People who are in favour of grammar schools....

[BertrandRussell]

....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?

Peppajay

1. It's based on disproven and very outdated research on intelligence testing and makes a lot of assumptions about how this relates to potential that is not helpful to true.
2. The kids taken in are not necessarily the brightest, just the best at doing tests like these.
3. Some parents cheat via tutoring, some even send older kids to sit the exams (story out in Schools Week's latest edition).

1. Why would being told you're not even bright enough to be entered for the test make you feel less of a failure than sitting it (and potentially only just missing the pass mark )?

This thread goes round in round in circles! People's argument against Grammars generally comes down to two things. The creation of secondary moderns which WILL fail children, and the current admission system is not fair.

I say put more resources in the secondary moderns than the grammar and make them an different and exciting place to learn and update the admission system to make it fair.

For a child with mid to high but not top level ability I can't see why being at the top of secondary modern with effective set and streams, with the possibility to move to a grammar in a few years at 14, is necessarily worse than fighting it out starting at the bottom of the pile in a grammar.

In the ordinary state system though there is more children that don't take the test than do and those that arent doing it dont see it as a failure because unless you are in the top 5 or 10% it isn't even discussed. 10 from my DD's year of 120 are taking the test. I know 2 of those have been privately tutored and one of the girls is naturally bright so for her to get the chance to have a superior education to suit her ability then why not. I do agree with the comment about tutoring and being tutored to pass but that is life you alwsys get people who cheat and abuse systems but we shouldn't let them ruin it for those naturally bright children and those gifted children from poorer homes who without a grammar system to be able to thrive often become bored and stagnant in a run of the mill comp school.

Well, why not try to make the Comp not 'run of the mill'?

This is what I don't understand - well, I do, because the Tories don't want social mobility - they just want a little bit of new blood from bright working class kids, but otherwise they want their nice middle class grammars to keep them out.

Yes but that won't be the case if schools are allowed to set themselves up as grammars. If we end up with lots of grammars, rather than just one local one for the super-bright, then presumably we'll be right back to a situation where it's a pass or fail system for all.

I say put more resources in the secondary moderns than the grammar and make them an different and exciting place to learn and update the admission system to make it fair.

Yes but that's not what will actually happen, is it?

It is easy to dress up the idea of secondary moderns as cool, non-stuffy, less academic but still really respected places of learning for students who are 'more vocationally-inclined'. But I'm not sure that will be the reality.

"why not try to make the Comp not 'run of the mill'"

Because it hasn't worked for all these years! It is not an efficient use of money because the ability range is too big. There are good ones and far too many ok or bad ones and able children in them are crap comps are stuck. Wilshaw made his name turning one Comp around. But that Comp is not near me. I am not as lucky as a lot of posters here. On a separate thread they probably will suggest me move house.

People say results in Comp county overall is better than Grammar county but this is measured by grades, not the effect of the education on the recipients' life chances. Social mobility hasn't improve or you will see way more comprehensive educated leaders in all fields. The system is disadvantaging our most talented youngsters for the sake of a marginally better experience for the middle ability. Private kids are still at the top without a route in the state system for normal background kids to compete.

Why would a political Party that's ideology requires an ever increasing number of people to acquire 'affluence' seek to reduce 'Social Mobility' ?.

You can disagree with their policies , but to say they are aim is to reduce 'Social Mobility' is nonsense. The Conservative party to thrive needs the votes of families for instance who live in a 2 Bedroom House but aspire for a three bedroom house in the next few years.

By contrast the Labour party needs to paint the picture that your living standards are 'dropping' and a vote for them would retain your status quo.

The Labour Party don't want large scale 'Social Mobilty' (except in the a short period between 1997-2004) it is counter productive for them. The simple reason the vast majority of people who acquire affluence lose their socialist principles !

"why not try to make the Comp not 'run of the mill'

Because it hasn't worked for all these years! It is not an efficient use of money because the ability range is too big

That sounds a bit defeatist. Surely it would be more effective to try and fix all the exsisting comps rather than introducing new schools for the brightest and most advantaged. Think of all the money that's going to get wasted setting up these schools that could go into the exsisting system.

minifingerz - there is an argument that removing the sort of children who if you just give them a text book and a copy of the syllabus will get B grades (whereas with decent teaching they could get A/A * ), then it stops poor schools hiding just how crap their teaching is and forces something to be done.

(That's not to say that grammars are the best option, but actually for the "middling" children, having the super bright ones removed could well lead to them getting a better education, or at least more attention)

FairyAccess In the ideal world yes, But in reality there will never be enough resources for Comps to get good because we still have the NHS and all sorts to deal with. And it hasn't happened for all these years and everyone trying to send their children to that few grammars, even leading to the divorce of Jeremy Corbyn i read somewhere. Poor lad, if only the system us not so stupid.

My children can not stop growing up waiting for it the Comps to happen. I have high hopes for them.

ontopofthesunset
Possibly outing myself here, but I went to Clitheroe Grammar, I lived on a council estate and I'd say I was in a minority even then (35yrs ago), my parents weren't well off at all, but I never received free school meals, there are plenty of working poor who aren't eligible, so I'm not sure using that as a marker is entirely accurate.

FSM may not be entirely accurate- but if you have two schools less than a miile apart and one has 0% FSM and the other 37%...........

FSM is a crude measure, but it's about the only one we have.

The idea of a quota for "poorer" pupils could be very difficult to implement. As PPs have highlighted, FSMs is a crude measure, and would disadvantage families where both partners (or a single parent) work for low pay.

"there is an argument that removing the sort of children who if you just give them a text book and a copy of the syllabus will get B grades (whereas with decent teaching they could get A/A * ), then it stops poor schools hiding just how crap their teaching is and forces something to be done"

Oh for the love of God, schools and teachers are CONSTANTLY inspected, and OFSTED knows which ones aren't delivering! My niece's school was exactly like that - some very bright kids coming out with mediocre results because of weak teaching and management. OFSTED criticised them for it and they were downgraded from 'good' to 'RI' despite their GCSE results being better than the borough average.

I despair that there are so many people who think the answer to poor teaching and management in a school is to remove the brightest 20% and put them in more successful schools, leaving the other 80% to carry on with inadequate teaching!

Removing clever children from pore schools DOESN'T IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR THE 80% LEFT BEHIND WHO ARE JUST AS DESERVING OF GOOD TEACHING.

The answer to crap schools is

• more and better teachers
• better supported teachers
• better management
• evidenced based interventions

NOT, 'as long as the bright kids are alright the rest can go fuck themselves'.

I fucking DESPISE this government. That people are so openly and unapologetically elitist - the Tories have made epic selfishness respectable.

Think the PM should also look to reduce fees on Uni courses. Current fee regime, and in fact the previous one (3k a year) stops social mobility.

minifingerz Feel sorry for the bright children in your niece school. This is hardly unheard of in comps. Yes the school got downgraded on paper but those talented young people's life chances were wasted. They were stuck there where else could they go. How many more years should we spent on trying this inefficient system. Before the last six years it wasn't the Conservatives and the Comps were hardly brilliant back then. Don't make it political.

Why do you only feel sorry for the bright children?

Bert just seen some of your comments on another thread...... totally out of character for me but can I send you a pm with a question please? Not feeling up to being too publically wobbly!!

Why do you only feel sorry for the bright children?

^^ this is a bloody good question?

Yes of course.

Bert Because minifingerz wrote that bright children in her niece school were let down by the school and didn't get the grades they could have achieve. I can't believe I am spending time answering this question.

Honestly enough time wasted going round and round with you Bert.

"minifingerz Feel sorry for the bright children in your niece school. "

No I feel sorry for all the children. More so for the ones who emerged with no or few GCSE's. My neice did well enough to get into the sixth form of a different outstanding comp, and is now doing three A levels and doing great.

"This is hardly unheard of in comps".

My private school was shit too and I underachieved because of it.

"How many more years should we spent on trying this inefficient system. "

You are insistent that it's the fact that they are comprehensives that are the problem, not the fact that they are simply poorly run, under resourced schools. If comprehensives are fundamentally unable to meet the needs of all children than how do some comprehensives turn out children who go on to Oxbridge and Russell group unis?