Grammar Schools
Discussion
768 said:
They should just send a handful more kids on free school meals who didn't make the grade and that would address elitism. 
The issue is why they don't apply in the first place (parents attitude to education perhaps, plus other reasons), and if they do apply are they held back from making the grade because of lack of funds for private tuition,and if they do make the grade, do they not take up the place because of lack of funds for commuting a longer distance.? Now the grammar schools don't set out to exclude kids from poorer families, as all the kids take the same exam, but the net result is that for a variety of reasons, financial as well as academic, poorer kids are effectively excluded.
But I accept that's only if you go with the evidence of 3% on free school meals compared to 14% nationally, as opposed to the evidence of "I get the feeling the kids are from all walks of life."
turbobloke said:
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.
A policy can end up being discriminatory, whilst not setting out to be.
What's contradictory is people saying on the one hand there is no bias against poorer kids in grammar schools, and then giving reasons why there is a bias against poorer kids in grammar schools.
garyhun said:
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.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The issue is why they don't apply in the first place (parents attitude to education perhaps, plus other reasons)
But how do we know from just the % that get in that they don't apply?TwigtheWonderkid said:
and if they do apply
Of course; we don't know they don't apply. Because the figure of how many get in alone tells us nothing of any use.We don't even know what the percentage of kids in the top sets on free school meals at your favoured comprehensive was for comparison. Do they publish that figure or is the hidden elitism within comprehensive streaming a dirty secret?
garyhun said:
Countdown said:
It might help with social mobility. I thought that was supposed to be one of the big selling points of Grammar Schools.
How can putting kids into a school in which they will struggle help social mobility?Their parents are intimidated by it as they aren't well educated themselves
They haven't got access to private tuition
They can't afford the transport costs
How is that helping with social mobility.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If clever kids are not going to grammar schools because:
Their parents are intimidated by it as they aren't well educated themselves
They haven't got access to private tuition
They can't afford the transport costs
How is that helping with social mobility.
Well, firstly, you have to establish that any of your speculation here is true. Then your inadequately punctuated question might require an answer.Their parents are intimidated by it as they aren't well educated themselves
They haven't got access to private tuition
They can't afford the transport costs
How is that helping with social mobility.
garyhun said:
Countdown said:
It might help with social mobility. I thought that was supposed to be one of the big selling points of Grammar Schools.
How can putting kids into a school in which they will struggle help social mobility?TwigtheWonderkid said:
garyhun said:
Countdown said:
It might help with social mobility. I thought that was supposed to be one of the big selling points of Grammar Schools.
How can putting kids into a school in which they will struggle help social mobility?Their parents are intimidated by it as they aren't well educated themselves
They haven't got access to private tuition
They can't afford the transport costs
How is that helping with social mobility.
How does that work?
garyhun said:
Anyways, I'm off to find some one legged lads for my first 11 football team.
Need to keep it non-elitist!
If you restricted your options to the sons/daughters of premier League coaches and players you'd probably get a very good team. But you might miss out on the next maradona / messi Need to keep it non-elitist!
Countdown said:
garyhun said:
Anyways, I'm off to find some one legged lads for my first 11 football team.
Need to keep it non-elitist!
If you restricted your options to the sons/daughters of premier League coaches and players you'd probably get a very good team. But you might miss out on the next maradona / messi Need to keep it non-elitist!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't understand your point at all.
That figures.garyhun said:
Countdown said:
It might help with social mobility. I thought that was supposed to be one of the big selling points of Grammar Schools.
How can putting kids into a school in which they will struggle help social mobility?TwigtheWonderkid said:
If clever kids are not going to grammar schools because:
Their parents are intimidated by it as they aren't well educated themselves
They haven't got access to private tuition
They can't afford the transport costs
How is that helping with social mobility.
Your understandng is failing again at this point.Their parents are intimidated by it as they aren't well educated themselves
They haven't got access to private tuition
They can't afford the transport costs
How is that helping with social mobility.
Social mobility isn't about getting into a grammar school and those you're replying to have commented about putting free school meal kids in on a free ticket not because they pass an entry test. Kids who don't get an offer are by a very long distance NOT those who don't get extra tuition. A large number of those pupils given tuition won't get an offer of a place either. You've managed to miss so many points it's a matter of deciding where to start.
Social mobility is about very able working class kids not being left to achieve mediocrity in a comprehensive, given that Ofsted showed how far too many non-selective schools fail their most able pupils this is itself far too likely. They won't get the GCSEs or A-levels or indeed the encouragement to aspire to a Russell Group uni and one of the professions.
For those that pass the entry test to a grammar school it's about gaining the means to achieve future economic well-being. Failing in a grammat school environment won't help with that at all. Putting more E6FSM kinds in on a free pass when they won't cope with the highly academic enrvironment won't do anything for social mobility.
We need to get the families of the most able pupils from less well-off families into a position where there's a grammar school within a realistic distance that they can apply to, pass the test, gain a place, and then via qualifications, become socially mobile. Their parents won't be able to do that on their own because house prices near grammar schools have risen due to competition to buy them. Only well-off parents can afford the move.
If the kids can't be brought to the grammars, bring the grammars to the kids. A couple of grammar schools in every major town would go a long way to improving access for working class children considerably.
Being mixed in with the nutters in an average comp won't facilitate high levels of achieveent for able working class kids. Teachers will be spending lots of time keeping the "free expression" pupils off the walls and down from the roof. That's what passes as teaching. They won't encourage very able working class kids to aspire to a top university and a job in law or finance as happens at grammar schools (and independent schools). That's not my opinion it's evidence seen by Ofsted during their study of how well comprehensives on average (don't) meet the learning needs and aspirations of their most able children.
All this has been posted previously but you ignore it in favour of trotting out the same old dogma.
When a working class pupil achieves more highly in a grammar school environment than they would in a boggo comp, as happens (Ofsted again) this - below - is where the social mobility arises.
Bringing below average achievement even up to the modest national average would add £140 billion to GDP by 2050. The calculations are based on the increased lifetime earnings of students as they gain higher levels of qualifications. Boston Consulting Group conducted the work on a pro bono basis for the Sutton Trust. Clearly if a very able child langishes in a non-aspirational lower achievement environment both they and the country suffer economically as a result.
The average increase in lifetime productivity per additional pupil achieving the equivalent of 5+ good grades at GCSE is £100,000 for men and £85,000 for women, based on an analysis using two 2007 papers: one by S McIntosh and another from Jenkins, Greenwood & Vignoles.
For men whose highest qualification is only a single A-level pass, an hourly earnings premium of 46% is enjoyed over those men with no qualifications. This increases to 59% for those men who have gained two or more A-levels. The comparable figures for women are 37% for single A-level achievers and 45% for those with 2 or more A-levels. From O'Leary and Sloan (2004).
The average monetary value of completing a degree over and above 2 or more ‘A’ Levels is approximately £129,000 (PriceWaterhouseCoopers report for the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics, but this particular figure does not relate solely to physics or chemistry graduates).
This ^ ^ is social mobility. It arises when a working class pupil achieves more highly in a highly academic grammar school emvironment suited to their learning needs rather than languishing in the average non-selective conprehensive school and under-achieving as a result inn terms of both exams and career (as Ofsted found happening far too often).
Maybe we need a test for politicians to see if they can understand these very basic evidenced points.
turbobloke said:
Being mixed in with the nutters in an average comp won't facilitate high levels of achieveent for able working class kids. Teachers will be spending lots of time keeping the "free expression" pupils off the walls and down from the roof. That's what passes as teaching. They won't encourage very able working class kids to aspire to a top university and a job in law or finance as happens at grammar schools (and independent schools). That's not my opinion it's evidence seen by Ofsted during their study of how well comprehensives on average (don't) meet the learning needs and aspirations of their most able children.
I think Twig misses this point because the secondary school he was involved in was a high achieving and successful one in a good catchment area with decent pupils attending. In return they got excellent results. I don't think he can see that in other areas the most successful result a leaving pupil can have is to not be stabbed, pregnant or done for drugs. Twig will claim I've gone all Daily Mail, but sadly that's how it is in many less wealthy urban areas, but I don't think he is aware of it.FWIW, our local grammars are not in wealthy areas and do not have catchment areas. This is what provides the social mix, unlike decent secondary schools which do have a catchment area, which pushes up house prices to the extent that only the wealthy can attend...
RicksAlfas said:
I think Twig misses this point because the secondary school he was involved in was a high achieving and successful one in a good catchment area with decent pupils attending. In return they got excellent results. I don't think he can see that in other areas the most successful result a leaving pupil can have is to not be stabbed, pregnant or done for drugs. Twig will claim I've gone all Daily Mail, but sadly that's how it is in many less wealthy urban areas, but I don't think he is aware of it.
Not aware of it....I grew up in it, you clown. But your generalisations about comps in poor inner city areas are largely untrue. They aren't perfect, but finishing school not pregnant, not stabbed and not convicted for drugs offences is not classed as a successful result. garyhun said:
Countdown said:
garyhun said:
Anyways, I'm off to find some one legged lads for my first 11 football team.
Need to keep it non-elitist!
If you restricted your options to the sons/daughters of premier League coaches and players you'd probably get a very good team. But you might miss out on the next maradona / messi Need to keep it non-elitist!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
garyhun said:
Countdown said:
garyhun said:
Anyways, I'm off to find some one legged lads for my first 11 football team.
Need to keep it non-elitist!
If you restricted your options to the sons/daughters of premier League coaches and players you'd probably get a very good team. But you might miss out on the next maradona / messi Need to keep it non-elitist!
The way it works is you take the raw talent and then nurture it so that it develops to fulfil its true potential.
And as has been put forward by the Conservatives, free transport for those that need it up to 15 miles.
Sounds like your issues are made of straw.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff