The Politics of Grammar Schools

[GiftedPhoenix]

I thought some mumsnet readers would be interested in my latest post, which is about grammar schools, especially their record in admitting high-attaining children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

giftedphoenix.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-politics-of-selection-grammar-schools-and-disadvantage/

The selection issue has been bubbling away in the media and this looks set to continue next week, as the Conservatives come under increased pressure from within their own party to include a commitment to new grammar schools in the Tory Election manifesto.

I wanted to explore what progress our remaining 163 grammar schools are making towards 'fair access', so providing a benchmark against which to judge political claims that they might be engines of social mobility. I'm not concerned with research on their historical record in this respect, but with evidence of recent reform.

I know many many parents and everybody I know is happy with the secondary they ended up with, so question is why are grammar schools such an issue?

But why do you have to live in catchment?
Lots and lots and lots of us don't
There are kids at DS school who live 5 miles outside the catchment boundary
I could NEVER afford to have a house as big as mine in the catchment of a decent school
but like many others round here we applied to our non catchment school(s)

Top sets at comps shit on the less able in the lower sets.Those coming from the poorer primaries are shafted before they even get there as they're often denied their rightful place in the top sets.

I would not get a place at that comp

Talkin when are you going to realise the world is v different away from your door.

Many,many areas have very small restricted catchment areas with some towns containing schools that are no go zones for those who can't afford to live on the right side of town.

Also even in your area you'll find with a high birth year the out of catchment kids won't get places.

Talkin. In some areas like here you have almost no chance of getting into oversubscribed schools without being in the catchment area. Even in catchment it can't be guaranteed. They measure from your front door to the school as the crow flies.

"Top sets at comps shit on the less able in the lower sets"

Total rubbish wrt DS's comp. In terms of friendships across sets, opportunities etc. What do you mean?

"Those coming from the poorer primaries are shafted before they even get there as they're often denied their rightful place in the top sets."

By 'poorer' do you mean worse schools or those with pupils living in poverty? Because in our S London comp children from disadvantaged circumstances are very well represented in top sets. (I've known them and their families since primary)

I mean those from lesser primaries who get lower Sats and thus get into lower sets on entry.

And having gone to a comp and rarely even sat in the same room as those in the lower sets I know only two well how different an experience it was for the higher and lower sets.

The mantra from parents with kids at our local comp is it's fine if you're in the top sets,not so much if you're not.Pretty similar to my own experience.

Actually DS started off in lower sets for English and has been nurtured in a way I don't think would happen at the grammar. He's now (Y10) in a set with kids who got much better marks in the SATs in Y6 - it's the second set and he's predicted to get a B in English which considering his starting point (a3A for writing although a high 4A for reading and a 5 for speaking) isn't awful.

LePetit
You re talking bollocks again.

Secondaries stopped using SATs for their setting years ago
they test all the kids at the start of year 7 and set them accordingly and shuffle the sets regularly through the 5 years

not just at my school but at the dozens and dozens that DH visits every year

and where do you get your nasty bigoted idea about kids shitting on lower sets
because in a Comp the top sets in different subjects contain different kids

opal
I know how the admissions code works
and yes, in some parts of the country there is a problem
but in 2014 85% of parents nationally got their first choice of school
outside London it was over 90%

THere is an issue in London : in no small part due to the eejit Broon

Those statistics don't really mean much when I for example would not bother putting the amazing comp down on my form because I know we'd never get a place.

Surely the same for many?

Takin' - no CATs at DS's comp. Initial sets done by SATS then movement as appropriate.

FFS LePetit, give teachers some credit. No school is going to set kids based on KS2 SATs and then not move them around as necessary.

So many posters on this thread come across as hideous snobs. The worst kind - the "I'm alright Jack" types. Most are posting based either on their own experiences of education years ago or on sheer ignorance. Top sets do not shit on lower sets. "Lesser" primary schools?

Yes the All right Jack attitude is prevalent isn't it,largely by those with kids in the best comps.

The fact is if you start in lower sets it's harder to work up,not rocket science.

Oh and Talkin you're talking crap.Ours sets by Sats and so do others.You've been told that countless times.

And the unfairness re comps isn't just in London.

That's not a fact - you really do not know what you are talking about. Students are regularly moved depending on where they should be. The FACT is that most comps are good at differentiation and at ensuring that students are in the correct set. It's also a fact that students can achieve perfectly good grades when taught in mixed ability non-core classes. My GCSE classes are mixed ability - no one is shitting on anyone there.

Oh, and teaching every student in the room in a way which enables them to make appropriate progress is one of the teaching standards. Teachers who do not demonstrate the ability to do so are dealt with much more swiftly than in the past.

I really really don't get the grammar school hate when apparently kids can be taught just fine anyway?

Exactly Not.

It's utterly bizarre.

It's the fact that it is assumed that other schools in grammar areas are somehow lesser, that the children there are not as intelligent or worthy of a great education and that the teachers are somehow of a lower calibre. The assumption that every parent should aspire for their child to go to one and that parents who do not want that are putting their petty ideologies ahead of their DC's welfare. Also the fact that the system is simply not fair - grammar school entry is not open to all, dependent only on intelligence. All of these things have come up in this thread.

Evil. We you join with me in a "Class Action" then against the teachers from 30 years ago, who had no idea about teaching "bright" pupils with special needs and just labelled them as thick?.

Who says that though?

My dd's go to the top superselective in your county evil and a lot of people have said to me that they wouldn't want this school for their child - too pressured ( though it really isn't), teaching too traditional...
Which it often is, heavily based on essay writing skills and racing through the syllabus at breakneck speed. Suits my daughters, but everyone I speak to is just as happy with their choice of school, so what's the issue?

Teachers from 30 years ago did some bloody awful things. My school had a "unit" for "thick" kids. Teachers' fault though? Or the fault of the politicians and educational "experts" of the day?

Who says that? RTFT.