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

My dd had a friend at primary school who came from a bookless household. In year 5 his mother asked me how she could help him prepare for the 11+- he is a very bright lad. I told her about the books you can buy and where she could get them.

It turned out later that she had got to the door of Waterstones and been so intimidated by the place that she couldn't bring herself to go in. So no, it's not all about wanting to spend money on fags and Sky rather than Bond books. (It looks as if a few people's true colours are starting to show, by the way)

Well then don't pretend you are selecting kids when actually you are selecting parents.

Pretending that lots of children are not dependant on free school meals and food banks and living in B&B accommodation doesn't help anyone either.
Life would be so simple is everyone just had to run a 7yr old car and not go abroad for holidays to afford private education or tutors.
Perhaps somone could point me to the part of the Sutton Trust website that advocates separating children aged 10 or 11yrs- I couldn't find it. I did find plenty that backed my ideas of reaching all children and trying to raise the most disadvantaged early.

People with limited experience of formal education are most unlikely to know how to work the system. I remember my own single parent mother who left school at 15 (her own parents left at 12) not giving me any helpful support or direction when it came to exam and university choices. There was a lot of vocalised anxiety about the risks of carrying on with study and not going out to work. I passed my 11+ (a handful of us were selected by the school to try for it as was the single super selective grammar) but was denied going the due to it being a bus ride away and my mother not wanting to separate me from my friends. My comprehensive was an appalling school for high achievers, it didn't even feel safe. The comprehensives in this area where I still live have high % FSM, poor attainment, very much white working class area despite some areas of wealth. They are still failing the high achievers. The superselective still exists and is almost exclusively used by the Bangladeshi community, I do not know of one white child from the local primaries who sat for it. The wealthy white opt out into the selective independents. I'm not sure what I'm getting at here but an example of an area where comprehensives are failing. Introducing the 'old' grammar system would also likely fail the poorer children but there must be a third way.

Selection of parenting is everywhere

And we should be fighting to close the gap, not leaving the poor ever further behind.

"Selection of parenting is everywhere- entrance to any university,passing GCSEs,getting music exams,being successful at sport,getting into the best comps......Not sure why this tiny number of schools should get the beating when everywhere else it is ignored."

You keep saying this. It is not being ignored. But this thread is about increasing the number of grammar schools. They are the only type of school where selection by parenting is the only entry criterion.

And music exams, sport and so on are red herrings.bwe are talking about basic education here.

I must not waste anymore time this morning.
Basically people who can't afford private education want the state to provide the same for free and keep out the 'undesirables'.
They will welcome a few of the 'deserving poor' but certainly not the children of the 'undeserving poor' - who are the very ones in dire need of the very best education.
(I am not remotely left wing by the way- in case I sound it- I just want improved education for all and can't see why a highly academic child can't play tennis, or act in a play, etc with one who isn't highly academic) They do not need separate buildings - especially since many will have siblings, neighbours and friends from primary in the other school).

Anyone good at sport, music etc goes to outside teachers, clubs, competitions etc.

Perhaps, as a final thing, someone can link me to the part of the Sutton Trust website where they advocate selection at 11yrs. I can't see it. Neither did the New Statesman or BBC who got dismissed as opinion. What did we all miss to form our opinions?

Personally I think you can select the top and the bottom but the vast amount in the middle it would be just as accurate to pick their names out of a hat! At some point there is nothing to choose between a pass and a fail - and it would be a different dividing mark in a different town.

They are red herrings on this thread because we are talking about grammar schools.

And yes of course you don't see anything wrong with grammar schools because you think the only people who don't get in are the feckless, Sky watching poor. It's the modern version of the "oh, it's no point giving them baths, they'll only keep coal in them"

This thread has gone in multiple massive circles.

The only questions I am still interested in have to do with just how much do the high ability kids "underachieve" in the non-grammar system? I want specific hard numbers, like "0.3 grades less for average GCSE" or somesuch. & how much does that (eg) 0.3 matter, how much effect does it have on future life. I can't say that the comp system has failed my high-achiver DC at all.

Secondly: what is the function of the state system? Is it to provide minimal skills, (2)to cater for everyone regardless of ability regardless of cost (cost to state or cost to others in the system), or to provide equity of educational opportunity? Reason2 is the only one in favour of G-schools.

Third: NG said ages ago that Getting into Grammar schools is a huge emotional thing for many; they take pride in having got in, which is why G-schools have emotional support. Is that an appalling sign of selfishness, historical blinkers & belief in total BS about social mobility, elitism or what? I chatted with someone who is fiercely against G-Schools because he failed the 11+ & was a hyper-overachiever in the comp system, he feels cheated.... so why don't the anti-emotions predominate, if only a minority went to Grammars?

Sutton Trust Press Release 2014 - Sutton Trust welcomes commitment to widen access to grammar schools:

www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/sutton-trust-welcomes-commitment-widen-access-grammar-schools/

"These schools (grammar) really can provide a golden ticket of opportunity to the pupils that attend them."

I don't understand that Sutton Trust link (dated 2014 btw)

Giving disadvantaged students the opportunity to prepare for the tests so they can compete on a more level playing field with students who may have received intensive tutoring.

Working to make the tests as fair as possible and taking steps to “tutor-proof” them.

So which is it... make them tutor proof or making the tutoring widely available? How does it make sense to try to achieve both things?

I am left with conclusion that ST talks Bollux.

ps: someone upthread posted assessment of the Birmingham scheme to widen access to less advantaged social groups, and how it has pretty much not achieved anything that it stated it wanted to do.

"so why don't the anti-emotions predominate, if only a minority went to Grammars?"

Because people who fail the 11+ don't have the platform?

People who fail the 11+ don't have the platform !

I failed the 11+ ( mum just wanted to keep me out of special school) yet i am able to state my pro selective opinions.

"I failed the 11+ ( mum just wanted to keep me out of special school) yet i am able to state my pro selective opinions."

Good. Well done you.

Tell me about all the ex secondary modern pupils in positions of power and influence.

First of all what percentage of pupils across the country were educated in 'non selective' schools in selective areas. This is important because if only 4 or 5% of pupils were that is a very small no of people.

However, just because typically many 'modern' school pupils have not gone on top be 'High Court' judges or at not noticeable in public life does not mean that some have not become very 'affluent' or wealthy individuals (with Yachts)!

"First of all what percentage of pupils across the country were educated in 'non selective' schools in selective areas. This is important because if only 4 or 5% of pupils were that is a very small no of people"

Well, a lot more than were educated in selective schools in selective areas.................