Grammar Schools
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you can find any post of mine saying ALL are from affluent families, I'll gladly apologise. But you won't find it. I did say that the majority are from middle class families with above average income.
But perhaps instead of making stuff up about what I've said, perhaps post honestly the percentage of kids of free school meals at your sons' school, and let's see how it stacks up against the average?
That's my experience as well. This is of a Grammar in Lancashire with the nearest other Grammar being approx 30 miles away and massively oversubscribed.But perhaps instead of making stuff up about what I've said, perhaps post honestly the percentage of kids of free school meals at your sons' school, and let's see how it stacks up against the average?
Countdown said:
When my brother and I went there it was mainly local kids from working class backgrounds but with a fair smattering of the kids of local business owners. School trips were to Alton Towers. By last year (when my youngest finished her GCSEs) the number of working class kids going there are minimal. The quality of cars in the school car park suggest that most parents are "middle-class" or above and there's at least one if not 2 trips to the US, Europe, the Far East, or Australia every year, It's a big difference compared to when i went there, as far as I can see.
And this is Theresa May's answer to improving social mobility! 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And this is Theresa May's answer to improving social mobility!
If there were more of them that could still happen.The problem at the moment is that limited spaces mean that the students most in need of social mobility are crowded out by people who are able and willing to provide extra tuition for their kids.
Countdown said:
If there were more of them that could still happen.
The problem at the moment is that limited spaces mean that the students most in need of social mobility are crowded out by people who are able and willing to provide extra tuition for their kids.
Back in my day there was the option of a Technical School as well, so less of a cliff edge, perceived or otherwise. The problem at the moment is that limited spaces mean that the students most in need of social mobility are crowded out by people who are able and willing to provide extra tuition for their kids.
blueg33 said:
Both my kids went to Grammar schools and I was a Governor of one of them, yes there are some kids from the poorest backgrounds but the vast majority are from middle class families with above average incomes.
Is this a case of middle class people live in Cheltenham, shocker?! 
I don't think I'm far from where you are, but we're currently thinking about Alcester Grammar for ours largely because we'd need to move and Cheltenham's a relatively expensive place to live in the area. I'd be shocked if the restricted supply of grammar schools didn't result in higher house prices around them, because parents want them and therefore there's a knock on effect on the demographic.
We won't be paying for coaching. All this will only get worse if private schools have to charge VAT.
blueg33 said:
These are all pretty well paid except for the teacher
And I'd imagine the public sector maths professor, assuming they're staff.Countdown said:
It's like an arms race and (I think) exacerbated by the fact that people want private school levels of education via the State.
I'm not sure it's quite a private school level of education I'm after - the grammar school I went to for a few years wasn't swimming in sports pitches with small class sizes or more pianos than kids who knew what to do with them. They had a swimming pool amongst the portacabins, but they couldn't afford to run it and it was rancid. I do want my kids to go somewhere where everyone's more invested in the children doing well. Sending three kids to private school probably isn't within my finances - I think I'd need £75k a year after tax just to get them through the door. £50k and I'd be sweating a bit more. Perhaps I could just send my favourite, or one twin.Even for my son in year 1 we've already been called in twice this year to talk to his teacher because a remarkably overweight child with a chav name is fighting with what sounds like anyone and everyone whenever he thinks the teacher has their back turned. The 11+ doesn't magically solve all of that for us, but I think it helps.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And this is Theresa May's answer to improving social mobility!
It's nothing to do with social mobility. It's to make lower middle class people think that *their* kids can get a private education on the cheap, and to make oldies misty eyed about their school days.Going off topic but... Real social mobility would need the government to tackle the nepotism inherent in the system which ensures that some professions are massively over represented by privately educated people (*1) - easier said than done.
- 1 i.e. the 71% of senior judges who had private education, when only 7% of the population is privately educated....
tangerine_sedge said:
Going off topic but... Real social mobility would need the government to tackle the nepotism inherent in the system which ensures that some professions are massively over represented by privately educated people (*1) - easier said than done.
Your example of the over representation of senior judges isn't necessarily caused by nepotism. - 1 i.e. the 71% of senior judges who had private education, when only 7% of the population is privately educated....
I suspect though it is still linked to social mobility, just at an earlier age - how many children at a "bog standard" comprehensive realise that a career as a barrister could be ideal for them?
EddieSteadyGo said:
Your example of the over representation of senior judges isn't necessarily caused by nepotism.
I suspect though it is still linked to social mobility, just at an earlier age - how many children at a "bog standard" comprehensive realise that a career as a barrister could be ideal for them?
By nepotism, I meant within the system, i.e. different parts of the legal system selecting people just like them, who attended the same schools and colleges and move in the same social circles.I suspect though it is still linked to social mobility, just at an earlier age - how many children at a "bog standard" comprehensive realise that a career as a barrister could be ideal for them?
0000 said:
I do want my kids to go somewhere where everyone's more invested in the children doing well.
Even for my son in year 1 we've already been called in twice this year to talk to his teacher because a remarkably overweight child with a chav name is fighting with what sounds like anyone and everyone whenever he thinks the teacher has their back turned. The 11+ doesn't magically solve all of that for us, but I think it helps.
This and this.Even for my son in year 1 we've already been called in twice this year to talk to his teacher because a remarkably overweight child with a chav name is fighting with what sounds like anyone and everyone whenever he thinks the teacher has their back turned. The 11+ doesn't magically solve all of that for us, but I think it helps.
If your local secondary school is a smart and modern establishment with good discipline and "nice" kids, it's easy to question the need for grammar schools. If on the other hand your local secondary school is like Grange Hill with added violence and drugs, the grammar school looks much more attractive.
Does your kid sit the 11+, or do you spend a fortune to move within the catchment area of another school? Either way is selective!
RicksAlfas said:
This and this.
If your local secondary school is a smart and modern establishment with good discipline and "nice" kids, it's easy to question the need for grammar schools. If on the other hand your local secondary school is like Grange Hill with added violence and drugs, the grammar school looks much more attractive.
Does your kid sit the 11+, or do you spend a fortune to move within the catchment area of another school? Either way is selective!
Well said - and the fact that house prices inside the catchment areas of 'good' secondary schools are so astronomical indicates that many people consider it worth spending the money to 'select' the best school for their kids' education.If your local secondary school is a smart and modern establishment with good discipline and "nice" kids, it's easy to question the need for grammar schools. If on the other hand your local secondary school is like Grange Hill with added violence and drugs, the grammar school looks much more attractive.
Does your kid sit the 11+, or do you spend a fortune to move within the catchment area of another school? Either way is selective!
But of course, the 11 plus which selects on academic merit is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair' whereas a system that means that parents with the biggest wallets get the best secondary education for their kids is perfectly fine in the eyes of most.
I think the issue is that too many people remember the stresses of exams and think that sparing their kids from that is doing them a favour.
Lucas Ayde said:
But of course, the 11 plus which selects on academic merit is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair' whereas a system that means that parents with the biggest wallets get the best secondary education for their kids is perfectly fine in the eyes of most.
But the system that selects on academic merit is also, indirectly, selecting on parents' wallet size. That's the point you have missed in your post..Life is unfair. Kids with 2 parents have the advantage over kids with one. Kids whose parents can afford to live in a nice area have the advantage over kids in a rough area. Kids who get to go abroad on holiday and have books and music in the house are at an advantage over kids who are plonked in front of the telly all day and don't go away on holidays. Some kids get taken to museums and art galleries, and some don't.
I don't see the merit in a government legislating to increase the unfairness with grammar schools.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But the system that selects on academic merit is also, indirectly, selecting on parents' wallet size. That's the point you have missed in your post..
Do you think spending hundreds of thousands of pounds moving house is the same as a few hours tutoring, or finding some free papers for the kid to look at? 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But the system that selects on academic merit is also, indirectly, selecting on parents' wallet size. That's the point you have missed in your post..
Spending money on private tutoring may or may not enable their kids to reach the required standard (the kids still need to perform in the exam, which is structured more like an IQ test than a typical examination that tests learned knowledge) whereas previously they wouldn't .... but it's not remotely close to laying out massive amounts of cash for an overpriced house that's in the catchment area of a 'good' comprehensive school (and which has precisely zero to do with the child's innate academic ability).wigtheWonderkid said:
I don't see the merit in a government legislating to increase the unfairness with grammar schools.
A grammar system gives any kid with the smarts and who has put in the effort to prepare, the chance of getting into the 'best' secondary school. At best, the comprehensive system is luck of the draw and often more about the ability of parents to buy an overly expensive house.Lucas Ayde said:
A grammar system gives any kid with the smarts and who has put in the effort to prepare, the chance of getting into the 'best' secondary school. At best, the comprehensive system is luck of the draw and often more about the ability of parents to buy an overly expensive house.
There is also the element of a post code lottery in the grammar school system.It's not been available anywhere I have lived.
0000 said:
blueg33 said:
Both my kids went to Grammar schools and I was a Governor of one of them, yes there are some kids from the poorest backgrounds but the vast majority are from middle class families with above average incomes.
Is this a case of middle class people live in Cheltenham, shocker?! I don't think I'm far from where you are, but we're currently thinking about Alcester Grammar for ours largely because we'd need to move and Cheltenham's a relatively expensive place to live in the area. I'd be shocked if the restricted supply of grammar schools didn't result in higher house prices around them, because parents want them and therefore there's a knock on effect on the demographic.
We won't be paying for coaching. All this will only get worse if private schools have to charge VAT.
blueg33 said:
These are all pretty well paid except for the teacher
And I'd imagine the public sector maths professor, assuming they're staff.As to the gchq guys, the maths chap is well paid, hr got an OBE for something secret. His son has just graduated from Oxford with a first in mathematics.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff