Should state grammars positively discriminate in favour of state primary/ non tutored DCs?

[miljee]

Perhaps a 'cat amongst the pigeons' question, I know, but in view of the fact several top universities have been requested to lower their entry requirements for state comp. kids versus private/public schooled kids, shouldn't state grammars be requested to do the same? Would that 'level the playing field'?

"The ADHD child chose the topic for the whole class becasue of something he had suggested the previous week, the teacher was able to divert from her original planning and go off an an equally as valid tangent."

Does going off on a tangent improve exam results? Would the child had thrown a massive tantrum if he had not got his way? Non ADHD children also have interesting ideas.

Do well behaved children have more time to go off on a tangent? If little Jonny keeps on making silly fart noises do the rest of the class get to cover the sylabus for their GCSE exam? Do hard working less able children hold back the brighter kids more than lazy but bright kids.

Do you remember "Dante" from the programme "Child Genius". I wouldnt want him in my son's class even if he has an IQ of 175.

The situation was with a primary aged child on a drama class so no exam results in the equation. In fact that leads to a whole new discussion on the value of exams.

I chose private education for my dd to get away from the tyrrany of SATS for example, I value education at this age, not tests.

But it can work at secondary too, of course the teacher has to be skilled in getting back on track when needed, it is like a trade off, the ADHD child feels like his contribution is valued so is more likely to participate inthe rest of the class.
In my own GCSE year my Geography teacher devoted a whole class to a debate on a topic I had been arguiing the toss about with him.

Was I being disruptive, yes, probably, his way of dealing with it was to say, I am stopping this discussion now, but next lesson we'll do it properly, you can argue one way, someone else another then we have a vote, like a proper debate.

This was in a top set class by the way. And my Geography result, Grade B,not bad considering I am an arts person really. I think the class as a whole did pretty well.

My ex was just very good at making children behave. Some teachers aren't. So some of it comes down to the teaching but he would say the kind of behaviour ethos in some state schools is worse than in private schools. That things like carpet on the floor, nice buildings help behaviour, that rules that boys call the teacher sir and have to stand up when the teacher comes in the room and more importantly they all do it help. I am not suggesting private secondary schools don't have badly behaved pupils (they do) but the general starting point tends to be a bit better and perhaps as the parents are paying what for them is a fortune to send the children there may be helps them get behind the school and ensure good behaviour as well.

There is a child in my son's class whose behaviour is poor. I have him on video at home at our party and he clearly has some sort of ADD thing, always goes further than other children in testing and being naughty. The teacher rotates him between boys so his disruption of shared but I don't think he should be allowed to stay if he's not being treated. No one gains from his misbehaviour.

Funnily enough DD's comprehensive does not have carpet on floor, building has a flat roof and leaky windows and looks dated but well cared for (no rubbish or graffiti) however the youngsters also stand when a teacher or other adult enters room and have great respect for teachers. The one thing they do have is that parents are supportive of the teachers.

There are also applicants from private primary schools for year 7 and several sixth formers are from independent secondaries.

We have found SATS useful rather than a pressure as the levels are objective and mean more than "doing very well" and "satisfactory"

I still don't think it is right to actively discriminate which in effect is what is being suggested. There will always be bright children who don't achieve their potential for many different reasons. There will also be children who be pushed and tutored to pass exams.

The fact is you are not leveling the playing field at all you are sending the message that actually it is ok for you not quite to make the grade if you attend a state school/your parents can't or don't want to help you achieve your full potential etc etc. What is going to happen when they get a place at the school and realise that they didn't make the grade and got in for other reasons?

For those children sent to a private school who make the grade and then don't get in because you are 'levelling the playing field' you are saying sorry whilst you have worked really hard, your parents have (possibly) made lots of sacrifices we are not going to allow you a place. This is very demotivating for those children and very wrong.

What will we be doing next asking employers to employ people with lower qualifications because they went to a poor performing state school and it isn't their fault?

The fact is that all schools in this country should be good, be able to develp and encourage children to achieve their best. Where a child is from a challenging background these children and their families should be helped but not by lowering standards for them, that is insulting.

True and I suppose some employers do let people in without the same qualifications others need because they need to make up quotas.