been at least 4 girls in each class from the very grotty council estates nearby - not many of them at the grammar school now (super-selective with a huge catchment area) - but they have got the worst performing comprehensive in the borough on their doorstep instead.

"As far as I know noone has ever produced any evidence to show that average and low achieving children in a school get inspired to greater outcomes by the presence of high achieving children in the same building, but that doesn't stop people claiming it as a given."

Lots of evidence to show that they can when in the same class and it's not about using dc as pawns. In an ideal world all DC would be working to the best of their ability in a group setting, all learning from each other in one way or another. Unless you think that only high achieving DC have something valuable to contribute.

Retro the Spectator blog makes some good points but I'm not sure it has all the answers.

The whole rat race/ competition case sounds a long way from the influences in many families in my borough where a huge ratio of families have never had an employed adult male. And in terms of museum and cultural uptake many of the disadvantaged kids have never ever been taken by their parents - the museums and central London feel a million miles away, culturally. Though obviously easily accessible to those who use them, especially since London offers free bus travel to school children.

I also agree that diversity actually adds something to education but there as many disaffected black boys engaged in or victims of gang activity as there are children of aspirant and hard studying Jamaicans or Asian Tiger Moms.

The house prices in London don't automatically mean that it is the rich and wealthy who live here. Huge numbers in social housing, huge numbers of people in ordinary jobs squeezed into small flats and under pressure to pay the mortgage. Huge numbers of families which do not have the luxury of a sahm who can take care of tutoring within the family because of the need for both parents to work f/t to pay the rent or mortgage. I think it all mitigates against the perfect environment for educational success as well as supporting it.

I do think though, that while many mc parents are concerned that their children will be distracted or disrupted by children of lower socio economic groups, what actually happens is that children who will do well will do well - but the fact that everyone is different in London school means that no one is restricted as to who they use as a role model. So children from non-motivated backgrounds can actually re-invent themselves in school, with the right support.

My cousin's children are in a school typified by rural deprivation and isolation, and they do not have the mix of kids within which they can find any inspiration, and it is pretty dire. Idyllic area though..... The sort of place people would love to move to escape London madness.

And then there is the significant pupil premium, which at a high critical mass in many London schools may actually be making a difference. As it should.

In DC's comp banding in no way reflects any class or economic divisions!

"And then there is the significant pupil premium, which at a high critical mass in many London schools may actually be making a difference. As it should."

Our small rural primary is working with a school in Hackney in a knowledge and expertise sharing venture. Pupils in Hackney receive four times as much funding as our pupils do. That money enables all sorts of targeted interventions to be put in place which I am sure makes a huge difference.

Picked Do you know what those monies are, in addition to Pupil Premium? If the success of London schools in enabling it's poorest pupils to outstrip national averages is in additional financial investment then it should be replicated across the land! As a higher priority than grammarisation, because according to another feature in The Spectator by Chris Cook (I can't link it is behind a registration wall, but you don't have to pay), poor children in London do better overall than poor children in Kent. Therefore the grammar system in Kent does not do what it should - offer success to poor children.

Caro, please don't cite genuine experience on these threads. It only gets in the way of the beleaguered rhetoric. Decent comps are only in posh areas and their results are only achieved by posh kids. Any attempt to invoke reality will be shouted down.

My daughter's in a local comp (we dont have any grammar schools in our LA).
She's set for English, Maths Science and IT and in the top set ...its a small cohort (60) because it only recently changed to secondary status so the major in take is still Yr 9 ...
We have been surprised at the level of high achievers within the cohort (nearly 50%), these children are already mostly working at level 6 and 7 in the set subjects ...there has been some disruption in the top from one of the high achieving boys - who has now for some reason left the school - so disruption can happen from high achievers too (he would have passed the 11 plus quite easily)
There has also been disruption in French and Music - classes that were not set and at a recent mentor session I brought this up because my daughter thought her music level might drop because of the disruption mainly in practical sessions ...

The form tutor reacted immediately stating that if this was happening it was unacceptable and the following week my daughter commented that action had been taken and I had a phone call last week from her tutor to confirm what action had been taken ...and she also stated that what ever had happened obviously had little impact on my daughter because in the recent tests she had scored full marks on the one 92% on the other.

So there is disruption but I personally think that this could happen in any school given that you can see from above high achievers can also sound off...

We had the option for my DD to go to an independent but I'm glad that we have gone the route we have ... My DD's in a situation where she's an only child and she probably wants for very little she was previously at a village middle school in an affluent area where all the kids compared what designer wear they had and the kids who didn't wear designer wear were picked on a bullied ...it was quite amusing some of the conversations evolved around how big your house was and what car your dad drove...

The school that she now attends seems to have well grounded kids from a mixture of backgrounds where there seems to be very little bullying which is such a relief....Joey doesnt need to wear Jack Wills and it doesn't matter if Katie's mum drives a 15 year old car ...

'We have been surprised at the level of high achievers within the cohort (nearly 50%), these children are already mostly working at level 6 and 7 in the set subjects.'

This is in year 7? A cohort of 60 drawn from where? I'm sure there is a 'selection' story of some sorts behind this lottysmum as those figures are way above national averages.

I do think though, that while many mc parents are concerned that their children will be distracted or disrupted by children of lower socio economic groups

I'm sorry I really object to that statement.

Neither I nor anyone I know gives a toss about socio-economic groups. It might be an issue in some very snobby areas and schools, I don't know. It certainly isn't as far as the average "mc" parent seeking a decent education for their child is concerned.

What parents are concerned about is their children being distracted or disrupted by disaffected children who don't have a constructive attitude to school. Economic deprivation is ONE REASON why SOME children develop such disaffection, but it is by no means the only one and by no means all (or even most) deprived children respond in such a way. There are all kinds of other reasons too including lack of genuine parental involvement, familial dysfunction, excessively screen-based media-centered lifestyles etc, that affect all kinds of children including relatively wealthy ones.

The thing about the 11+ is that it tends (imperfectly, but still) to weed out all of those kinds of children because it favours those who have a love of learning and reading in their background (which is not just a question of money - it comes down much more to parental involvement), and some sense of self discipline and ability to delay gratification.

As LaQueen said earlier, I couldn't give a toss what somebody's parents do for a living as long as they're sitting next to my child listening, involved and at the very least not disrupting others. The smaller numbers of economically poorer children in grammar schools is just an unfortunate by-product of selection, not the point of it.

Caro I haven't seen the info you are asking for but can try to seek it out. The figure was mentioned at our last Governors' meeting.

FastLoris- so what would you do if your child didn't pass the 11+ and had to go to school with the unfiltered majority?

FastLoris - "Economic deprivation is ONE REASON why SOME children develop such disaffection, but it is by no means the only one and by no means all (or even most) deprived children respond in such a way."

I heartily agree. But time and time again a high FSM ratio is quoted as a possible risk factor in the choice of a school. Why would that be if it was simply behaviour that was taken into consideration? And why are so many people in suburban areas apparently keen to buy smaller houses in the catchment of a school which attracts richer parents who can afford the higher house prices if there is not a huge overlap in the middle of the Venn diagram in the minds of many mc parents?

I said 'many' mc parents, I didn't say 'you'.

Agree with FastLoris

I couldn't care less if someone is the son of a lord or son of a bricklayer but would favour an academically charged environment for my DS where he is surrounded by children as equally motivated as him to learn in the classroom.

I do think 11+ process aids selection on that basis (of course that's not to say those that do not pass in a super-selective environment don't meet that criteria but those that do pass very likely will). Even if a child is tutored, they still have to be willing to put the hours in to prepare for the test and so much of the tutoring no doubt will be extra homework on top of regular school work. The disaffected are unlikely to do that.

And curlew, if one's child doesn't get into grammar then if one is happy with the other local state alternatives you go for those, if you are not and you can afford it, you move for catchment or choose private - all of which gives you choice. And yes, money buys choice in this world. But instead of decrying other people having choices or for being aspiring middle classes etc. or wanting to advance their children's education opportunities to the best they can, why not rail against the machine itself which provides state choices that are not up to the mark in the first place.

"And curlew, if one's child doesn't get into grammar then if one is happy with the other local state alternatives you go for those, if you are not and you can afford it, you move for catchment or choose private - all of which gives you choice. "

I didn't say "one". I said "you". I want to know whether the grammar school advocates on this thread would be happy to send their child to the alternative. Because if you aren't, why do you think other people should?

no-one said you should have to accept a unsatisfactory education choice ...no-one should ....but I have a choice and so will exercise it...again rail against the machine... rather than tear down people for having middle class aspirations and choice.

Pickled - Definitely no selection story - one feeder primary (that only turned into a primary 2 years ago because of a failing middle school) where about 40 of the children came from (virtually all the Year 6)...then the other 20 are just children's whose parents opted to take their children out of the middle school early because they prefer 2 tier education ...the children came from about 5 or 6 different middle schools ... It is a big school 1250 pupils but the big intake will be Year 9...meanwhile the children in Year 7 & 8 will enjoy (in the main) having small class sizes (3 classes)...although like I said 28 are in the top set at present where as last year it was 14-16 pupils....

"The smaller numbers of economically poorer children in grammar schools is just an unfortunate by-product of selection, not the point of it"

Its not a by-product of selection at all - its a by-product of middle class parents using tutors to get their children into the grammar schools ...if you have read any of the articles in the press in the last 12 months you will see that Buckinghamshire and Kent LA's are desperately trying to change the entrance exams so that tutored children are not given an unfair advantage over non tutored children ....

I'm an older mum who was around at the time when Grammar schools served their purpose - to give every bright child the same opportunity to be in a strong academic environment ...my brother passed the 11 plus at that time (I failed), he was offered a place which was turned down because he wanted to go to school with all his friends. It didn't have any major disadvantage has it happens because he's FD of a large LA and 40 years later still remains friends with the lads who became car mechanics or what ever career they chose to do ....

I'm keen to see the bright kids whose parents cant afford to put their children into independent schools and cant afford tutors rightfully get offered places again at grammar schools .....

Curlew, you keep on asking the same question, despite getting fairly consistent answers ie it depends on the school and the chances our DCs have of progressing in it. As you have said, you think your DS will do fine in your secondary modern with your help. If all else failed and my DC was getting severely bullied or becoming disaffected (in any school type) and I did n't have choice by money then I would probably consider home ed.

Curlew 1 or 2 of mine will use the alternative.

Does your question go to parents with kids in private too?