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

[BertrandRussell]

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

Schools which select on 11+ score top down end up chock full of wealthy kids which was apparently the thing to be avoided

No, what you want to avoid is stupid rich kids getting in ahead of clever poorer ones. I dont accept that thick rich kids can usually be tutored to pass a rigorous academic test but leaving that aside.

So to avoid that just use admissions criteria. Quotas for PP, or added marks for different categories of children, means testing etc. And the grammar can run free tutoring programs in 'certain' primary schools / area.

There are some people just ideologically against them and a grammar school could fail as any school can. But if done properly they could be a massive success and benefit ALL of society.

"Does it really matter,"

You seem to think a grammar school education matters hugely.

Incidentally, apologies if you have answered this - how would children like my ds be catered for if all children either went to grammars or secondary moderns, as his literacy is too weak for him to pass the 11+ but he is very high achieving in maths and music.

Would you bus children like my ds to grammars for maths and music lessons?

Because you clearly believe that secondary moderns (or comprehensives with their top 25% removed) can't possibly cater for children who are very able in any particular subject.

However, what it will say the percentage of grammar school pupils from each area is 'totally ' related to house price ! Bowdon = £3 million Bucklow St Martins (not to be confused with Bucklow Hill houses £3 Million +) house prices £100k other wise known as 'PARTINGTON'. The bit of Trafford where even the Dogs don't go out after dark.....

"No, what you want to avoid is stupid rich kids getting in ahead of clever poorer ones. I dont accept that thick rich kids can usually be tutored to pass a rigorous academic test but leaving that aside."

I agree.

And you don't usually get this.

What you get (according to the evidence) is bright rich kids getting in ahead of brighter children from impoverished families.

Does it really matter

Well if it doesn't really matter, then why go to the bother of setting up a whole different school for these kids?

And then you'll say 'ah, but these kids are on the borderline, so they'll do well in either school'

And then the question is where do you set the cut-off so it really does matter which score they get and which kids go to which school? And there isn't one, because there isn't any line where if you set it there are sheep on one side and goats on the other.

Math, if you agree that the quality of a child's education hugely impacts on academic performance in tests, how would you control for the quality of primary schooling when it comes to the 11+?

I know children who have been taught in classes of 10 for five years in private prep schools prior to sitting the 11+. They will sit the exam alongside children who've been taught in state primaries in classes of 30 up to that point.

Are you really going to try to make a case that the 11+ is the only exam where prior learning makes no difference to the outcome?

mathsmum314 Tue 20-Sep-16 17:59:06 Does it really matter, the chances of that happening is small

It happens a lot. Why do you think so parents ask for previous years cut off distances as well as cut off scores?

The lower down the marks go, the more DCs will be on the same score.

sandyholme Tue 20-Sep-16 18:04:36 Wirral 27.1 % Grammar or 5682 out of 20,945 pupils.

Does that include the educational tourists?

If your using selection by ability then, why do house prices "matter"?

minifingerz,
Your DC could go to a musically selective school or have one on one instrumental lessons at school. An academy chain or 'linked grammar' could provide the additional mathematics off site or remotely. Maybe a 'comprehensive' might have the ability to meet the maths needs. If literacy improved then could move to grammar in later years. I would be ok with these options being provided for my DC.

I don't believe we will go back to the old Sec Mod/grammar system where only bright rich kids will get in ahead of brighter children from impoverished families.

Are you really going to try to make a case that the 11+ is the only exam where prior learning makes no difference to the outcome?

No I am not but in a previous post I gave an example that no matter how much money you use to tutor a struggling child you can not get them all past the current 11+. And I do believe the real difference in early years is made by the parent and their environment, not the school. So because of that will probably get more rich than poor children at grammars, but that is called life!

because there isn't any line where if you set it there are sheep on one side and goats on the other.

Again your just setting up straw men arguments, going back to the old binary system, Yawn. Try moving into the non-binary future, there is more than 2 animals on a farm, and a farmer doesn't draw lines, he tends to ALL his animals.

MumTryingHerBest, as I explained previously... you remove the admissions criteria that uses distance to school. And replace it with something else eg a tie breaker question.

I have always been pro grammar schools - both of my parents came from working class families and did well having been to grammar schools - but now I'm not so sure.
Why don't we just rigorously stream in every subject so that all children can continue to be taught at the same school? I know some state schools do this pretty well, but I don't think it happens everywhere. (please correct me if I'm wrong!).
To me this seems so much more sensible than splitting whole schools by ability. Children could then move classes much more easily if they improve (or decline) relative to their peers. The idea of being written off at 11 is awful to me.

Try moving into the non-binary future

I'm in the non-binary future, it's called a comprehensive.

I don't understand someone seriously saying they're proposing a non-binary future, when what they mean is two schools, admissions to which are decided by an exam which selects on wealth.

Only its not a comprehensive system and it doesn't work for all, there is massive selection in all sorts of ways, not least by wealth. To maximize our countries future we need to utilize our best assets and that means stretching all our bright children. We don't have lots of money and some grammar schools aside all the other types of schools we already have seems the most cost effective way to doing this.

Its just not possible to force a thick child to pass an academic test, even if you throw 10k a year at them for 7 years in prep school. Correlation is not the same as causation!

Why don't we just rigorously stream in every subject so that all children can continue to be taught at the same school? I was told by a HT streaming is unfair on the less 'bright' children, by another that its not needed because they differentiate within classes, another said we dont have the numbers/resources. What ever it is they don't.

that means stretching all our bright children.
Why only the bright children? Why not stretch all children to the best of their ability?

To take a sporting analogy - I for one would never have in a million years made an Olympic or even county standard athlete. However, encouraging me to achieve my sporting best would have at least made me fitter. In fact that is one thing which is good about athletics meetings - a sportsperson's Personal or Season's Best is also noted.

There are more failing schools in grammar areas than comprehensive ones. By creating more grammars you are putting more kids into failing schools.

Why not stretch all children to the best of their ability?
We are, at least as far as I can see, massive effort is made to get E/D students up to a C, comps have the capability of getting the B/C students up to an A. But the A/A* students aren't being given this opportunity in every comprehensive.

To take a sporting analogy - How much benefit to the country is it to identify someone like Bradley Wiggins and stretch and challenge them to be the best they can be? How would he have reached the heights he did if we just forced him to train at the gym with all the other regular cyclists? All cyclists benefit from having a GB cycling team winning Gold!

But the A/A* students aren't being given this opportunity in every comprehensive.

Well, this will be highlighted in the new progress/attainment 8 measure so schools now have the incentive to sort this out. Perhaps we could wait for that to have some effect rather than demolishing the whole school system to replace it with something that definitely fails students and favours the rich?

Ah OK, I get your argument - so the poor kid who doesn't own a bike, but might just be a Bradley Wiggins, doesn't get the chance. Didn't Jason Kenny credit a school PE teacher for noticing his talent, and encouraging him to take it further?

mathsmum314 Tue 20-Sep-16 21:06:43 But the A/A students aren't being given this opportunity in every comprehensive.*

Is there any evidence that DCs are being given this opportunity at grammar schools?

"The analysis, by the Press Association, also shows that five areas have at least 10 under-performing schools. These are Kent (20 schools), Birmingham (11), Lancashire (11), Lincolnshire (10) and Northamptonshire (10). At the other end of the scale, there were 41 areas with no failing schools."

From 2015 data.

So Kent, Birmingham, Lancashire and Lincolnshire all have grammars and a high number of failing schools. Kent which is all selective has double the number of the next worst!

There are more failing schools in grammar areas than comprehensive ones.

Again your stating correlation rather than causation. Statistically if you take pupils with low grades and spread them around all schools you can bring the average school statistics up. But it doesn't change how many students are getting low grades, its just hiding them in the statistics. Is that the case in N.Ireland?

2014 In secondary moderns the average percentage achieving 5+ A*-C was 59.2%
2014 In independent schools the percentage achieving 5+ A*-C was 56.5%

So they are doing pretty well, wouldn't you say?

Everybody will do swimmingly regardless of a few missing kids.

Except they will have been labelled a failure on spurious grounds and their school will be more likely to be considered failing, leading to teachers leaving in droves. Hurrah.