Labour advised to finish closing all grammars

[twistyizzy]

Advice currently being given to Labour by same group that support VAT on private schools.

Bright kids often are. When they’re engaged, it makes them delightful to teach (when you have the freedom to teach how and what you want to) and then because they’re interested and have had teaching which allows them to chat, they’ll settle down quietly and do their work when it’s required of them.

I acknowledge that, but I just want to point out that those children are not the majority in superselective schools. Look at the number of pupil premium students in these schools compared to the national average.

If superselective grammar schools spread across the country, it will just create more social divide bubbles and could lead to a grammar county scenario that detriments other comprehensive schools in the same area.

I’m not joking I heard about someone who moved from Aberdeen to attend a superselective grammar school in London.

In September, if you check the students taking exams at some superselective schools in Barnet or Sutton, you’ll see buses or coaches bringing in many students from Birmingham, Berkshire etc. Sure, I agree with you that many others parent don’t make a fuss about it, and it probably doesn’t make much difference.

It wouldn’t lead to a grammar country scenario. You are conflating a full grammar system with super selective.

And I never said those pupils were the majority, but why would you want to take it away from the minority.

Because you say many super bright children need this type of school, I am arguing that due to accessibility issues and barriers, it actually creates a significant mismatch between the actual need and demand for such a bubble. The majority gets in has no such need from the kid.

Well that wouldn’t be usual would it. I can send you the FOI request listing the primary schools that were attended by the pupils in my son’s school. This shows that pretty much every pupil came from a primary within the same county as the school or from London (which the county borders).

In your expert opinion that has never taught at such a school or had a child at one.

@OvertutoredMum PP follows fsm. It’s to “close the gap”. This isn’t often a gap between merely bright and super bright is it? Why would you expect PP dc in super selective grammars? Pp would be largely mis used if vast numbers of recipients were super bright. What gap is being closed? A culturaL one possibly? Of course there are bright DC who qualify for pp and the scores to get into the grammars are reduced for them. I think grammars with catchment areas work best.

Did I mention that I haven’t?

So mention it then. Don’t be coy

The rationale is that if superselective grammar schools are performing the function of social ladders for underprivileged families and children, we should at least expect the number of PP or fsm pupils to not be an order of magnitude lower than the national average.

Sure, let’s see how many of them have to move.

The students very much care who is teaching them. Why on Earth would you think teachers and pupils don’t have good relationships?! Also, some students get tutored in subjects they’re struggling in (it’s all relative, 6/7 is often considered to be struggling) but kids aren’t routinely tutored just for the sake of it. They don’t need to be.

You said that you had indirect experience and gave an example of a “friend”!

No problem. I will DM you.

I’m confident that in most schools, including comprehensive ones, teachers, students, and parents maintain good relationships. I’m simply sharing one experience, just as you are sharing yours; both are representative.

I think superselective grammars and very selective private schools operate on a similar basis. They select the very brightest kids and then the curriculum is tailored to those kids and the pace is much faster in pure academics and then there is a ton of extracurricular and societies to support their wider interests. Top maths sets everywhere do not spend that much time teaching and spend more time on greater depth questions/UKMT type questions. It is a given the students have already grasped a lot of the material. Parents who overtutor are deluded in thinking their just upper average kid is going to necessarily do better in a school like this. They would often be better off in a school that really handholds and teaches to the test.

The downside is that those kids in superselectives do not realise how bright they really are as going there they are “normal”. Feeling normal is nice for a teen though.

Equally, for equally bright kids going to comps who are in the minority there (which is a fact for most comps 11-16) they may feel overly special and bright and once they get to eg Oxbridge they can tank and their confidence takes a knocking when they are suddenly surrounded by lots of other very bright kids. This is when the superselective lot have a confidence advantage.

At this juncture, we should also highlight that a lot of the most academic private schools like Westminster and Eton have full bursary programmes for truly gifted children as well, and often you can get 105-110% off school fees to cover uniform and trips as well. These places are available to all boys across the country. And here we should also highlight and question why there are not as many girls places!

For some reason, properly gifted children is a very emotive subject in the UK. Of course these children have a form of special educational need. And they deserve to be challenged. Many are not, up and down the country and that is a fact.

Maybe the kids didn’t give your friend a hard time for being on supply - it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t rather have their teacher! Good lord. Also, where did I say that there aren’t good relationships in comprehensive schools? Of course there are lots of excellent relationships, though parent-teacher ones are certainly different. Your views of grammars are absolutely not representative of the sector - you seem to have very misguided views of super-selective, actually, without any direct experience of them whatsoever. Both grammar and comprehensives have positives and negatives, like most things, but they absolutely are chalk and cheese.

Regarding this topic, I would argue that most students at these types of selective schools need parental involvement or tutoring, whether private or state, to gain admission. Therefore, whether tutored kids struggle or not in the school is a moot point. Natural super talent is in the minority. Comprehensive schools across the country participate in UKMT challenges, and you might be surprised to find that many of the finalists who reach the IMO or similar competitions are from comprehensive schools.

Also, are there any facts indicating that private sector bursaries awarded in this country are biased towards boys? That sounds really bad.

Sadly @Moglet4 - there is simply a lot of prejudice against these children. I suspect people know they will do incredibly well later in life if they do get this opportunity, so some jealousy/misunderstanding is quite typical. Where I live there is so much negative gossip around these schools along the lines of the boys are well nerdy weirdos who are overtutored and the girls all have mental health issues, anorexia or self harm. When in actual fact the vast majority of these kids are simply very naturally bright all rounder super high achievers and many have significant extra curricular talents too.

Any teachers knows kids just grasp concepts at very different speeds. There is a norm up to a certain point. I think top 5% should be recognised as a form of SEN as they have different needs.

"I think top 5% should be recognised as a form of SEN as they have different needs."

Validated by score in the 11-plus exam?!! Can they also receive an exemption from private school VAT as the Prime Minister suggested?

@OvertutoredMum When the 11 plus became universal in the 1940s, of course it was to help the lower classes. However these people have been helped! They are now middle class. That’s why we have lots of people doing well at school and uni. We have to accept that exceptionally bright dc with parents doing low skill jobs barely exist. People with a long history of being below average at school just won’t have exceedingly bright dc. That’s also a lot of people! The genetic pool has been dredged.

What we do have is bright parents not working much and taking benefits because it suits them. Or immigrants who are bright but haven’t been here very long. Plenty of these in London for example - and fair enough. The grammars haven’t given a leg up up to the working class for 50 years! Lots in my grammar were working class - virtually none are now!

"We have to accept that exceptionally bright dc with parents doing low skill jobs barely exist. People with a long history of being below average at school just won’t have exceedingly bright dc. That’s also a lot of people! The genetic pool has been dredged."

I’m not comfortable reading this, sorry.

SEN? This is beyond ridiculous!!

No this is wrong.

This is what diversity programmes in uni are about.

I worked in a secondary for 25 years. Plenty of really bright kids ( they do tests in Y7) with dysfunctional parents.

The problem was getting them to achieve with little home support. But there were lots of them. And they are a target group in education with loads of data.