Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Grammar Schools : the debate is about what happens NOW

519 replies

TalkinPeace · 15/12/2013 16:09

In the 20 years after WW2, when the baby boomers were kids, grammar schools did amazing things for social mobility.

But then, self preservation kicked back in
and since 1970, selective state schools have become progressively less inclusive
to the extent today where the (grammar school educated head of OFSTED) says
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25386784

the death knell has been rung
as it has for DB pensions (another great Baby Boomer nest lining idea)

so lets bite the bullet and put equal resources into all schools and reduce the carbon footprint of the grammar school madness.

OP posts:
Original poster
TalkinPeace · 18/12/2013 11:42

metebilis
you commented that catchments are tiny
they are in Central London but not elsewhere
I've linked to the maps of several to prove my point
please link to some maps to prove yours

OP posts:
nibs777 · 18/12/2013 11:46

agree with what higgle said

higgle · 18/12/2013 11:52

Thanks, nibs. In Gloucestershire there are no catchment areas for grammar schools, as long as you can satisfy them you can turn up it doesn't matter where you live.

Original poster
TalkinPeace · 18/12/2013 11:56

higgle
there are no catchment areas for grammar schools, as long as you can satisfy them you can turn up it doesn't matter where you live.
which is fine for those who can afford the transport
(something I constantly get picked up on for taking my kids to other than my local school)
children like your husband would only be able to go if they lived near enough ....
the property catchment trap that others rant about

surely it would be better if ALL the schools had sets to support and push "grammar school" kids?
that is what comps do after all.

OP posts:
Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 12:05

talkin No that was word.

soul2000 · 18/12/2013 12:13

Why Can't a Non Selective school in a fully selective 25/75% split fulfil its potential and get its pupils 5Cs.

I think the main reason to this is not that they have had the top 25% Omitted ( These Pupils should be A*to Bs anyway) but is a case of a malignant 20% or so of pupils who are disruptive , can't learn or just bad.
These 20% or so destroy the learning and potential of the rest .

Therefore ( I Expect to get Flamed for this) the Malignant 20% of pupils in these and other schools should be sent to ( Dustbin Units). No one including disruptive pupils would want to be sent to somewhere called (Dustbin Units) therefore their behaviour would improve no end .
The result would be at least 70% of the middle 75% split would achieve their potential of 5Cs.

wordfactory · 18/12/2013 12:44

Talkin you are confusing a school's theoretical catchment area, as opposed to the reality.

One school near me has a theoretical catchment area of several miles. In reality no one has ever got a place who doesn't live in the few streets surrounding it. This is what happens when schools are over subscribed.

And yes those properties are the preserve of the wealthy.

Not London BTW.

Original poster
TalkinPeace · 18/12/2013 12:57

wordfactory
if you check the admissions data for the schools I linked to maps for, they admit kids from out of catchment as well as in

within DCs school catchment, house prices vary from £8 million to £98,000 and council flats go cheaper
out of the 1500 kids, over 300 are from outside the catchment

I do not know of any school round here that does not take all of its catchment kids - the catchment boundaries join up to cover every street in the county.
That is the point of catchments.

Please find me an example from outside London where a comp has turned away catchment kids.

OP posts:
Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 13:06

Word the 'city' in which I live (which is tiny and smaller than the London borough in which I grew up) has a linked school system for comp admission. The primary schools all have the whole 'city' as their catchment area, officially. In practice the 'good' ones have an effective catchment that is very small and rarely mixed. There is also a booming (ridiculously so given the size of the city and the average income of the region) private sector which basically caters for almost all the people who live in a 'bad' catchment. The only primary school which isn't strictly catchmented in practice is the one my DC's attend(ed) because that;s a church school. And it isn't seen as a Good School.

curlew · 18/12/2013 13:12

"There is also a booming (ridiculously so given the size of the city and the average income of the region) private sector which basically caters for almost all the people who live in a 'bad' catchment. "

So almost all the people in the "bad" catchment go private? Huh? If they can afford private, what are they doing in the"bad" catchment?

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 13:28

curlew The whole city is the official catchment so my use of words was clumsy - I should have said 'outside the magic circle of roads 'feeding' the school they would find acceptable'. I suppose that one of the reasons why said parents can afford to go private is the way (identical) house prices plummet off a cliff at the point which you leave the guaranteed place in the desirable school.

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 13:30

Obviously I made a crucial omission from my previous post which should have read 'almost all the people who could scrape together the fees ...'

The people from whom they are fleeing do not follow them into the posh schools. :(

curlew · 18/12/2013 13:37

You know what? Most of the problems with education in the UK could be solved if we could somehow convince people that "thick" "oik" and "chav" are not infectious diseases.

missinglalaland · 18/12/2013 14:01

Just wanting to pull back a little here.

For me, the crux of the matter is the tension between what is good for my child vs. what is good for society as a whole.

From the passion on this thread, I would say it is all but unresolvable. The political trick is to make my narrow interests align with the broader interests.

I am willing to admit that I take the world as I find it, and will I strive to secure the best education for my daughters that I can. I cannot change the world on my own and my primary responsibility is to guide my dc through this world as best I can. Others might berate me for my lack of public spiritedness, but I think I am in the majority, when you look at what people actually do. And there is a certain morality in caring for and nurturing your own dc. You are the only parents they have and they are depending on you.

Any attempts to lay down draconian laws that stop parents from educating their children as they see fit, seem to take us down a Stalinist slippery slope. Whenever parents are belittled or punished for nurturing and educating their children I feel repulsed. Why should they be told that human aspiration and achievement is not for the likes of them? Shouldn't go getting ideas above their station all those rotten sharp elbowed, middle class parents, eh?

curlew · 18/12/2013 14:48

I agree with you, missing. I thnk what I find most frustrating about the grammar school debate is that "grammar school"children won't miss out by going to a comprehensive- they do just as well in a comprehensive as in a selective school. But the "secondary modern" children do worse than they would at a comprehensive. So getting rid of the remaining grammar schools wouldn't actually make any difference to the kids at them, but it would make a difference to the others. So grammar school parents could be altruistic without any cost to themselves, if you see what I mean.

Original poster
TalkinPeace · 18/12/2013 14:54

missinglala
You are right.
And I fully admit to being somebody who drives my kids past a dire school to a good school every morning.

My viewpoint is skewed by the fact that DH works in education and trying to encourage kids all over the country to realise they have, and then work towards, their potential.

I am also very aware as an employer and adviser to small businesses that disengaged kids can become crime waves in very small groups and anything that stops disaffected kids considering burglary and vandalism as valid life options has got to be worth a try.

THAT is why I am so vehement against segregating the less mathematical and grammatical out of any chance of choosing a different path when they are only 10.

OP posts:
missinglalaland · 18/12/2013 14:57

curlew I think the problem is that people aren't sure that the kids at grammar school would do just as well.

Original poster
TalkinPeace · 18/12/2013 15:00

missinglala
then they should learn how to read statistics because the DFE information makes it perfectly clear that high achievers at "naice leafy comps" do as well if not better than kids at the vast majority of Grammar schools (which are in naice leafy areas)

have a much lower carbon footprint
and have enjoyed the latter years of their primary school a not more (no tutoring or 11+ stress)

OP posts:
curlew · 18/12/2013 15:03

Missing- so why don't they look at the figures? And the very telling point that the wholly selective LEAs have the same % of A*s and As as the neighbouring non selective ones!

KatnipEvergreen · 18/12/2013 15:11

I just want my daughter to go a secondary school where the overall ethos is that it's good to be enthusiastic and to want to learn.

Whatever I think of grammar schools, that's the system we have where we live, and we're not going to move out of the area away from family or not put her in for the grammar test because the system isn't ideal. If she does the test and passes she will have more choice of schools, simple as that.

Original poster
TalkinPeace · 18/12/2013 15:18

and if she does not pass?

OP posts:
3asAbird · 18/12/2013 16:05

Talking peace

I suspect redland green basically school for cliftonites and redland people and maybe cotham as good examples of other senior comprehensiveswithin aother city outside london ie bristol.

Which leaves lot of wealthy parents in bs9 gloucester rd/bishopston some people call it little lodon with some good primaries but sink senior schools miles away.

What do i want for my dd.

a smallish school where shes safe and nurtured, happy.
That they push her if shes bright or give her extra help ifs shes strugling.
Not much bullying
good ethos of working hard
decent range subjects ie not many schools offer triple scinece.
good facilities.
smart uniform
good communication and behaviour.
lots extra curricular opportunities
good gcse/alevel results
decent amount going onto to good unis.

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 16:05

curlew it wouldn't make a difference to most of the kids at Kent Grammar schools to abolish them and I agree with you that Kent grammar schools should be abolished. Superselectives are a different issue.

Original poster
TalkinPeace · 18/12/2013 16:14

3asaBird
I agree with most of your list, but

big schools offer more subjects - DCs has 1500 pupils - ie 300 per year and offers lots of options

the highest performing school in this area has the mankiest uniform - and my local school has a lovely uniform - books / covers all that

OP posts:
summerends · 18/12/2013 16:20

Most people agree that results in these tables reflect good exam preparation coupled with varying levels of pupil diligence. Even the percentage of A* at A level does not necessarily reflect how much pupils are stretched in their thinking skills and knowledge outside the exam curriculum ( more tested in the various university aptitude tests). That's why most are not convinced by those stats alone as to which type of school best serves brighter children, comprehensive or grammar.