Grammar schools

[Var123]

I heard this on the radio this morning. Was very interesting to us parents of G&T children, I thought.
talkradio.co.uk/news/julia-tears-mp-neil-carmichael-opposing-grammar-schools-while-sending-his-children-one

I do not think it possible in this country to get rid of all selective schools. Even if you do away with grammar schools there will still be selection to schools on whether parents can afford fees, the parent's religion, talents such as musical ability, dance or acting, where the child lives or just the gender of the child.

Even in comprehensives there is either streaming or setting. It is just that, without an 11+, or equivalent unbiased exam, and decisions based on teacher assessment, the attractive, outspoken children the teachers hope will do well get unfair priority over the quiet, plain children for the top streams. To say nothing of those whose parents are governors or run the PTA.

Rather, I would like to see more equality of chances for all who take the 11+. If the top 10% from each state feeder school were selected it would be a start. Also families from low income background should have additional expenses, such as travel to and from the school, paid for them.

Rather than fighting what has already been decided, it would be better to fight for a more equal deal for those families on low pay who do see education as a way ahead for their children.

"It is just that, without an 11+, or equivalent unbiased exam, and decisions based on teacher assessment, the attractive, outspoken children the teachers hope will do well get unfair priority over the quiet, plain children for the top streams. To say nothing of those whose parents are governors or run the PTA."

I think I may just have heard it all now! Being on the PTA gets your child into the top set??

If the top 10% from each state feeder school were selected it would be a start.

This is never going to happen and nor should it.

My catchment primary feeds into a very sought after comprehensive. More than 10% of children were getting L6 maths (under the old KS2 levels terminology); more than two thirds were above L5 maths. Parents move into these catchments because of the schools - and they are not necessarily very wealthy, but care deeply about education.

A few miles away there is a primary school with very different demographics in which less than 15% of kids get L5 maths.

Taking the top 10% of both schools would result in L6 kids from the first school missing the cut while low L5 kids from the second school get in. I can't see how this makes any sense whatsoever.

BTW I would happily campaign to get rid of state schools selecting on religion etc too. I find it disgusting that catchment schools select on religion - either potentially denying local children places and forcing them to travel or inflicting religion onto them. Very few countries in the world have state schools with religious affiliation.

It is just that, without an 11+, or equivalent unbiased exam.

If the exam is genuinely "unbiased", why do you want to allow the top 10% of all schools to pass, regardless of scores? Surely this is because you acknowledge that in reality it is always going to be biased - it is biased towards children from affluent, educated family backgrounds.

Ah yes, really bright children, the traditionally best looking kids out of the student cohort Our sets are decided by spreadsheet, no photos attached, perhaps that's why I teach some 'quiet plain children' in my top set who just happen to be really good at maths.

Rather than fighting what has already been decided

It hasn't been decided. We've had a Green Paper consultation, the results of which have yet to be published. After that there will be a White Paper. I imagine it will also have to get through parliament and Lords, as there's legistlation to be revoked.

It hasn't been decided. And once the details of the plans become clear it may well be that the idea is no longer going down well with the public (why would most parents be in favour of schools taking only the top 10%?) and the introduction of new grammars would be watered down accordingly.

My catchment primary feeds into a very sought after comprehensive.Parents move into these catchments because of the school
So comprehensive schools result in even primary schools being selective.
If comprehensive places were decides by ballot, none of this would happen.
Our sets are decided by spreadsheet,
Well, yes, if the spreadsheets contain only test results and not teachers' opinions of a child's capability. I went to a comp and spent a year of useless education because the streaming was done on the say of the primary teachers. Being a shy, awkward child, it was never going to go in my favour.

But you can't decide comprehensives by ballots outside urban areas without kids being bussed miles away to the second or third nearest comprehensive. (Expensive and unfair on the kids having to travel). Our closest secondary school is over 2 miles away. Our second closest is 5 miles away. Our third closest is around 10 miles away. The latter can take up to an hour to reach in rush hour traffic.

I went to a comp and spent a year of useless education because the streaming was done on the say of the primary teachers. Being a shy, awkward child, it was never going to go in my favour.

But this was presumably before national KS testing and CAT testing, right? Because nowadays a shy child is not likely to be in the wrong stream just because of being shy - the main factors in setting will be test results.

(And what about this putative shy child and the Kent grammar results - where borderline cases are discussed with primaries anyhow?)

Oh god, more people trying to decide current education policy based on their outdated experience of school.

Well, at least I now know why my children have always been in the top sets- they happen to be physically attractive and I have always been a governor and a stalwart of various PTAs. And there was me thinking it was because they were quite bright.

Oh god, more people trying to decide current education policy based on their outdated experience of school.
You may think the tone of this comment witty, however it is offensive. I actually think you have a point, but for some, all we have is what went wrong in the past. As for the present, I have asked teachers to test my child with an exam, but they have insisted it is done by teacher assessment only.

It wasn't intended to be witty, the tone was exasperated. People banging on about what happened to them at school decades ago as if it is remotely relevant today gets quite tedious.

My DS is in Y3 and has already sat externally marked assessments.

Richmal, do you really believe children are chosen for the top sets based on their parents' involvement with the school and their physical
appearance?

My DS is in Y3 and has already sat externally marked assessments,
Whereas my dd's school went out of their way not to assess her to her level.

Richmal, do you really believe children are chosen for the top sets based on their parents' involvement with the school and their physical
appearance?
Can you assure me that all teachers do not have favourites, and all people involved with the school are doing it for purely altruistic reasons?

But your back story here is hardly typical: your DD was taught at home well beyond primary school level (against the wishes of the primary school) and she was put in by you for GCSE maths in primary school (if I recall correctly) to prove that she was working at levels beyond what they were doing at school.

Your backstory has very little relevance to the usual case of kids being taught material at school and assessed on how well they are doing to put them into sets/streams.

And you could have put your DD into one of the most academically high achieving and selective schools in the country and you would still probably have disagreed with the maths departments on how best to teach your DD. (Very few think it's in the best interests of any child to do GCSE maths in primary.) So again your case is not representative.

So your complaint about your DD is already out of date.

I said externally marked, however thinking about it, I don't think KS1 SATs are externally marked, but they are nationally benchmarked.

I also think that if you are in the position of not trusting teacher's internal assessments and asking for external assessment instead, then the relationship between you and the school has deteriorated to the point that you need to remove your DC. It is no longer about whether DC are in the right sets -the issue is that you do not trust the school to educate your DC.

I'm going to be volunteering at my DS's school next year, I had no idea it would get him into the top sets of course it's not totally altruistic, the more people that help out, the better the school will be for my DS.

"Can you assure me that all teachers do not have favourites, and all people involved with the school are doing it for purely altruistic reasons?"

What would be the point of putting someone in the top set if they weren't capable of managing it?

Well Bertrand, the pretty kid goes in top set and the cries of 'I don't get it' are just ignored while the plain kid in bottom set who finished the work yonks ago is also ignored.

There has been research that in job interviews people do make subconscious decisions on looks. Unfortunately, where we like it or not, we all do judge a book by its cover. The problem with teacher assessment is that it does involve a subjective assessment.

But setting doesn't rely on teacher assessment - certainly not at secondary. And setting decisions are nothing like a job interview.

I really don't understand the argument that putting kids in a different school based on a one-off assessment aged 10 is somehow less unfair (or just as fair) as putting kids into sets at secondary. Setting is nothing like putting kids in a different school.

Comps are still selective, they just select on area or religion.