Grammar Schools
Discussion
GreatGranny said:
Grammar schools don't suit everyone irrespective of their academic ability.
The range of subjects the Academy teaches is huge and their aim is for pupils to have the option to study there until they are 18 whatever their ability.
Also the sixth forms are combined so for that 2 years both 'A' level grammar school and academy pupils study together.
If I may take those points.The range of subjects the Academy teaches is huge and their aim is for pupils to have the option to study there until they are 18 whatever their ability.
Also the sixth forms are combined so for that 2 years both 'A' level grammar school and academy pupils study together.
Quite right about not suiting every single one of our most academically able stufents. There are parents and students who do actually discuss the issue of secondary education and sometimes that will result in not applying to a grammar. It's not the norm but of course it happens.
The range of subjects that the Academy teaches, being in Lincs, will almost certainly be shrinking fast as per many secondary schools in areas that lose out in the funding lottery. Schools with sixth-forms are finding it very difficult to maintain their previously wide range of courses and a number of sixth-forms are closing or have already closed. I appreciate you didn't say this was a grammar school thing, but it's not a grammar school thing.
Grammar schools also collaborate with each other to generate efficiencies that allow a larger number of students to take a wider range of courses.
Something I feel is missing from this thread is the attitude of (many, not all) parents and their effect in skewing the whole debate.
When my daughter started the 11 plus process, we got to know some of the other parents from her primary schools of kids also going through the same. I got the distinct impression from a great many of these that their motivation was driven by the kudos of having child going to Grammar School, regardless of what was right for their child, which in many cases was completely the wrong thing for them. These were the ones that paid fortunes for private tutors and residential courses.
There were 15 kids from my daughter's year going for the 11+ that year, only about seven of which had been recommended by the head teacher, the others were actively dissuaded from doing so by the head. Of these, four failed and the parents of two of them launched a legal battle for appeal.
I didn't realise that there are actually lawyers who specialise in appeal cases for Grammar School entries. They are not cheap either.
I could sort of understand this if the options locally were terrible but they weren't. Two local comps and both excellent; top performing in all regards. So if the Head of the primary school is telling you that your child isn't cut out for Grammar School, your child then fails the 11+ and you then spend fortunes appealing this, which also fails...what does that tell you about the parents?
I'm of the firm opinion that academic capacity is as much about how a child is hardwired as it is about early development support stuff. We were of course pleased as punch that my daughter had such capacity and sailed through the 11+ with nothing more than some free after school coaching and a bit of support from us.
And as nice as it would have been have my son go through the same, we were more than comfortable with the fact that he did not have this capacity and that his needs would be served perfectly well at the local comp.
The result is that we've now two happy, young adults making a good start in their chosen fields having both had a good and happy education.
If parents treat the schools they send their kids to in the same way they would a Rolex watch or holiday in Barbados, then motives really need to be questioned.
When my daughter started the 11 plus process, we got to know some of the other parents from her primary schools of kids also going through the same. I got the distinct impression from a great many of these that their motivation was driven by the kudos of having child going to Grammar School, regardless of what was right for their child, which in many cases was completely the wrong thing for them. These were the ones that paid fortunes for private tutors and residential courses.
There were 15 kids from my daughter's year going for the 11+ that year, only about seven of which had been recommended by the head teacher, the others were actively dissuaded from doing so by the head. Of these, four failed and the parents of two of them launched a legal battle for appeal.
I didn't realise that there are actually lawyers who specialise in appeal cases for Grammar School entries. They are not cheap either.
I could sort of understand this if the options locally were terrible but they weren't. Two local comps and both excellent; top performing in all regards. So if the Head of the primary school is telling you that your child isn't cut out for Grammar School, your child then fails the 11+ and you then spend fortunes appealing this, which also fails...what does that tell you about the parents?
I'm of the firm opinion that academic capacity is as much about how a child is hardwired as it is about early development support stuff. We were of course pleased as punch that my daughter had such capacity and sailed through the 11+ with nothing more than some free after school coaching and a bit of support from us.
And as nice as it would have been have my son go through the same, we were more than comfortable with the fact that he did not have this capacity and that his needs would be served perfectly well at the local comp.
The result is that we've now two happy, young adults making a good start in their chosen fields having both had a good and happy education.
If parents treat the schools they send their kids to in the same way they would a Rolex watch or holiday in Barbados, then motives really need to be questioned.
There seems to be lots of broken records with a huge chip on their on here banging on about 'affluent families' or 'rich people' as if its some clear definition.
Does anyone have a clear definition of 'Affluent' or 'rich'.
Is it defined as a level of income?
Above the national average?
Half the national average?
Double the national average?
or,
is this all some form of social housing v's people with mortgages bigotry?
Unless we have a datum, all these 3, 14, 25, 50% statistics are totally meaningless.
Mandalore said:
There seems to be lots of broken records with a huge chip on their on here banging on about 'affluent families' or 'rich people' as if its some clear definition.
Does anyone have a clear definition of 'Affluent' or 'rich'.
Is it defined as a level of income?
Above the national average?
Half the national average?
Double the national average?
or,
is this all some form of social housing v's people with mortgages bigotry?
Unless we have a datum, all these 3, 14, 25, 50% statistics are totally meaningless.
Are they? Forget affluent and rich, let's concentrate on poor. Do you think qualifying for free school meals is a reasonable indication of low household income, coupled with lack of savings? Does anyone have a clear definition of 'Affluent' or 'rich'.
Is it defined as a level of income?
Above the national average?
Half the national average?
Double the national average?
or,
is this all some form of social housing v's people with mortgages bigotry?
Unless we have a datum, all these 3, 14, 25, 50% statistics are totally meaningless.
What do you think is a better measure of the numbers of children from poorer backgrounds in a school. Would that be the % on free school meals, or one of the dads posting on the internet that the school is full of kids from all walks of life?
According to HM Govt, entitlement to free school meals arises from meeting any of the following:
* Income Support
*income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
* income-related Employment and Support Allowance
*support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
* the guaranteed element of Pension Credit
*Child Tax Credit (provided you’re not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
*Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
*Universal Credit
However in today's world of universal abbreviations the relevant eduspeak is E6FSM which is used in stats. This refers to any child who has been eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years. I've always considered this as muddying the waters somewhat since a child could have parents who are now in well-paid employment, or who received an inheritance from grandparents, or even won a significant sum in the lottery.
Then we have to go back to a key reason why grammar shools have a smaller percentage of E6FSM pupils, which relates to house price pressure arising due to the small number of gtammar schools allowing wealthy parents an advantage by buying inside the catchment area of a grammar school - which poorer families cannot afford due to pressure on house prices from wealthy parents competing to buy houses...
And as pointed out just recently, after I posted, the outcomes for E6FSM pupils are another matter. Would they be better with the very able E6FSM pupil in a comp?
* Income Support
*income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
* income-related Employment and Support Allowance
*support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
* the guaranteed element of Pension Credit
*Child Tax Credit (provided you’re not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
*Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
*Universal Credit
However in today's world of universal abbreviations the relevant eduspeak is E6FSM which is used in stats. This refers to any child who has been eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years. I've always considered this as muddying the waters somewhat since a child could have parents who are now in well-paid employment, or who received an inheritance from grandparents, or even won a significant sum in the lottery.
Then we have to go back to a key reason why grammar shools have a smaller percentage of E6FSM pupils, which relates to house price pressure arising due to the small number of gtammar schools allowing wealthy parents an advantage by buying inside the catchment area of a grammar school - which poorer families cannot afford due to pressure on house prices from wealthy parents competing to buy houses...
And as pointed out just recently, after I posted, the outcomes for E6FSM pupils are another matter. Would they be better with the very able E6FSM pupil in a comp?
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 5th July 09:45
turbobloke said:
According to HM Govt, entitlement to free school meals arises from meeting any of the following:
* Income Support
*income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
* income-related Employment and Support Allowance
*support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
* the guaranteed element of Pension Credit
*Child Tax Credit (provided you’re not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
*Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
*Universal Credit
However in today's world of universal abbreviations the relevant eduspeak is E6FSM which is used in stats. This refers to any child who has been eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years. I've always considered this as muddying the waters somewhat since a child could have parents who are now in well-paid employment, or who received an inheritance from grandparents, or even won a significant sum in the lottery.
When I was a school governor, the % of kids of free school meals was based on the kids who were claiming free school meals on the day we compiled the figures. * Income Support
*income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
* income-related Employment and Support Allowance
*support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
* the guaranteed element of Pension Credit
*Child Tax Credit (provided you’re not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
*Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
*Universal Credit
However in today's world of universal abbreviations the relevant eduspeak is E6FSM which is used in stats. This refers to any child who has been eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years. I've always considered this as muddying the waters somewhat since a child could have parents who are now in well-paid employment, or who received an inheritance from grandparents, or even won a significant sum in the lottery.
Just caught up on this, interesting to read that we are talking about very small percentages in both comps and grammars regarding free school meals, it clearly isn't the tool to use as to why grammars are elitist.
I will echo the catchment are again,
I lived at ct6 6hs at the time and went to the school 19 miles away!!
I will echo the catchment are again,
I lived at ct6 6hs at the time and went to the school 19 miles away!!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
turbobloke said:
According to HM Govt, entitlement to free school meals arises from meeting any of the following:
* Income Support
*income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
* income-related Employment and Support Allowance
*support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
* the guaranteed element of Pension Credit
*Child Tax Credit (provided you’re not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
*Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
*Universal Credit
However in today's world of universal abbreviations the relevant eduspeak is E6FSM which is used in stats. This refers to any child who has been eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years. I've always considered this as muddying the waters somewhat since a child could have parents who are now in well-paid employment, or who received an inheritance from grandparents, or even won a significant sum in the lottery.
When I was a school governor, the % of kids of free school meals was based on the kids who were claiming free school meals on the day we compiled the figures. * Income Support
*income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
* income-related Employment and Support Allowance
*support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
* the guaranteed element of Pension Credit
*Child Tax Credit (provided you’re not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
*Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
*Universal Credit
However in today's world of universal abbreviations the relevant eduspeak is E6FSM which is used in stats. This refers to any child who has been eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years. I've always considered this as muddying the waters somewhat since a child could have parents who are now in well-paid employment, or who received an inheritance from grandparents, or even won a significant sum in the lottery.
Take a look at the entry for this grammar school in DfE league tables.
https://www.compare-school-performance.service.gov...
Scroll down the web page until you see the 'Absence and Pupil Population' option and click that.
Scroll down past Absence and look at the last entry in the 'Pupil Population in 2015 to 2016' category.
This is for "Pupils eligible for free school meals at any time during the past 6 years".
The figure given is 3.8% against a national average of 29.3% which relates to the discussion above about house prices and access to poorer families.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mandalore said:
There seems to be lots of broken records with a huge chip on their on here banging on about 'affluent families' or 'rich people' as if its some clear definition.
Does anyone have a clear definition of 'Affluent' or 'rich'.
Is it defined as a level of income?
Above the national average?
Half the national average?
Double the national average?
or,
is this all some form of social housing v's people with mortgages bigotry?
Unless we have a datum, all these 3, 14, 25, 50% statistics are totally meaningless.
Are they? Forget affluent and rich, let's concentrate on poor. Do you think qualifying for free school meals is a reasonable indication of low household income, coupled with lack of savings? Does anyone have a clear definition of 'Affluent' or 'rich'.
Is it defined as a level of income?
Above the national average?
Half the national average?
Double the national average?
or,
is this all some form of social housing v's people with mortgages bigotry?
Unless we have a datum, all these 3, 14, 25, 50% statistics are totally meaningless.
What do you think is a better measure of the numbers of children from poorer backgrounds in a school. Would that be the % on free school meals, or one of the dads posting on the internet that the school is full of kids from all walks of life?
What do I think?
That people should ignore you as you are clearly biased beyond normal bias.
and blind, and deaf.
babatunde said:
Another factor is that wealthy parents are generally well educated, they were part of the academic elite as children, thus will generally have children who have similar abilities, "genetics" (yes we know about Sid, left school at 12 built an empire by 20, he is the exception not the rule). Thus because they value education highly they are much more motivated to get their children into grammer schools and have the means to make this happen, either by private tuition or moving to catchment areas
Interesting point about "genetics".One of the lads i was at primary school with was not "the brightest apple in the cart" and went to the local comprehensive which, at that time, was really bad. His dad was/is extremely wealthy and he had loads of tuition after school. This was 35+ years ago when tuition wasn't that common, especially in a northern mill town. However It didn't do him any good unfortunately, and he ended up with an E at A level.
Anyway, he ended up marrying a girl who went to a Grammar School, graduated with a first in Biology, did a Masters in neuroscience, and started quite a well paid research job for Glaxo. Once they got married she didn't need to work anymore and they now have 4 kids, the elder 2 of which passed the 11+.
TL:DR - how much of our achievement s down to genetics and how much is environmental? A discussion for a different thread methinks.
Anybody who wants to assess the wealth of Grammar school students' families should go to the school car park on Parents evenings....
Mandalore said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mandalore said:
There seems to be lots of broken records with a huge chip on their on here banging on about 'affluent families' or 'rich people' as if its some clear definition.
Does anyone have a clear definition of 'Affluent' or 'rich'.
Is it defined as a level of income?
Above the national average?
Half the national average?
Double the national average?
or,
is this all some form of social housing v's people with mortgages bigotry?
Unless we have a datum, all these 3, 14, 25, 50% statistics are totally meaningless.
Are they? Forget affluent and rich, let's concentrate on poor. Do you think qualifying for free school meals is a reasonable indication of low household income, coupled with lack of savings? Does anyone have a clear definition of 'Affluent' or 'rich'.
Is it defined as a level of income?
Above the national average?
Half the national average?
Double the national average?
or,
is this all some form of social housing v's people with mortgages bigotry?
Unless we have a datum, all these 3, 14, 25, 50% statistics are totally meaningless.
What do you think is a better measure of the numbers of children from poorer backgrounds in a school. Would that be the % on free school meals, or one of the dads posting on the internet that the school is full of kids from all walks of life?
What do I think?
That people should ignore you as you are clearly biased beyond normal bias.
and blind, and deaf.
768 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you think the free school meals stats are totally meaningless, because they don't say what you'd like them to say, then I'm not sure I'm the one with the bias issue!
They don't say anything.sugerbear said:
768 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you think the free school meals stats are totally meaningless, because they don't say what you'd like them to say, then I'm not sure I'm the one with the bias issue!
They don't say anything.The reason fewer E6FSM pupils attend grammar schools on average isn't directly due to the grammar schools' admissions policies. 11-16 admissions forms are not allowed to ask for the type of information that would promote dodgy admissions and interviews are only sanctioned for (state) boarding schools to help determine the suitability of boarding.
Then there's the point that however many E6FSM pupils attend grammars, they're clearly very able pupils and the idea that they would do better in a comp is in error for the large majority. Ofsted has shown how far too many non-selective schools fail their most able pupils.
A very effective means of rapidly increasing the % of E6FSM pupils in grammar schools is to have a couple of grammars in every major town to give parents and pupils better access while increasing choice and diversity of provision.
turbobloke said:
sugerbear said:
768 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you think the free school meals stats are totally meaningless, because they don't say what you'd like them to say, then I'm not sure I'm the one with the bias issue!
They don't say anything.Most claimed this wasn't so, that the kids came from all walks of life. Then the free school meals stat was brought up, which we're now told means nothing, and doesn't count as evidence, not compared to having the feeling that the school is full of kids from all walks of life.
Now we have the very people who said there was no bias against poorer kids in the grammar school system trying to explain why that bias exists and it's not the grammar schools fault. When no one said it was in the first place, as I recall.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
turbobloke said:
sugerbear said:
768 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you think the free school meals stats are totally meaningless, because they don't say what you'd like them to say, then I'm not sure I'm the one with the bias issue!
They don't say anything.Most claimed this wasn't so, that the kids came from all walks of life. Then the free school meals stat was brought up, which we're now told means nothing, and doesn't count as evidence, not compared to having the feeling that the school is full of kids from all walks of life.
Now we have the very people who said there was no bias against poorer kids in the grammar school system trying to explain why that bias exists and it's not the grammar schools fault. When no one said it was in the first place, as I recall.
Clearly the point of grammar schools is to be academically elitist.
AFAICS people explaining the lower numbers of E6FSM pupils aren't explaining bias that they say exists, they're explaining the lower number of E6FSM pupils. You say it exists, at times.
Getting your story straight and not maligning others would seem in order.
Who cares if the kids on free school meals that get into a grammar do better academically as a result, that those who don't get in would do worse if they were sent and couldn't keep up.
They should just send a handful more kids on free school meals who didn't make the grade and that would address elitism.
They should just send a handful more kids on free school meals who didn't make the grade and that would address elitism.
768 said:
Who cares if the kids on free school meals that get into a grammar do better academically as a result, that those who don't get in would do worse if they were sent and couldn't keep up.
They should just send a handful more kids on free school meals who didn't make the grade and that would address elitism.
Agreed! Affirmative action, what can possibly go wrong?They should just send a handful more kids on free school meals who didn't make the grade and that would address elitism.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff