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

Luckily my son was able to keep his friends - they had tutor groups, sports etc. He is married to a woman who would have been in a grammar school.
At my age I haven't a clue which school people went to - except no one was comprehensive because we pre date it. I went to a sec mod and my husband went to a selective private school. Lots of my friends have a mix of grammar and sec mod or private in partners.

If you had more lawyers, politicians, judges etc who had mixed with all sorts and all abilities as children they would probably do their jobs better!

a) Its your random opinion that they dont have that experience.
b) Its your random speculation that it would make them do their jobs better.

Not the ones that I know 2stripedsocks There are no grammar schools and so they have the whole range- and cater for the whole range.

Is your 'random opinion' better than mine?!

Mine isn't a random opinion, its focused experience. Your just scatter gunning. Unless you have something to back you up?

Kids have been at school for almost their entire school life by the age of 10! 10 seems fine to me - after all how long does it take in formal schooling to divide groups into more or less academically able especially if there's a degree of movement available thereafter? Besides, Bertrand, champion of the academically less able, would feel completely confident at selecting anyone else's kids aged 5 clearly, based on Boden attire etc. etc.

sandy I looked up some of the 'fake' comprehensives that you listed who have exceptionally high results. Some of them aren't comprehensives at all, Dame Alice Owens which you singled out is 'partially' selective in that it selects 32.5% of its pupils by academic ability, 5% by music ability and 10% from Islington.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_selective_school_(England)

FreshHorizons you clearly don't know the background of enough lawyers, politicians, judges etc. to comment sensibly. As I said before - hysterical, and adds nothing (or less than nothing).

Is it not the case, that more children at top universities are coming from private schools than used to be the case 30 years ago?

No idea, Elly, why don't you google and let us know?

I can't. I am on vacation escaping Olympiad mania! No phone device and wifi that can handle the simple mumsnet talk streams, but crashes when trying to search around in Google. Most sites are more complicated with more graphics than this one.

Can someone tell me the issue or problem that Teresa May wants to address with the promotion of grammars? And how that problem is evidenced?

For Elly: no, the opposite is true. See graph on p1 here (when internet permits). dera.ioe.ac.uk/22744/1/SN00616.pdf

I don't think that you can be referring to these findings by the Sutton Trust published last week.

Have you ignored news from the BBC last month?

I suggest that those of you who think my opinion 'random' or even 'hysterical' read where it is a cause for concern If you don't want to bother with it all jump to page 31.

If the government want to see exactly what is wrong with the grammar school system they need to do no more than read this thread!

The 'haves' get the best of education for their children.
The 'have nots' get the worst.

Unsurprisingly some of the 'haves' not only want to keep it that way they want to ensure it (except for a deserving, miniscule, percentage)

Apparently 10 yrs is ample time (almost their entire lives!) to select children- regardless of the fact that the gap is as much as 19mths in attainment between the 'haves' and 'have nots' . I can't be bothered to look back to see who said swapping at birth made no difference because 'nature would out' ( I wonder if adoptive parents would be happy with this?)

While I can see that children need to be set for academic subjects I can't see why they need separate hockey lessons, school choirs, orchestras, drama groups etc etc
( The only 2 adults that I know who have made music a career - flute and violin- both failed 11+)

I would feel that Bertrand's selection by 5 yrs according to Boden is pretty accurate. I could do a pretty accurate one with 2 yr olds! But that is where I would spend the money - on the 2 yr olds that desperately need it.
I know a 3 yr old now - as bright as a button! However I don't see her doing too well because her parents don't play the system and don't even realise they need to play the system!

Sorry - forgot to put that the 19mth gap is aged 5yrs.

More from the Sutton Trust on 8th August

Selective education on MN is always defended by a handful of posters - most never even read these threads. If you want a more balanced range of opinion - backed up by the latest research- I would suggest Twitter.

The greatest difference today is those who can afford £35 K a year schools and those that can't i.e the haves with yachts and the have not's who drive 3 year old Ford's.

A bit confused here. Lots of people afford private schools (most of which are 15k per year, there are very few full boarding schools at 35k) per year at the expense of bigger houses, cars and holidays. (I drive a 7 year old car myself although I guess I could drive a newer or more expensive model but don't really care about status symbols.) I don't know a single family at our school which has a yacht and the vast majority live in mortgaged houses in "suburbia" rather than in mansions.

BTW we could afford 35k for one child (two would be more of a stretch) but I'd still be driving DC there in my 7 year old car from a modest house in suburbia, no yacht in sight.

Most people can't afford £35K a year for one child- even if they make huge savings. That is why they want it for free from the state.
That is why they pay out a more modest amount in tutors etc.

The increased costs of private education article here is a reason for people wanting grammar schools.