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

Great, so now a school which serves its local community (as you would expect) is selecting by area what do you want? Any child to be able to apply to any school in the country and have equal priority?

If a child from a poorer community who does not have parents who can afford to move to a better area considers a better comprehensive worth a slightly linger trip, they should have equal chance of being admitted as a child whose parents were able to afford a closer house. Not all comps are equal. Why should children from poorer communities be offered only the less good comps?
Particularly in big cities, you are looking at many boundaries being close and quite a few comps within what most parents would consider a reasonable bus distance.
Regardless of religious background, each child who applies should have equal chance of attending that school

I grew up in a grammar school area and went to a grammar school. My children are growing up in an area with comprehensive schools. I much prefer the comprehensive system.

Me too

Oh god, more people trying to decide current education policy based on their outdated experience of school.

Alexander says she prefers the system her children are currently in.

Yes, to the one she was in years ago

Ok, so we bus all the poor kids to the better area comp, and all the wealthy kids to the poor area comp. What then?

I think part of the problem is what is usually seen as the marker of a good comp, which is usually high results. Contextual value-added used to deal with this but got binned.

Admission by lottery. Now that'd put a cat amongst the pigeons!

Ok, so we bus all the poor kids to the better area comp, and all the wealthy kids to the poor area comp. What then?

More social mobility due to lack of selection according to what area you can afford to buy a house in.

At least with the grammar system bright children from very poor backgrounds can and do get into good schools. Either we want selective schools or we do not. If we do not, it has to be more than just getting rid of those that decide on academic ability.

Let us not have a comprehensive system where those in middle class areas pretend they are all for equality because they are sending their children to middle class comps.

Comprehensive schools. Banded admission by lottery. Sorted.

What do you think would happen to the 'better area comp' if it had all the poor kids in it and none of the rich ones? Do you think it would still get the same results?

And we know that poor kids overwhelmingly don't get into grammars.

Comprehensive schools. Banded admission by lottery. Sorted.*No putting your child's name down for Harrow or hoping they will get into the Yehudi Menuhin School or attending mass in the hopes of getting into the Oratory School. Their names can just go into the hat with all the rest.

I live in a more rural area so I don't really know how dense city schools are. Bussing kids around my way would be impractical and bad for the environment. I think a lottery for any schools within a, what, 2 mile radius from your house would be ok?

I'd scrap religious schools and private ones in my New World Order.

I support grammars but not sure about secondary modern, I would prefer new type of school that helped non academic dc to learn other skills. I have one extremely able and academic dc - I want her to go to a school that can manage this skill. My other may not be the same, more artistic, I would want her in a school that could help with her talents. Sec moderns have bad reps.

And we know that poor kids overwhelmingly don't get into grammars
yes but big reason for this is because primary schools generally don't do much to help any of their dc get into one, so therefore it will be the child with the interested parent.

^I would prefer new type of school that helped non academic dc to learn other skills'

Wasn't this exactly what a secondary modern was supposed to be?

Anyway, not getting into a grammar shouldn't doom you to a non-academic education. One test at aged 10 should not determine whether you can do French GCSE or whatever.

"No putting your child's name down for Harrow or hoping they will get into the Yehudi Menuhin School or attending mass in the hopes of getting into the Oratory SchooL".

Priate school's aren't part of this dicsssion. Yes, state Faith schools should go, so The Oratory would go into the hat with the others.

JustRichmal Mon 20-Feb-17 13:09:37

I am in rich area and the comps are crap, some of them are even on leafy roads stuffed with million pound houses. I just don't think many of those dc go to them.

If a dc was exceptional musical talent, is there anything wrong with selecting a school that will allow this to flourish? If one of my DC was amazing singer, song writer and could play guitar would there be anything wrong with looking at the brit school?

noble its obv failed whatever it was supposed to be for.
Why shouldn't dc who are not strong academically be supported to do other things? I totally agree with not writing any child off academically but surely if dc is struggling at maths, other avenues need to be looked at rather than flogging dead horses?

And we know that poor kids overwhelmingly don't get into grammars
Definitely the balance needs to be more in their favour than at present. So I agree with TheFullMrexit. State primaries should stop pretending no one prepares for 11+ and start teaching children, who want to give it a go, to pass.

dc is struggling at maths

But that's nothing to do with grammar schools. The cut-off point for a grammar schools is nowhere near the point where a DC would struggle with maths. 70% of Y11s passed GCSE maths last year, the new grammar schools would take off the top 10% and current grammars 25%, leaving many DC capable of passing maths in the 'secondary modern'.

". Sec moderns have bad reps."

Many of them are excellent. They just often have results that frighten the mumsnet horses. What with having no high ability kids and all......

So what would you like to be dropped from the primary curriculum, Rich, in order to shoehorn in 11+ prep? I understand the curriculum is already quite squeezed for SATs prep. Maybe science will have to go.

Question to those who would like to stop religious selection for schools... Why do you think they are generally better (in terms of academic results) than comps?