Theresa May to end ban on grammar schools part 2

[noblegiraffe]

Continuation of the first thread from here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/2702565-Theresa-May-to-end-ban-on-grammar-schools

2stripedsocks-please don't do that. You know perfectly well what I mean.

How old is your dad, by the way? When were his grammar school days?

But what if said doctor was unemployed for a couple of months during which his kids received pupil premium? What is he then and are his kids disadvantaged?

I have contemporaries from Cambridge who live on a very low income, and their children receive FSM and pupil premium. Yet from an educational perspective their children are advantaged, as their parents were educated to PhD level. Most reasonable measures of advantage and disadvantage would take into account both current income (address, FSM, pupil premium) and parental education.

I don't think it is reasonable to compare those who took the 11+ 50 year ago with those who are taking it today. Fifty years ago there was no culture of tutoring and the results were probably a much fairer representation of ability than they are nowadays.

But just in case you genuinely dont know what I mean, it is my unacceptable reasons which are the shocking truth about selective education. If only it were juSt being articulate.

The reintroduction of selection is going to sell in areas where schools are underperforming and where parents feel their able DC are insufficiently challenged and stretched. The OFSTED reports Clavinova linked to names one of its participants as a school that I know a bit about as several of my PGCE group had placements there; inadequate covers it perfectly. OFSTED also state explicitly that schools' failure to stretch able DC, of whatever background, fails all society by not identifying talent and educating potential future leaders. This leaves the path clear for those who (predominantly) attended independent schools to dominate the professions and "top" jobs, thus entrenching privilege. Independent school parents are very clear that they are paying for results, and giving their DC the best start. Selection has less appeal in leafy MC suburbs where admissions are closely correlated with property prices. A significant proportion of the top executives I used to work with and for were grammar school or Direct Grant educated in the 50s and 60s; more recently, they went to fee-paying public schools. We are arguing in circles here, aren't we?

Bert I appreciate that for you, crap schools has nothing to do with a debate on grammars. After all your dc would be in one of the good comprehensives. But until everyone has that same opportunity, crap schools, and those that are inadequate at providing for able dc will remain a driving factor behind the argument in favour of grammars.

I think you miss the point I'm making about grades. Not every able child will have all the same advantages as your child. Therefore they need the school to support them if they are to reach their potential. So in the case of a child with equal ability to your ds, instead of getting the a*/a, they'll coast to b.

My point about trying refers to the top most able, the group that get the top grades regardless.And for that group, the consequence is never having to make an effort, or face a challenge.

"My point about trying refers to the top most able, the group that get the top grades regardless.And for that group, the consequence is never having to make an effort, or face a challenge"
Frankly, in a world of limited resources, I don't think tax payers money should be spent on a child like that. It would be wonderful if there was enough money, but there isn't. And if I had a child who could coast to 8,9 or 10 A*s with absolutely no effort at all I would be looking for out of school challenges, not demanding that resources are
taken away from kids who are on the brink of being consigned to an underclass.

Oh, and I have no idea why you think I live in an area of potential "good" comprehensives

I have never had an answer to my very simple question.
Why did my academic RG university son need to be in a different school to his brother who was not academic and left at 16yrs to get an apprenticeship?

What sort of apprenticeship and what sort of RG FreshHorizons?

I think it is really important we stretch the potential of even the very brightest children - and that means investing in them. We in Britain especially need future scientists that can solve life threatening diseases or invent something that can make out lives for the better. We need doctors, we need engineers and we need bright intelligent leaders. The more demanding and intellectual the career the more they also contribute to the society as a whole. It doesn't mean I don't value the street cleaner - I absolutely do, but it would be nonsense IMO not to invest in those getting A* grades. It's not about coasting or zero effort. It's far from that. It's about investing an individual who may, reward the rest of society by achieving 10X.

If we learn anything about the UK's brilliant achievements at the Olympics is that by prioritising 'elite' athletes over ordinary ones medals have been won in sports previously deemed 'impossible' for British athletes .

This is true in all life especially in education!

Having high ability is not a 'privilege' ,being able to use it or benefit from it is !

bert I was making the point that wherever they are within the general category of 'able', whether that is 'coast to straight top grades' or 'should have got an average of b but ended up with straight c's, able dc lose out unless they have all the other advantages in life. Which you seem to mistakenly assume go hand in hand with academic ability. They don't. And until the inequality in comprehensive education is actually sorted, it is this group that bear the majority of the burden of the low achieving disadvantaged children. Not the all round advantaged dc's who mostly attend the better comprehensives.

I know you don't live in a comp area. But I'm also assuming you don't live in a deprived area, and therefore the alternative to academic selection for your dc isn't a crap comp. Whereas for many children it is.

Olympic athletes aren't trained within the state school system with state school funding

It was much better in the same one because they had the same days off - same events - all the friends in the neighbourhood- they were not judged as one being better than the other and I had a long history of knowing the school and the school knew the family.

I don't want to give enough details to identify me but my university graduate son did a highly academic science subject at his first choice of university. He would have chosen the same whatever the school.
The apprentice one is highly skilled and now in charge of large projects supervising 25 workers, most of whom are older than him.

I can't see any advantage for either to have had to have a different building.

CookieDough is right that we need able people and also that they do not just coast if they are in a better school.
The very bright may find things come more easily, but they do work very hard. At a private selective day school I have experience of, because of academic work and also because of extra curricular activities done to a high level too, by the sixth form some students' day began at six and ended at midnight with very little spare time outside hobbies and school work.

The day also begins earlier and ends later than at state schools. Masses of future doctors come from this school.

How many doctors are educated in state schools?

"7% of all pupils attend a private school but teenagers from among them go on to make up 28% of those studying medicine and dentistry"
www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/16/quarter-medical-dentistry-students-private-schools

I meant hobbies as in sport, music, acting, singing, dancing or art which may be loved and fun but do need a lot of work and practice to do well in as part of the school extra curricular activities or for exams, say, in music.

My DSs main friends at university became dentists because they were the first ones that he shared with - I think they were a mix of private and comprehensives. There may have been some from grammar schools - just not something that I know. His cousin is now a vet from a comprehensive- very common.

Nobel. do you mean that the 'state school' system does not have enough money to go around .

However, think of it this way if a village Brownie/Scout group could not get a piece of Gymnastic equipment paid for by Sport England because the budget was being spent on Max Whitlock/ Louis Smith.

Is it correct to spend the money benefiting the 'elite' over the majority.

This comes down to whether you believe everybody should have 'Zero' chance or the most gifted should have a reasonable chance .

The only definite conclusions that can be drawn when comparing grammar school numbers of FSM pupils with other schools FSM numbers is that grammar schools have very low % of families who don't work a full time job at least (37-40) hrs PW either by one parent or combination of two.

We know that because they do not qualify for FSM

However, we do not know (except by conjecture ) what the median income of a grammar school family is !.

Because we can not answer that question ?
Therefore assume family A
have a family income of £20K pa (father has a drinking problem , mother has mental health issues) child passed the 11+ . Are they an advantaged family .

Family B have an income of £14900 PA but live in a stable and loving environment DD failed the 11+ .

Which family is advantaged/disadvantaged ?

This highlights the 'stupidity' of using 'money' (absurdly low one at that) as the sole basis of judging advantage/disadvantage.

People get very bogged down with grammar schools when there are so few.
At university I was not aware of any of DSs friends being from one- they were a mix of private and comprehensive.

Nobel. do you mean that the 'state school' system does not have enough money to go around

With the Olympic athlete example, Olympic athletes are intensively trained from a young age, there's lottery funding, sponsorship and so on. No one expects an Olympic athlete to get to Olympic standard from school PE lessons, or that special sports schools should be opened for kids who are decent at PE in order to get more Olympic golds.

And no, there isn't enough state school funding to 'go around'. Schools are totally skint, and more crippling budget cuts are planned. Teachers are being made redundant, TAs got made redundant years ago. Class sizes are increasing. I'm talking about secondary.

"therefore the alternative to academic selection for your dc isn't a crap comp. Whereas for many children it is."
I have no alternative to academic selection. Which is rather my point.

I agree the funding side makes sport different. But the basic theory is the same. None would be there if they had been limited to what the average child could do.

'No Charlotte dear, we're practicing rising trot on the lead rope again today under the heading of mastery because the other children are still clinging to the saddle at halt, but nevermind in 7 years time we'll have covered all of the curriculum up to nvq 2, and I'm sure you'll quickly breach the gap between that and Olympic gold'

Is that worse than "Sorry, Jane, John, Mary, David, Mark, Peter and Emma, you're not good enough to have a go at riding, Charlotte passed a test when she was 10 that showed she was better than you so we've given her the horse"

I have never known anyone in school sport limited to what the least able can do! They would never have achieved anything if they got stuck with what I could do!