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.

A good comprehensive puts the house prices up. The identical house in the next street, but a different catchment are will be thousands cheaper.

Errr why do the best teachers need to be in the poorest areas?

I'm interested in the assumption that not being being poor guarantees a child will do well too,no need for Ofsted then.

Any child in a family over £16 k are clearly guaranteed to do well and clearly anybody from a family under are doomed to failure.

Biggest load of cods I've heard in a long time.

High ability students (L5 at entry) should get an average of A for GCSE otherwise they have not made "good" progress by OFSTED standards.

Not really sure of your point smokepole with your 39% FSM. Plenty of schools (mine included) has a higher FSM percentage than that. 2/3 of my yr 10 class are PP (mixed ability option subject. FSM/PP does not = unintelligent.

And sorry drilling a child hard enough will guarantee you nothing,drilling alone will get you zilch.

You need a certain degree of intelligence to cope with the 11+ and many kids tutored to the nth degree still don't get in.

The point is that Stretford High is a non selective school in a Deprived area that operates a selective system. A true "Modern" under what some people designate a modern school as yet the school achieves almost what the average Comprehensive does at GCSE.

Who said FSM/PP = Unintelligent, I certainly did not....

I know children who were drilled and shouldn't have been there. They had to have remedial Maths and English once they started!!
The poorest areas get the worst of everything-they are so disadvantaged they need the best teachers.

Parents also pay out for private primary education to save fees later.

Money talks. A bright child with no preparation and parents who are not supportive doesn't stand a chance of a place.

smokepole you expressed surprise that 39% FSM would get 52% A-C. That suggests that FSM=unintelligent.

I teach in a non-selective school in a county with grammars. We have more than 39% FSM. Our results are better than 52% and have been for quite some time.

Given the 11+ paper is level 5/6 and a pass in Eng/maths is mandatory I'm slightly skeptical re this abundance of remedial help needed.I suspect you may get the odd genius in say maths/ science not so hot in say writing but who cares?

A significant problem for me is the increasingly casual premise that not-FSM = 'advantaged'.

Parental support will have the biggest impact on everything.Personally I think a child who has had an involved parent providing books,a place to do homework,a work ethic etc has as much right as any child.

And re your private school assumption,I nearly didn't bother attempting the 11+ because of this mantra.My kids go to a lack lustre state primary and all of those who entered it got in whereas the private school just down the road didn't do anywhere near as well.

So Miele, money DOES talk then? The 11+ prep was still paid for. This is my biggest issue with grammar school entry - it's for those who pay, not necessarily for those who deserve it. That's not to say that the DC who pass are not clever, but why should it come down to tutoring?

I would support scrapping grammars altogether. And I speak as the mother of primary children who are well above average and therefore likely to pass the 11+.

It's not just money that talks. It's social class, parental education, parental awareness of the system and how to work it......

Miele
Why should the parents have to be motivated?

Why not have non selective entry schools and then try to motivate all the kids, including ones with parents unable to jump through hoops?

"
"How you get parents to be motivated though I do not know."

Why should a child have to have motivated parents?

Totally agree with you Miele72. Though I think you are swimming against the tide of opinion here. Congratulations on your DS getting to grammar.

I would.

I don't believe in selective education. I don't believe that children should be allowed to go to schools outside their county. I don't believe that parental "choice" has done anything other than create massive differences in schools where they do not need to be. I live in a town with a super selective grammar and one comp for which people will pay a fortune for a shoe-box in catchment. The same school was a sink-school 15 years ago. Parental choice has created "good" schools and "sink" schools and the selective system simply exacerbates the issue.

So all the comprehensive schools near you are OFSTED 4s? Nobody goes to University?

Talkinpeace

The schools can only motivate so far. The children should be motivated to a certain degree by their parents or carers. If they are not who would want to send their children to a school where a significant proportion of students are disinterested in learning, and it's associated disruptions.