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

Sure, most people cannot afford private education and those who do will almost all have incomes in the top 20%. But an income of 70k or 80k (enough for 1 DC at private day school) is not "super-elite". An income of 150k or so (enough for 2 DC at private day school) is top 10% for family income and a good income, but very far from yacht owning super-rich (particularly if you are also paying a large mortgage in the SE of the UK). On an income of 150k, private school day fees for 2 DC are a third of net income after tax.

The numbers of super-rich families in private schools, for whom bills of 15k per year or 35k per year are nothing, are pretty small.

noblegiraffe sandy I looked up some of your 'fake' comprehensives....Dame Alice Owen's which you singled out is 'partially' selective..
The trouble is that the government league tables (and the general public)do count partially selective schools such as Dame Alice Owen's as comprehensives:
www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/136554

Even the link by relaxitllbeok this morning at 04:45 names Dame Alice Owen's as the best performing comprehensive school for Oxbridge hit rates!

If I had the time I would list the really good comprehensives that can't come top of league tables because they do not select. However I have things to do today and the thread will probably be full by the time I return.
I may not get chance to comment further so I will just say that should the government seriously consider it (against all research and data) I shall send them a link to this thread, much of which is a very clear indication that we do not want a return to them. What we want is an excellent education for all that is fit for 21st Century.

It is only on MN that Bertrand , champion of the academically less able can sound derogatory! We should all be championing all children and giving them the very best on offer. If something isn't good enough for your own child it certainly isn't good enough for 'other people's' children!

Your post is exactly the type that the government need to read 2StripedSocks should they think separating children at the tender age of 10/11 yrs is a good idea.

fresh I'm sure that amongst certain sections of the nouveau pauvre, there is a push for grammar schools. They find themselves having no option but to use state education, and do not like it one bit in its current format.

But this proposed roll out of selective schools (coupled with a widening access programme ) might sadly disappoint them.

fresh until the huge inequality in comprehensives is properly acknowledged, alongside the fact even some of the comps that are good for the majority lack suitable able provision, and real change is made, people will want grammars.

The fact my child would get into a grammar doesn't make the grammar system fair for all, and your access to good comps doesn't make the comprehensive system fair for all.

As for the haves and have nots... well I think there's a point there.

Not that the haves are somehow defending their position by supporting grammar schools. TBH the grammar schools, particularly the super selectives are the main source of competition for their DC (within the UK). Despite the protestations that 'loads' of kids from comprehensives do brilliantly and access all the most selective courses in tertiary education, the plain fact is that this is untrue.

If you don't like the reports go direct to the Sutton Trust

"The hypocrisy on these threads never fail to stagger."

And ain't that the truth.......

School results rely on post code and grammar schools do nothing to change it other than rescue a tiny percentage. The good areas will have good secondary moderns and the poor areas will have poor secondary moderns. ( or the euphanism of High School if you prefer to think there is no going back to sec mods)

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

On the steps of No. 10 she specifically mentioned the underachievement of white working class boys. The thrust of the arguments here, in that respect, seem to be because in a previous generation, some able working class boys made it to the Grammar school, that's the way to do it now. No one answers the question about what happened to those who didn't make it to the grammar school and whether they were successful in life.

No one is really able to say how the bright but underachieving pupils, now, without the parental support, would be identified to make sure they got to the grammar schools. Even then, you still have the problem of underachievement of those who aren't potential A*/A pupils.

A cheap private education is a world away from the best and as was reported in the BBC article yesterday as regards Oxbridge not as good as many of the super elite comps in the SE.

Many 15k per year day schools from London and the SE consistently appear in the top 30 schools according to results, Oxbridge entrance etc. Westminster is a very top school and costs (if I recall correctly) around 20k per year for a day pupil, not 35k.

The 15k per year education my DC receive is not comparable to what they would get in the super elite comp for which we are in catchment, in terms of subject provision, class sizes, teachers experience and qualifications, facilities, careers guidance, experience with applying for top universities etc.

Of course there are some poor private schools but it would be a myth to claim that you have to pay anything near 35k to get a good one.

See post of 08:26:50
Direct from Sutton Trust.
No mention of grammar schools- instead it focuses on missing talent (a definite if you sort children so young) nursery education, outreach programmes, what to do in comprehensives .
I can agree with it all - when I certainly don't with this thread!

peregrina I suppose it depends what is meant by 'white working class boys'.

For a lot of people, this is shorthand for the underclass. The hardest to reach. Others might take the description on face value, which encompasses lots of boys from traditional working class families who are not particularly hard to reach.

The former have little to gain from selective schools (though arguably little to lose). The most able boys in that later group arguably have a lot to gain.

"The former have little to gain from selective schools (though arguably little to lose). The most able boys in that later group arguably have a lot to gain."

And the other 95%, 80%, 75%(depending on your model) of that former group? What will they gain from there being more selective schools?

When people talk about white working class underachievement that needs addressing in secondary schools they are talking about this:

"Eighty-three per cent of Chinese pupils on free school meals achieve five Cs or above in their GCSEs, yet just 35 per cent of white students do."

Grammar schools will not help this problem, as these students will not be going to a grammar. These are the students whose education would be damaged by grammar schools.

I do find the view of the 'have nots' quite staggering!
The little girl I know who is very bright at 3 yrs have parents who play with her, talk to her, read to her- in fact all the things that don't cost money.
They do not have a car, couldn't afford to run it if they did, and are struggling to take her on a day trip to the seaside on public transport (an over 2 hour journey) this summer. They have to go to the library if they want to use the Internet and eating out, or a takeaway is a very rare treat.
I don't think some people have a clue how the other half live!

You do have to use your intelligence 2StripedSocks and explore the website! All the research is there with findings.

Only 38% of the public back new grammar schools says YouGov poll:

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/only-38-cent-public-back-new-grammar-schools-yougov-poll-reveals

The New Statesman and BBC have done just that- but you didn't like it! That is why I thought that those who didn't like it could just look at the website for themselves.

I am surprised it is that much noblegiraffe. It is hardly going to be supported by those who get the sec mod or have families split.