Grammar Schools (given green light by Theresa May part 3)

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

"Just listening to some privileged 'public' school educated people pontificating on the ills of the grammar system !"
Who were they?

It boils down to wanting the state to provide an education, equal or better, to a private education for free. Don't we all? Don't the disadvantaged need it most of all? Pure self interest on here- those who already have the best want to keep it that way!

Good question BR - who were they? Have I missed seeing them, despite this being thread 3?

Yes- the argument that grammar schools are a social good is particularly nauseating.

The people who already have "the best," have their DC at £20k/year day schools and £35/yr boarding schools. They have no personal interest in grammar schools.

I shall be out all day.
When I get back I would like some simple, straight forward answers to my question- bearing in mind that I would never sacrifice a child. I needed a school where the high ability one was going to be in classes with those aiming for top universities and the one who was not academic was going to get GCSE results to get him a good apprenticeship. I did not want them split - for reasons given on thread 2.

You obviously don't read the comments of children Elly where they explain that passing 11+ would save school fees. You appear to miss all evidence, from Sutton Trust among others, that people invest in private prep schools to get free secondary education. You also miss the fact that traditional middle class private school parents are being priced out with rising fees.

I would give you links if I wasn't in my way out. However easily found on Google.

For years, I've heard arguments that it is a good thing to price more parents out of private schools because, if more "middle class" DC use state schools their interested and engaged parents will improve the system for all.

I wonder if this is the inevitable consequence. Be careful what you wish for and all that.

'They have no personal interest in grammar schools.'

But it's the same self justification projected. It runs something like this: My child is special and will only be able to meet his/her potential by receiving an exclusive education. In giving a special education to special people somehow the whole of society will benefit because these children are so special and will go on to be even more special.

This totally ignores the fact that is entrenching and perpetuating the privilege of the already privileged 25% and increasing the divide between the 75% of children considered to be not special.

It ignores the fact that there are differences in educational attainment reflecting social inequalities by aged 4.

It ignores the fact that those children born bright but poor are less likely to have parents willing or able to work the system in order to get their children a 'special' education or to buy in to the notion that they are special and deserving of an exclusive education at all.

I've just had a thought about this "what if a child is gifted in other areas" thing.

Those of you who are equating high ability with giftedness in other areas, if you had a highly gifted tennis player or musician would you expect the tax payer to fund the extra coaching/teaching they would need?

2striped, 'choice' is an illusion. The more supposed 'choices' we have of different types of education, the less choice and more chaotic there is in actuality especially for the most disadvantaged.

Most parents want or need their child to go to their nearest school. There are all sorts of reasons why this is desirable from convenience, to environmental issues to social cohesion.

If your nearest school is a specialist sports college and your child is not remotely sporty how have you been given more or better 'choice'?

All schools should offer the best possible education to all children whatever their diverse range of abilities and interests.

The fact is that if schools were diverse and large and inclusive they would be better able to cater for their pupils with different 'pathways'. There is no reason why child A, super bright with a particular interest in science, shouldn't be at the same physical school as his brother child B, sporty and practical. Doesn't mean they have to have the same classes, curriculum, teachers or even pupils in same classes though clearly there will be overlap to everyone's benefit.

But children rarely divide so neatly. There are children who are BOTH academic and sporty. They shouldn't have to choose between a specialist science school and specialist sports school.

2striped, my point is that every school should be a good school able to cope with the individual needs of every child.

2stripedsocks I found the school that suited both my children.
If the high ability one did a science subject at his first choice university (the one that he was passionate about going to) why did he need a special school for it? I have already explained how they coped with the child who was truly gifted in maths- he was working with 6th form by yr 9.
I wouldn't want to send an 11yr old off to a school that excelled in sport or drama- there are plenty of opportunities outside school.

House price will select a decent sec mod for you. I really don't think house price selection is an argument- the grammar school merely allows a miniscule percentage to escape it.

I fully agree nostaples .
I don't think anyone is ever going to say 'your sons shouldn't be in the same school because:
1
2
3

He was absolutely exceptional and he wasn't 'bumped up through the years' - he was with everyone else. He was merely given the appropriate teaching in Maths. What would the grammar school do with a child who was way above any other pupil?

This is taken from the Sutton Trust's website March 2015:-

State secondary schools in England are not doing enough to stretch the most able students, Ofsted says.

A report from the education watchdog says gifted pupils are not keeping up with their clever counterparts in independent and grammar schools.

Children are not “realising their early promise”, says Sean Harford, Ofsted’s national director of schools.

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust education charity, said the report “demonstrates an urgent need for more dedicated provision for the highly able in state schools”.

“Our research shows that England compares poorly with other countries in its provision for the highly able and our brightest students are failing to make the most of their talents,” he said.

Sutton Trust welcomes commitment to widen access to grammar schools

From 2010

TOP COMPREHENSIVES MORE SOCIALLY SELECTIVE THAN GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

So it looks like The Sutton Trust isn't against grammar schools as a way of educating the brightest, so long as a system like that used in Birmingham is in place, to open access to more disadvantaged pupils.

One would hope that SEN stayed with their peers but got appropriate teaching. The very bright have special education needs too! Are they to be ignored?

Oops! Meant to use inverted commas, not bold. Sorry!!

Why have you gone back 6 years WellyWife - do you not like what they are saying in 2016?