Ballot to abolish grammar schools

[zeolite]

With all the talk on catchments, here is the second ever ballot to abolish grammar schools (the first was in 2000, on Ripon Grammar, which failed):

www.reading107fm.com/newscentre/local-news/petition-launched-to-scrap-two-reading-grammar-schools-247

What do MNetters think?

[takes cover now]

We are very cosmopolitan here! :o

"At least one parent educated past statutory school leaving age and in a professional/semi professional job, books in the house, meals round the table, occasional broadsheet newspaper in the house. Probably but not necessarily not on FSM."

-------

See this is what really pisses me off in the anti-grammar argument and the idea that all those terrible "middle class" (yuck, spit!) kids need a "reality check".

Books in the house and meals round the table are a CHOICE that some families make because (a) it's the lifestyle they want to live, and (b) it's the way they think children should be brought up. Books are not expensive, and given the ubiquitous presence of plasma TVs and games consoles in the majority of so-called "working class" households I very much doubt that money is the reason some children are exposed to them as normal and some aren't. "Meals round the table" cost no more bloody money to buy or cook than the same meals eatern in front of the TV. What they "cost" is the will to raise a family to be inquisitive, articulate people engaged in life with other humans. If you want to call that a "cost" - for me it is the great joy of being a parent and a privilege I could never repay.

I'm really sick of hearing about how, because I've raised my kids to read, think, debate, delay gratification, eat properly, relate to other people and not just mong out like lumps of jelly in front of a PSP 24 hours a day, they're undeserving recipients of some kind of "middle class" (yuck, spit!) privilege and need to be brought down a peg a two by having those qualities beaten out of them by kids whose parents were too lazy or uninterested to stimulate them in the first place.

If the families sending kids to secondary moderns want their kids to enjoy, respect and value learning, then it's up to THEM to bring them up that way and carry those values over into their school life. It's not up to me to do it for them - Christ, being a parent to two kids is hard enough. And it's certainly not up to my kids to do it for them.

The idea that this is about money and privilege is just an evasion of responsibility. In the London borough where we lived before moving to a grammar area, both my neighbours were builders and earned far more than me and my wife, both professionals. (Anyone seen what builders earn in London!) My DC's class at school was full of kids whose parents were on benefits, yet only about a third of the class could ever actually get to school on time. Question: What make a person on benefits, with no job, so busy that they can't get their kids to school?

These are questions of values and will, not money. Don't get me wrong, I vote Labour and support the welfare state enthusiastically. I would gladly pay more tax for full-on, committed programs to target the issue of disengagement from education that many of these kids inherit from their parents. But I won't accept that my child doesn't have the right to be in an environment where his qualities are valued and nurtured, and should instead just waste his time learning nothing at secondary the same as he did at primary.

Which is what happened. So don't tell me it's my middle class (yuck, spit!) imagination.

I get pissed off that some of the MC think that all WC people don't give a shit about their kids education and have no books and own plasma tvs

Its would be laughable if it wasn't so bloody patronising

To clarify: I was responding to a post by someone else which defined middle classness partly as having books in the house and meals round the table.

I actually agree with you that attaching such blanket generalisations to largely meaningless concepts of class is not very helpful (and FWIW, my rant against screen-centred lifestyles for kids goes for many middle class families too). I was only pointing out that people often use such generalisations to blame the so-called middle class for the disengagement of many other children from education, or to hold them responsible for providing such engagement.

It's fundamentally up to childrens' own parents to engage them, before "the system" can help.

usual I don't think confidence has said ..."all WC people don't give a shit about their kids education", has s/he?

But there is absolutely no getting away from the fact that statistically, the lower the socio-economic background of the parent, the poorer their children's life-outcomes are likely to be.

We can argue black is white, we can say 'but MY WC DCs are brought up in just the same way as confidence says s/he brings up her DCs'. BUT that doesn't disprove the statistics.

It was me who defined middle class like that.In this context, I stand by it. I am not blaming the middle classes for anything. I am simply saying that having a tier of state education which is ONLY accessible to children from that type of family is hugely divisive and unfair. The child did not make the choice about books/plasma TV.

I see where you're coming from Seeker, I really do, but you could apply your thinking on this to so many aspects of life, it would be impossible and unneccesary to try and ensure children have the same of everything.

Children gain education and life experience from travelling abroad, would you say that shouldn't be allowed just because some parents can't afford it or choose not to do it. After all, it's not the child's fault that they don't have the opportunity.

What about eating fresh, healthy food. Should some children be denied that because others have parents that don't see the importance of it?

Even when it comes to comprehensive secondary education, children don't get exactly the same quality of education. Should a child that lives in the area of an outstanding secondary be penalised because a child in another area only has access to a secondary school that is in special measures?

Also, there are children from what you define as MC families that don't have access to a GS simply because the area doesn't have one, do you think it's ok for them to get a better education than someone else because their parents choose to enhance their education at home?

In areas that do have a GS, all parents have equal access to if if they make the right choices. And it's the parents responsibility at the end of the day. If the only reason a child doesn't have access to a GS is because they don't score highly enough in the test, then generally, they are not suited to a GS education.

There are children that don't score highly enough to get a place at GS just because the competition for places is so fierce, even if they pass the test and would be suited to a GS education. I think the whole situation is much more unfair on those children and their families, and the only way to rectify that is to provide more GS places, not less. If then the alternatives to GS were of a good standard and able to cater for each child's individual needs, why would there be any cause for complaint?

I very much agree with confidence's post.

The point is that I don't actually think children get a better education at th grammar school than they would do in a comprehensive. But they DO get a better education thatn they would in a secondary modern.

And the "side effects' of the grammar school system - the corrosive effects on communities, the sense of failute of the ones who don;t amke it and she sense of superiority of those that do - the list is endless - are so damaging that the system is indefensible.

And yes, parents can give theri kids and advantage in the way you say. But the grammar system is a state sponsored, tax payer funded inequity. And that can;'t be right. Any more than the Governmeont deciding which child was going to get healthy food and which not. Or forbidding some families to buy more than 5 books. Or only issuing passports to middle class families (actually, and a lover of Lanzarote this last suddenly seems like a good idea.......) (THAT WAS A JOKE!!!!!!!!!)

I don't know of any secondary moderns, we don't have them round here, even though we have a GS, so I can't comment on them. If they are worse, then they need to be improved. That's where the real problem lies.

I disagree with GS's dividing communities, but again, as my area has one GS each for girls and boys and all comps, I'm probably not in the best position to comment on that either.

And again, I really do see where you're coming from, but I just don't think it's a big enough reason to get worked up about or to warrant the end of GS's.

There are other inequalities in state funded things all over the place. My quite sporty ds2, who is unlikely to get a place at the GS with his brother, can access council funded football clubs, tennis lessons, and a athletics club. There's probably more that I don't know about. But there is no council funded chess club for my academic child. No book groups or stratgey game clubs for him to attend at a cost to the taxpayer. So there already inequalities in what is open to them.

Simelarly, my academic child may be made to feel like a failure at sports day because he comes last in every race he participates in, but it's up to us as his parents, and his teachers, to promote everyones strengths. I don't feel like there should be no chance for the sporty children to shine, or get what activities they need just because it could make ds1 feel bad about the fact that he can't be good at it. Getting a place at GS is his opportunity to be proud of what he does well. He deserves that just as much as any other less academic child that gets chosen for all the sports teams, or does well in all the races.

If you have grammar schools you don't by definition have comprehensive schools.

You are basing your argument on the fact that the children who get grammar school places are the most academic one who will benefit most from them. If that was true I might just be reconciled to them. But certainly in this area and in the other areas I know anything about, that's not true.

"here are other inequalities in state funded things all over the place. My quite sporty ds2, who is unlikely to get a place at the GS with his brother, can access council funded football clubs, tennis lessons, and a athletics club. There's probably more that I don't know about. But there is no council funded chess club for my academic child. No book groups or stratgey game clubs for him to attend at a cost to the taxpayer. So there already inequalities in what is open to them."

Don;t understand this. Are you saying that your academic child is denied access to sports clubs - or that he is just not interested in them? if he's not interested in them how is it unfair that they are available to those that are?

I don't know what to say to you about the definition of schools, but I can 100% assure you that if my ds hadn't got into the Grammar, he would be going to a comprehensive.

Don;t understand this. Are you saying that your academic child is denied access to sports clubs - or that he is just not interested in them? if he's not interested in them how is it unfair that they are available to those that are?

I didn't say it was unfair that those things were available to those interested in them. On the contrary, I think it's fantastic that those things are available. I was pointing out that there are other state funded things that not of interest to everyone, but that doesn't mena they shouldn't exist.

And yes, of course they are open to my ds, if he's interested in them. But only if I as the parent make the effort to find out when and where they run and take him along. In exactly the same way that GS in this area is open to children that are interested in them if their parents make the effort to find out about them and enter them for the exam.

But grammar schools are NOT available to anyone who is interested. It's not actually about the ability of the child. A child who is interested in football doesn't need support and encouragement and the right background for years before he goes to the club and plays football. His parents don;t need to be in a position to research what's necessary, buy the right books, fill in the right forms and so on before he rocks up at football club. And going/ not going to football club does not make a significant impact on a child's future, or influence his relationsips with all the other children of the same age in his class or town.

It also doesn;t perpetuate social and class division in the area and the country at large.

bubblecoral please can you explain what you mean by a "GS education", and from that the qualities that you believe make a child "more suitable" for this type of education than any other?
Because to you it is obviously much more than selection by academic ability because pretty much all secondary schools do that with heir intake anyway by means of streaming.

I have to say, seeker, I think just about everything you've written about football, isn't actually correct. For a child who is interested in football, his success can be greatly influenced by his parents' attitude at age 5 - do they encourage him; do research to find an out-of-school club; can they afford the subs and the kit and the travelling expenses when he starts playing in a Saturday league? If you look at children in football clubs at age 11, I would bet that the vast majority of them have been doing extracurricular football training for years.

And of COURSE that could have a massive impact on the child's future - do we think that e.g. Beckham would be where he is now if his football experience had consisted entirely of kickabouts at break time???

jgbmum - I get a bit confused by the anti-grammar school arguments. Are you saying that being in a grammar school is like being in the top streams at a comprehensive?

But football clubs are accessible to all children who are interested. Not just the 23%!

And I don;t really think that comparing being David Beckham to getting into grammar school at 11 is particularly valid. Although some of the parents at ds's football club certainly think that they've got a future Beckham in their hands!

Well, yes, any children can try to get into a football club, but if they're not good enough, they won't, will they? Or am I misunderstanding things, and there are clubs out there who are happy to put anyone who likes football in their U13 team, regardless of ability?

And if you've got nice middle-class parents who have been giving up their Saturday mornings for many years to take you to football, then you're likely to be more successful than if your parents can't even afford to buy you a ball to play with.

But you're not going to get into the top set in a comprehensive school if you're not good at academic stuff either. And if you're in a comprehensive school nobody is going to say to you at 10 "Sorry, you're not top set material and you never will be"

Ds's football club has three teams. They play other teams of equal ability. But if, as often happens, somebody in the lower ability team does a developmental spurt then get moved "up". And vice versa.

A bit like a comprehensive school, really.

I also disagree with you about the football thing. A child needs encouragement to achieve anything, unless they are spectacularly gifted and motivated. Even then, without the right support from somewhere, their talent will never really have a realistic chance.

My child could go to our local football club, but the fact that he's not very good at it and therefore would not, and (when we tried it when he was younger) did not ever get the chance to play in any of the competative matches. I'd say that was just as demoralising for him as it is for any other child not to pass the 11+. The 11+ is open to any child whose parents want to put their child forward. They may not pass though. The football club is open to any child whose parenst want to take them. They may not make the team though. So where's the major difference?

No, football clubs are not fully accessible to any child who is interested. In much the same way that GS is not fully accessible to any child who is interested. But that does not mean that neither should exist for those who would benefit.

seeker, you are making out like requesting a prospectus and filling in a form for a GS is wildly different to doing the same for any other school. It is not. Anyone that can apply to a comp can apply to a grammar school as well.

GS does not divide the classes, if anything, it can bring them together. As I've already pointed out, our family is nothing special in terms of wealth or social standing or anything else you want to define as MC. The only reason my child is going to GS is because of his academic ability. He will be educated with others of a simelar academic ability, whether they come from families that live on £15000 a year or £120,000 a year. What's so wrong with that?

Jbmum I don't really know what you mean. Read my words in context rather than just finding one timey little phrase to try and find offence in. Of course GS is all about academic selection, how else do you think children get spaces?? And as I've already stated some of the resons why I wanted my child to go to this particular GS, I really don't see the need to repeat myself. I can't comment on other grammar schools that I know nothing about.

But you're not going to get into the top set in a comprehensive school if you're not good at academic stuff either. And if you're in a comprehensive school nobody is going to say to you at 10 "Sorry, you're not top set material and you never will be"

The children generally still know what they are good at and what they aren't so good at though. That's life. They might still get told they don't make the footbal team. Why is that ok in your mind because it's not about academic ability.

Our local football team isn't big enough to have three teams with simelar abilities all playing eachother. Does that mean that your club should cease to exist because the same opportunity is not available here?

I don;t think it's worth carrying on this conversation. People who support grammar schools can't let themselves see how unfair it is becaue their child is benefitting from the system. They might feel differently if their child wasn't. And it is bonkers to suggest that not being picked for a football team has a similar effect, both psychiologically and in terms of life chances as failing the 11 plus.

All I ask is that you consider the fact that only about 2% of children at grammar schools are on free school meals, compared to, I think abour 16% of the secondary school pupulation. What does that tell you about the grammar school's effect on social mobility?

No one would say that in a comprehensive. DS moved up from 3rd set in Maths to top set within a year and got an 'A' at A'level. That is the joy of the comprehensive.

seeker you have to treat the FSM index with caution. Claiming is not the same as eligiblity. Clearly there's a disproportion at the moment however.

The numbers claiming EMA may be more useful. Not sure where to find the numbers for schools in general.