Social mobility and grammar schools

I mean, we used to have mines and factories, wars even, for 'the others' - so what now?

MX . 'to look after the brightest children, in this way a country can thrive and survive.'

this is of course essential, I agree - but id does NOT have to be done at the detriment of the other children. A society where the 'others' remain ignorant and ignored- is poised for disaster.

What do you suggest we do with 'the others' ???

What about the millions of children who live in poverty? Do they not matter?

Daphnedill - i hope we are not considered to be bragging when after all these years we admit to being om the top table in the top class.

In the Uk you are not to be anything better than your peers.

That is what grammar schools are about, to look after the brightest children, in this way a country can thrive and survive.

Yes.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-wales-vote-leave-eu-referendum-result-brussels-funding-economy-a7136196.html

Most of Wales voted out, didn't they?

Who knows?

feweek.co.uk/2016/06/17/my-brexit-fears-for-apprenticeships/

So what will happen post Brexit, I wonder. Will the money be found, or will it be the end of apprenticeships?

The European Social Fund is spending £4.9 billion in the UK from 2004-2020 and includes £206 million for the Youth Employment Initiative.

ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=381

In Wales the apprenticeship training fees are paid out of EU money. £16K per apprentice per year - according to my hairdresser.

daphnedil exactly the same has happened at the city comp where I help out with reading . It was a no-no for most parents for years, and there was always plenty of choice locally. Suddenly it's become well-regarded again. I'm not sure why, but it seems to have turned a corner.

Meanwhile most of the "mc" local parents are falling over themselves sending their kids to school in "naice" areas while there's a perfectly good comp on their doorstep.

I know of two comprehensives in 'rough' areas which are doing the same with small top sets. They are gradually gaining the confidence of parents and those with bright children are choosing to send them there, because they know their children will be taught in small sets.

My best friend and ex colleague in the UK, did something I am not sure I could have done- I'll be honest here. She sent her children to the local comprehensive, that served 2 lare council Estates- and with a bad reputation. They lived on the edge of one of the Estates- and most of her neighbours sent their kids to another school in the suburbs- to another catchment, via special application and possible appeal (the ones my own children attended as we lived in that catchment area (2 High schools and one upper school with 6th Form).

As her 2 are very bright, they did very well out of it actually- as they ended up in very small top sets for everything- with teachers who gave them their all as they loved teaching bright kids who were well supported at home and motivated + well behaved.

They ended up both with 11 top GCSEs- and then went on to 2 different 6th Form College - where both excelled. Ironically they probably got more attention and excellent teaching than in a 'better' school. But is shouldn't be that way.

Another point - not all current GS's do better for their pupils than comps.
In 2011 eldest daughter went to work in a Kent GS (after a short time unemployed - time-out but that's another story) and was shocked at the physical state of the school, and the behaviour of the children. She only stayed a year then managed to move to an independent school where she still is.
She had already been in 2 comps in central London, which were better equipped and a better ethos.

BBbevan,

I understand what you're saying, but a grammar school would only help a fraction of the pupils. There would still be approximately 80% left in a secondary modern, which would be worse than the comprehensive. Surely all pupils should have the opportunity to reach their potential, not just the most able. The answer is to make sure all comprehensives are good ones.

Iam64
I mentioned that my son has his own law firm, but that was by way of explaining to daphnedill why it was likely that my future grandchildren would be living in the same area as us.

I agree, Iam64. My local comprehensive is good, mainly because it's a semi-rural area and there aren't any alternatives, apart from one very dodgy private school and a few more, which are some distance away. We're out of the catchment area for the grammar schools. Therefore, nearly everybody sends their children to the local school, which has a very wide range of ability.

Unfortunately, this has meant that people move to the area for the school, but that's backfired now, because the school is full and children from the surrounding villages are being bussed to another school. This school doesn't have quite such a good reputation, but it will pick up when the new pupils start going there.

Smaller class sizes are just not going to happen. 80-85% of a school's budget is spent on staffing, so any increase will add massively to the bill.

It would be interesting to know how much academy chains are siphoning off the budget. I believe there was a TV programme recently about some of the frauds and high salaries the Executive Principles are paying themselves. Unfortunately, it's not possible to find out from Freedom of Information requests. A serious review of their finances would be in order.

BBbevan, one of the issues is that aspirant parents living in an area with poor schools will move if possible, or pay for private education, get into a faith school etc. I empathise, I've had experience of living in a deprived inner city area with poorly resourced, overcrowded schools with a negative impact on my own child.
We pay significant amounts in taxes yet public services, including education, are being starved of resources. Name me a primary school teacher who doesn't prepare their classroom with money from their own pocket, or provide food for children who miss breakfast club. I'll stop before I start a rant.

That's my point- all Comprehensives should be good, irrespective of catchment area- with proper funding it can be done.

I agreegranjura but what if you do not live in the catchment area for such a comprehensive.?

So no wonder parents choose schools with smaller class size. And nowonder my colleagues here just DO NOT BELIEVE ME when I talk about UK class size. Their reply is NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TEACH SUCH LARGE GROUPS WELL AND EFFECTIVELY. IMPOSSIBLE. And yet, I've seen it work, and work well too- but smaller class size would allow it to work even better- for all.

Hear hear.

Perhaps many to do not realise how Comprehensive schools are organised. So I'll try and explain in as few words as possible.

Each class has a Form Tutor- and is a mixed ability group. They normally meet for registration ,messages about the school day, assembly once a week- with their Form Tutor who has overall responsibility for all the children in that class. Then the students go to lessons- in different classes, according to ability/level/special requirements. Let's say lesson one is 'maths'- some of the students willl go to Set 1, some to Set 2, some to Set 3, some to SEN support (names for Sets will change, but basically different ability groups) - then lesson 2 is (say) French- and some of the students in Set 1 for maths will also be in Set 1 for F, bus some will be in set 2, etc, and vice versa. Then if lesson 3 is PE, they will be in mixed ability groups- and for lesson 4 in Art too. But then Science for lesson 5 will also be in different groups- some will be in Set 1, or Set 3- for all those setted subjects- but others will be in Set 1 for 1 subject, Set 2 for another, Set 3 for yet another. And changes can be made throughtout the year if necessary- if a student improves, or onthe other hand falls back. There are however limitations due to class size. If you have classes of 32- how do you ensure smaller classes for groups who have difficulties? It is neither safe, nor physically or educationally possible!

If Set 1 is 35 - in sciences- it becomes positively dangerous - and in languages impossible! If 2 or 3 students improve during the year and would deserve a chance in Set 1- can you then add them to a class of 35 - no you can't. So the system is perfect for all- but funding doesn't allow it to work as it should or could.

It's correct to say that the comprehensive school system is the one that best serves the needs of all pupils.
I live in the northern poor house but our former mill town has a number of excellent comprehensive schools. There are faith schools, Muslim girls school, CofE and Catholic, all doing very well (outstanding according to Ofsted).

Our children all went to local comprehensives and many years after leaving school, have strong friendship groups from those same schools.

Someone asked earlier up thread whether if we'd benefitted from the grammar school system, wouldn't we want that for our own children. No thanks. I want the best for all children, not the small 20 per cent who benefitted from the grammar school system, leaving the rest to make the best of what was often bad job.

Yes there is BBbevan - a well managed, well funded Comprehensive school can benefit all children from SEN to the very brightest- through careful setting and monitoring. Honestly- I've seen it work- but would work even better if class size could be reduced.