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.

They have made a film of belle and Sebastian. I saw posters for it when I was in Paris a few weeks ago. I guess it won't get a wide release here though.

I used to like The Flashing Blade (I can still sing the whole song) and the one about the Lapland boy. And obviously Robinson Crusoe (we have that on DVD). That was a classic. In every sense of the word.

You can get old Belle and Sebastian DVD s on Amazon. I loved the music, but not as much as I liked the music of 'White Horses' . And Champion the Wonder Horse was the best.

But Sundays....

So the question is whether the low numbers of FSM children at grammars is because a lower percentage of those that sit the test PASS it, or whether it's just because a lower percentage of them SIT it, in the first place.
I strongly suspect that the latter is the case.

Surely the issue is that they should have either abolished all grammars or kept a grammar for each catchment, hence taking away the bonkers competition which makes it even less fair for those who are not tutored or have parents that can't or won't tutor.

My DH and his brother were a typical example of this, not FSM but very working class with parents who always worked 7 days a week and parked them in front of TV, DH never did a single piece of homework in his whole primary education, never mind read a single book. He was sat for his grammar school by his school and passed, this was his and his brother's making. There is no way on earth he would have passed today, with that sort of upbringing.

I still don't understand why ethically you can have so few grammar schools, it's either a fair system or it isn't, surely we all pay the same taxes and should have access to the same type of state education wherever you live.

If they either abolished or re-instated more grammar schools, a lot more FSM children would get in as there would be less competition and more chances of looking at potential.

I loved the music for White Horses too and The Flashing Blade! Also loved Daktari, Zorro and Tarzan...

I am sooo glad we are not in a grammar school area. My DD1 is at an excellent comp and thankfully DD2 will be joining her in 2015.

Summer I think that.

When my DS first suggested it I thought nah not for us,he'd have to be tutored for hours and it's not the sort of place I want him to be.

Then I visited,really liked it,spoke to the staff,listened to the head encouraging all to have a go.Went home with some papers to look at.

Maybe I'm in cloud cuckoo but he'll have his go.

I'm an ex teacher so if I was put off I can see why those with far less confidence would be.

Lord above-Daktari! I had forgotten Daktari!

With Clarence the cross eyed lion. :)

And a couple of young men whose names I can't remember but who set my girlish heart aflutter- I knew not why......

When I was a kid my parents took the view that the local selective wasn't for the likes of us WC folks. The WC parents of my friends were similar. Working at the local factory was good enough for them so why would their kids want to go to university?

It's so easy to blame The System when often it's a lack of aspiration on the part of the families.

In this interview Michael Wilshaw is clear about the need for a diverse mix of social class and abilities in school:

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/michael-wilshaw-ofsted-teachers-schools

'He abhors the social exclusivity that sees a good school becomes a middle-class school because of the £200,000 premium on homes in its catchment area.

And he has no time for grammar schools. "Grammar schools are stuffed full of middle-class kids", he says. "A tiny percentage are on free school meals: 3%. That is a nonsense. Anyone who thinks grammar schools will increase social mobility needs to look at those figures."'

straggle I interpret that part of the article slightly differently to you.
He seems to be saying that energies should be focused on improving all schools whatever their locality rather than trumping up either successful comprehensives with selection by house prices or grammars with selection by middle class tutoring as excuses not to address England's patchy education system and poor social mobility.

Michael Wilshaw just abhors anyone who doesn't agree with him.

summerends there's another Guardian article that quotes him in more detail with the headline

Ofsted chief declares war on grammar schools

'Anyone who thinks grammar schools are going to increase social mobility needs to look at those figures. I don't think they work. The fact of the matter is that there will be calls for a return to the grammar school system. Well, look what is happening at the moment. Northern Ireland has a selective system and they did worse than us in the [international comparison] table. The grammar schools might do well with 10% of the school population, but everyone else does really badly.'

Il think that's pretty clear.

And all the comments slagging him off on the BBC story are from people who went to Grammars pre 1970
so are urtterly missing the point that he is talking about Grammar schools as they are today
not how they were when I was five.

Grammar schools do not enhance social mobility.
Many of their advocates like them for that very reason.

I don't understand grammar schools. It is clear that they do not enhance social mobility (nowadays anyway). It must be a terrible blow for a child to try and fail to get in and be sent to the poorer performing secondary modern. I don't think the state should fund selective education, it makes no sense to discriminate against the huge percentage of children who don't get in. If parents want socially and academic selection, they should pay for it.

Of course modern grammar schools don't enhance social mobility. And harking back to some mythical golden age of grammar schools is just wishing to return to a class sytem where the majority were not really thought worth educating to a particularly high standard, because they'd be off into the workplace asap to work in factories and academics and "posh" people didn't really know how to educate "that sort" anyway. It might help if the state had the faintest idea what it was really educating us all for. I hope it's not just to be able to come top of the Pisa and OECD league tables.

Vs will enhance social mobility for my son. We are middle class. We are not rich enough to pay full private school. We are not poor enough to qualify for bursaries. I believe gs provide social mobility for the "much under the cosh", beleaguered and under appreciated middle classes.

Social mobility for the middle class... Yeah, you don't see too many placards demanding that, do you?

Sorry, I meant GS not VS.

If comprehensives are failing to provide social mobility, the problem lies here - where most children are educated - why are comprehensives not delivering?

What evidence is there that comprehensives are failing to provide social mobility?
link please

If schools are responsible for social mobility, and if social mobility is failing, then logically the fault lies with the type of school most are educated in - anything else is just polemic.

No,
the problem is that selective and private schools are rather too good at pushing their kids into top places at the expense of equally able kids with less rich / motivated parents

the argument in favour of selective state is that it gives wider options to those who would not otherwise get them
but that is not the case
so get rid of them and allow ALL state school kids a level playing field