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

bert and other dc have no choice but crap comprehensives. Which brings me back to the point that until that problem is solved, people will see grammars as necessary or better.

No, the alternative isn't giving Charlotte the horse. It's sorting the crap riding school. And until it is nobody wants their competent rider at it. You're saying 'Well, in an ideal world all riding schools would be good, and have a full range of ability split into different lessons, with trainers who can offer individual coaching within that group so the riders reach potential. But this riding school is full of beginners, with no useful instructors, but all that's on offer in this postcode. But at least by you also being held back the mums at the good yard can feel they are encouraging the poor deprived beginners. Whilst ferrying their own dc to byrds'. 'What's that, the beginners still can't ride, Charlotte took up hobby level gardening and Valegro got in to the habit of charging off? Well, how silly to suggest lack of challenge and boredom caused that, why didn't the parents simply join pc like we did, as of course every naturally talented rider has that sort of background'

"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"

A child who can get 8/9/10 A*s with absolutely no effort or work at all is so far ahead of "average" that it is not reasonable to expect an "ordinary" school to accomodate him. It is also not reasonable to expect scarce resources to be diverted to teach him A level in year 8 and degree level in year 9. To call a school "crap" because it can't do this is hugely unfair. Children like this are, I suppose, part of the argument for super selectives. But it is not an argument for changing the system to weight it even more in favour of the already advantaged.

The child that I know who was way beyond all his peers in maths was best served by the comprehensive because the grammar school were very dismissive with 'all our boys are clever' and yet the comprehensive treated him as a special case - he had master classes there from year 5 of the primary and he had taken his GCSE and was working with the 6th form by year 9. He wasn't especially gifted in anything else.
He probably wouldn't have got into the super selective because it was only the maths that he was very advanced in.
The super selective works well in Reading. They don't all want to go to Oxbridge and it doesn't stop the comprehensives sending lots of pupils (which they do).

I find this thread so depressing. It is full of people who would love their child to be in an elite school with wonderful opportunities all for free whilst making out that it is perfectly fair because it is open to anyone. Meanwhile those born into chaotic families, who have trouble keeping a roof over their head, or have parents who just don't care or see the value of education get the worst nursery provision and the worst primary schools and have a miniscule chance of a place in selective education. Even if they do they would feel a social misfit. On top of that I am told on here that if they were swapped at birth they still wouldn't get the advantage as the wrong genes!
The whole system stinks being geared up to deliver the best to those who are born to get the best.

Twitter is a much more interesting read- it opens you up to so many articles and so much data that debunks the whole idea of selection at an early age.

The other reason that I wanted my sons in the same school was to be able to pass down uniform. I forgot the most important oneT which is not wanting their futures decided at 11yrs of age. In theT same school they had all facilities and opportunities open to explore.

Not sure where my capital Ts came from- apologies.

The riding school analogy is just silly!
They are a business. If they have a rider like Charlotte it makes business sense to employ a top teacher for her- it will pay them dividends when she does well because other parents will want the same school and start sending their children increasing their turnover. With more resources they can employ more teachers. Meanwhile a teacher who can manage to teach Charlotte should be able to cope with a nervous beginner otherwise they can't be much good at their job!

bert it doesn't need to be about teaching a-level at y8.And it isn't just about the admittedly harder to cater to top 1%. It's all those dc that are in the broader able range too, but at some schools it doesn't happen.

They don't all want to go to Oxbridge and it doesn't stop the comprehensives sending lots of pupils (which they do).

I am not arguing in favour of grammars on this thread, but anyone who is anti-grammars (based on evidence) should also accept Ofsted's criticisms of the teaching high achievers receive in some comprehensives and suggest improvements. Reading comprehensives send some to Oxbridge, perhaps not enough. Other comprehensives around the country let their high achievers under achieve to the extent that they don't get to the top universities. Oxbridge has outreach programmes targeted at whole counties from which there are simply not enough well-qualified applications.

Various posters on this thread who are pro-comprehensives are fortunate enough to send their children to great comprehensives or to teach at good ones. One can see from many other threads that these schools are not representative of all comps: e.g. noblegiraffe is offering a level of maths teaching that I (as a STEM academic) can only dream of being offered in thousands of schools around the country.

As curl keeps saying, until we improve the provision for high ability students in all schools, there will be demand for selective schools. (Regardless of what the evidence says about the latter.)

As far as I am aware, grammar schools do not get more funding than comprehensives or high schools. My understanding is that the advantage to the children is being taught st a depth and pace that suits them which wouldn't be possible in a mixed ability situation.

This doesn't sound like unfair advantage, but rather teaching appropriately to children's capability. The only injustice could be not offering all children capable and keen a place.

Unless "cutting off the heads of the too tall flowers" in the name of equal outcomes is the goal. In which case those with the cash flow for private school will be the only ones to escape while middle income and down families will be stymied.

I accept that special needs students can need special provision and sometimes even more funding and it is right for our taxes to support this, even if a child has profound needs that mean they will never be economic comtributors. Why shouldn't suitable provision be provided for the other end too?

Finally, it's my experience locally that more than just the top 2% are being left to coast. I'd say that the top 10-15% are pretty bored.

There are crap schools. This is not a reason for embracing a system which disadvantages the already disadvantaged and gives more privilege to the privileged.

Comprehensive does not mean "mixed ability." Also "mixed ability" does not mean teaching everyone the same. And accusations of wanting to "cut the heads off tall poppies" is just silly- nobody on this thread has said anything of the sort.

fresh you're right in theory. But in reality ofsted won't praise them for Charlottes lateral work, as long as she can canter down the lng side without too much bouncing they'll say her needs have been met. Even if they say Charlotte should be at least on 20m circles, the crap owner will either blame the inexperienced instructor or say 'well her pony is a bit fizzy and her parents let her break it so what can you do'. And they'll still get the beginners because they can't go elsewhere, and the good riders will stay at their rs.

It also makes me laugh the way many anti grammar posters still think it's fair that richer families can buy the best comps(an elite education most definitely in the more expensive counties where children do get more funding and many of us can't afford to live in) by postcode and pretend it's fair."
Name and shame those posters!

Of course you shouldn't feel guilty 2stripedsocks.

It seems to me that grammar schools make no difference to kids with low aspirations and indifferent parents. Grammar schools won't help them, but not will they harm them either. Grammar schools are a red herring when it comes to helping or hurting this group.

Grammar schools make a material difference for DC whose families are engaged but who cannot afford private private school. This is where the action is in regards to grammar schools. The benefit is to the children who gain entrance from this group, and the pain is to the DC from this group who don't.

Years ago, I read that the political impetus for disassembling grammar schools came from the middle classes who angry and embarrassed about their own DC not passing the 11+. In short, grammar schools created to many "losers" amongst engaged and active voters.

Individuals make the choices they feel are right. We are not talking about what individuals do- we are talking about what we do as a society to improve things for everyone's children.

EllyMay- there are factual inaccuracies in your post- if you have a look through the thread you should find the facts and figures to learn more. 5)3 Surton Trust is a good place to start.

I think we are in the reLm of interpreting facts to form an opinion Bert.

So when you said that people who are anti grammar school don't have a problem with private education or unfair admissions procedures.........

ReLm= realm

Sorry

fresh you have had an answer to your question about separate schools; you simply don't like it.

Fair enough that you would prefer your children educated together. Under the proposed plans no one will be forced to apply to a grammar school.

But why do you seek to prevent other parents accessing what they see as an appropriate education for their DC?

I'm also interested ( though sadly not surprised) that you have singularly failed to engage with the issue if poor provision for the most able. Instead, you deny it. Which really does fly in the face of all the evidence.

I would love to know how many schools are affected by the "post code" issue.Anyway, In My Glorious Reign admissions will be by an entirely new system. Possibly a lottery.

Sorry- that sounded as I I was trying to suggest that the postcode thing isn't an issue. I know it is. I would just like to know how big an issue it is.

Faith schools are probably a bigger issue. I'd happily scrap the lot.

Me too.