Who saw BBC 2 Grammar schools - who will get in " last night?

[Foxy333]

Watched this last night with interest. We're not in Grammar school area and generally I think it was / is a bad system that works for the top abilities but not for the middle and lower ones. However I've seen my daughter suffer in years 7 to 9 or a comprehensive from not being stretched and teachers concentrating on the most demanding pupils who need lots of help and ignoring the quiet well- behaved pupils who going to pass GCSE's anyway. Often some pupils disrupt the class and the whole class gets punished.

They only set them for 2 subjects and I've heard that's changing in future to one. so I see why a Grammar would suit some. But why cant all schools be good. Is it stricter discipline that's needed?

Felt for the children in the program, so young to face this divisive test.

Grammar schools have on average 6% Pupil premium

Actually - this figure is out of date now - the average FSM rate for the Kent Grammars is 8.2% - not much below the average rate for the top 500 comprehensives - 12 of the 31 Kent Grammars have FSM rates of over 9%.

Clavinova,

i genuinely believe banding, applied at a large town or part of county level (aiming to cover at least 5 schools), where every school's intake is as nearly as possible matched to the 'local average population', on dimensions both of socioeconomic background and ability, would be BRILLIANT if combined with free transport to the assigned school.

A traffic and logistical nightmare, of course. But it would mean that schools' results would depend on their educational quality, not the quality of their intake, and that would be VERY interesting to see.

My son is 'special' needs yet not once has he used it as an excuse to behave badly ! This includes not choosing to lash out at three girls at his ex 'outstanding' comp who bullied him solidly for 3 and half years.
Two of these girls have apparently got offers for Oxbridge .

Having special needs does not/should not give a child a free pass at appalling behaviour.

Cantkeep. The education the top sets of the aforementioned comprehensive receive does not include 'chair' throwers . However they do include children who like to bully those perceived to be lower them than whether educationally or socially.

I always find the idea that comprehensives are this great utopia of society mixing across the classes quite absurd .

The rich /bright kids and poor 'stupid' kids are totally segregated in comprehensive schools. Straight A children don't mix with children with special educational needs nor Millionaire pupils with Council estate pupils.

This despite the portrayal

Clavinova, but the point is that Kent as a whole has a FSM rate of ?23%? (unless that figure is out of date too). While the grammars remain socially as well as academically selective, surely we should be focusing on removing that unfairness, not pointing at that it also applies to some other, different schools elsewhere?

Letstalk,

I do appreciate that you personal experience has made your response to this whole question highly emotional, and you are seizing on particular items in e.g. television programmes which reinforce your exisiting views.

However, are you sure that your generalisations are valid? For GCSE, DD (who would probably fit your definition of 'bright', though definitely not a millionaire's child) is in mixed ability groups for all but 3 of her subjects? Predictions in her mixed ability subjects range from 1s / 2s all the way up to 9s.

However they do include children who like to bully those perceived to be lower them than whether educationally or socially.

Do grammar schools not contain such pupils?

letstalk I teach in a comp and I teach a mixed ability subject. This runs from grade 9 to grade 1, and includes a boy with a disability, and no one has thrown a chair .

surely we should be focusing on removing that unfairness, not pointing at that it also applies to some other, different schools elsewhere?

500 (or even 400) schools is rather more than 'some'.

Agreed.

Shall we separate it into 2 questions:

• is it right that grammar schools are socially selective? No

• Is it right that comprehensive schools elsewhere are socially selective? No

Solution to both:
Make all schools comprehensive, and set policies for admission that as far as humanly possible avoid social selection.

(And all proxy measures for social selection - selection by ability, aptitude or faith)

It obviously isn't sensible JUST to set policies for comprehensive schools for social selection while leaving grammar schools intact, as selection by ability is so strongly linked to social selection. You would have to do both.

I watched this programme and it made me feel ashamed of myself. I had previously put my DS forward for 11+. We got as far as viewing potential school and him sitting a mock and having about 10 tutor sessions. He was diagnosed with high functioning Autism and I quickly realised he was not going to cope with a Grammar school. When I asked about SEN at the school open day they made a big fuss and ushered me in to speak with the SENCO. Looking back perhaps they thought I was some kind of mystery shopper- it seemed an OTT response.
DS was too anxious to sit the actual exam and I realised it was a bad idea. I have since heard from ex staff that the school is AWFUL with SEN and we have had a narrow escape.
I do think that considering your child's mental health has to be the main priority and not all children, even those bright enough, can cope with the high pressure environment.

Quarter of UK parents move house for the school catchment area

One in four parents with school age children have either bought or rented a new home to avail themselves of the right address for a particular catchment area and were willing to spend an extra 12 per cent on top of the market value of a home for the location

www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/uk-parents-move-house-school-catchment-area-quarter-best-education-a7908046.html

Exactly - and that leaves the poorest and most vulnerable least able to access the good schools. So introduce fair banding within a comprehensive system everywhere. I'd absolutely join that campaign - ie sweep away overtly and covertly selective education in 1 go.

Just a quick check on your data, btw: are faith schools counted as comprehensive in the figures? They aren't comprehensive, of course, so if they are included then it would distort the findings.

(Faith criteria are so obviously covert selection that they are probably best classes as 'overt' selection - however I am not convinced that they are always separated from comprehensives in the data)

PurpleDaisy2114
That's a shame - we know a number of boys with 'high-functioning' Aspergers at super-selective grammar schools (and a few more we suspect/parents don't want a diagnosis) - plenty at dcs' selective private schools as well.

BertrandRussell
BertrandRussell said:
The comprehensive system is the least worst. Super selective are the second least worst and wholly selective is the worst worse.

Why so bitter and negative. Did you have a bad experience of one.

Ah, just checked. They have erroneously classed faith schools as comprehensives, and unsurprisingly:

'Faith schools are among the most socially selective group of top schools, more than three times as selective as non-faith schools, and make up 33.4% of the list.

So no more than 333 of those 'top 500 schools' are actually comprehensives?

There are 3,408 state funded secondary schools overall, so again it is worth considering whether we first address a problem which affects no more than around 1 in 10 schools in England (if that - is there evidence that all of the 333 remaining comprehensive schools in the Sutton trust's list are genuinely socially selective?) or one that affects every school in Kent / Bucks 9wuith the exception of MK...)?

i agree that both need to be tackled, preferably together, but arguing that you shouldn't address a problem that affects every school in almost 2 counties - and many others in smaller grammar areas elsewhere - because it also affects 1 in 10 or so of other schools elsewhere in the country seems a little shortsighted?

Piggywaspushed
I work in a comp (different county to that I live in). It is very high achieving (interestingly many parents tutor if they have the money). I think there are some amazing teachers - some of the best I’ve seen and some who aren’t. I could say the same about teachers in my children’s school.

I think the effects of league tables are hideous and children are being forced to do inappropriate/ irrelevant subjects sometimes. All vocational type courses have been done away with. There is an us and them amongst the children- those who are wealthy and or bright vs those who aren’t and never the two shall meet. Do I feel it enables social mobility? I’m not sure- for some yes for others I feel they’re future was decided many years earlier - if you grow up with illiterate parents it is very difficult to break out of that cycle.

Yes we have lots of tutoring too :it's endemic.

Their not they’re!

The tutoring really saddens me as it masks poor teaching and creates an artificial impression of the impact of the school.

The main difference I would say between the pupils in the two schools is their expectations and what is an OK grade. But obviously in a pre selected group their attainment will be higher.