Poor kids succeed at comps

[HPFA]

Yes, I know we don't really need another grammar school thread but I agree with this is so much I simply had to give it its due status:

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/past-when-poor-kids-succeeded-people-thought-it-was-because-grammar

Awesome article, spot on. And Wilshaw was excellent on the Today programme. As was Michelle Hussain in her interview with Greening. Too often John Humphries trots out dated crap about how great grammars are without ever speaking of those left behind. She was dogged and emphasised the choice, or lack of it, fallacy in the government's plans.

I would get irate about it, but it isn't going to happen. Of course I said that re. Brexit, but I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly forced academisation was squashed.

Don't disagree with you about grammar schools, and it is an interesting article. However, I couldn't help noticing how London-centric it is, and it doesn't necessarily reflect the facts elsewhere in the country - particularly schools in rural areas. The Ofsted chairman's comments about schools of the Isle of Wight this summer, should not be forgotten before we get too complacent.

I guess most journalists live in London and therefore have the good schools in mind. Plus London schools have been a big success story. Where I agree with him 1000% is on the cultural narrative. All over Twitter today been full of "no kid from a comp can get to Oxbridge" when state school entry is double what it was in the sixties.

I was about to say the same thing about it being London centric. The Today programme, this morning, failed to mention the extra money put into London Schools. Not that I'm pro grammars. I'm not pro anything. The current system - with some grammars, faith schools, some fair banding admissions, some specialism selection, Academies, free schools - is so disjointed and random. It's somewhat embarrassing that our country has this system and wants to add more to it.

Most kids do better in grammars, why should poor kids not be given that opportunity?

Because those kids who don't get into the grammars do worse than if they were in comps. I guess they don't matter though. And as the article says when we ignore all the disadvantaged kids who succeed from comps its little wonder the myth survives.

Because those kids who don't get into the grammars do worse than if they were in comps why would they? Having worked in many secondary moderns, I can assure you that the funding, staffing and opportunities are excellent.

Your definition of success is?

If a comprehensive raises a D-predicted pupil to a C (or better), it counts as a success for the school, and the pupil. If a B-prospect candidate gets a C or an A, then it's irrelevant either way as far as the school is concerned, because in the statistics it counts as part of the magic A*-C band. For the individual pupil, it could be catastrophic failure, depriving them of the chance for progress to A level study. Statistics are very blunt instruments, especially with grade banding.

Teachers concentrate understandably but disproportionately on the borderline D/C students because that is where the biggest win is for them professionally. There is very little recognition in moving a decent B to an A or A*.