V.A.T, in school fees

Flip flop? worn with socks.

McDonald is probely planning to get shot of Corbyn and Diane is still loved up poor woman

Just been listening to the radio programme with Toby Young talking about meritocracy, a term his father invented. I think the link was on this thread, but I couldn't find it. The link is here:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08lgq9n

I think it's the first time I've heard Toby Young talking sense and is well worth listening to for the questions it asks.

To return to 'what is a sink school' it's quite simple. A school with empty places has to take children who have been excluded from another school- it has no choice. Once there are a good few of these difficult children in the school the 'nice' parents begin to move their children out, which means there are more empty places and more room for excluded children. The school becomes difficult to run, staff begin to leave and standards slip.
Years ago many of the children would have been sent to residential or approved schools and wouldn't have been in the secondary moderns

Spot on! That's why competition and the market doesn't work for schools. Failing, inefficient business will end up going bankrupt. With schools, many of the failing ones will end up closing or be given a smart new uniform and a new name, but they'll still be the same school. In the meantime, pupils have to attend the sink schools, which isn't fair, because they only get one chance.

It's also why successful schools are extremely reluctant to increase their admission numbers. Once they do, they are in danger of having to accept pupils other schools have excluded.

gillybob I believe your experience of grammar schools is borne out in research. Children from less well off backgrounds who did manage to get into grammar schools often did not thrive in the environment and tended to get poor results or leave early. So the argument that grammar schools enable bright "working class" children to progress appears not to be true for the majority of young people.

Eloethan, that certainly reflects my recollection of grammar school. You could pretty well guess how well kids did academically by reference to their parents' jobs. Some exceptions of course, but that rule of thumb generally seemed to hold up. But to be honest I would think the same is true in modern comps?

The 1944 Education Act (enacted in 1947) was designed for political reasons to solve the problem of an increasing number of workers needed for white collar jobs. Before 1947, most children received only an elementary education (the so-called 3 Rs),but it was becoming increasingly obvious that the need for factory workers was declining. Before 1947, there were only two ways for children to receive an education beyond elementary - most paid for it and a handful had scholarships based on exceptional ability.

The 1944 Education Act enabled a number of current "baby boomers" from poor backgrounds to have a level of education which they wouldn't have had before the Act.Many have been successful (although the booming world economy helped), which is why so many look back to the old days with nostalgia.

However, the world has changed. Manufacturing jobs have disappeared to countries with cheaper labour costs. All pupils have an opportunity for higher level education, so there is no longer a pool of pupils with no chance at all of a higher level of education. Higher education doesn't depend solely on wealth, although we seem to be regressing. The country needs people at all levels to have higher skills.

People seem to forget that comprehensive schools came about, because aspirational middle class parents couldn't get their children into grammar schools. In addition, wealthy parents couldn't buy their way into grammar schools. Unless they were very wealthy their children had to go to secondary moderns, so they preferred comprehensive schools.

Eloethan is right. Children from working class backgrounds who ended up in grammar schools often faced cultural tension between a family which didn't value a liberal education and the aims of the school. To this day, children from professional backgrounds do better than those from working class familes, no matter what the educational achievements or proven IQ of the child is. The former head of Wellington described it as "oiling" ie social skills, networks, etc.

Yes, it is true in modern comps Fitzy, which suggests that the solution is not to be found in the organisation and structure of schools. With some exceptions, family background is likely to be the most important factor in a child's success. A good comp knows that and can, at least, offer more equal opportunities.

DD how will a school offer equal opportunities if the issue is more around the home/family environment? I should say I'm not disputing what you say just asking what can be done by the school which has real, positive effect?

The other point about admission to grammar schools whic hasn't been mentioned is that 'passing' the 11+ still didn't guarantee you a place if more children 'passed' tgan were available places. And if you were female your chances of getting a place were also affected by the fact that boys were given a lower 'pass' mark. To have kept the 'pass' level the same for boys and girls would have meant more girls than boys attending grammar school. So a girl could be brighter than the boy she sat next to in primary school but not get a place while he did.

I wonder if it still works that way today?

I don't know Fitzy. Did you listen to Toby Young's programme about meritocracy? He raised some interesting questions about equality and the way society regards achievement.

I suggest that schools can only go so far in achieving equality. The solution (if there is one) is to address the inequality in home background and the aspirations of parents.

As an example, the Miliband brothers both went a state primary followed by a comprehensive, but when they went home, they sat round the dinner table with some of the most educated people in the world. Most children don't have that opportunity - and probably don't want it.

When I passed my 11+ the boys and girls grammars were at opposite sides of the town so I assume each school took how ever many they had places for. I did quite well in years one and two in grammar but in year three (when it all seemed to move up a gear) I began to get left behind and couldn't cope with the extra work and subjects. Most of my peers came from a completely different background from me (to get this into prospective there were only 2 girls who came from my primary, I was one of them) and most had quite privileged lives, private tutors and professional parents. It was soon apparent that I was "not one of them" and used a mix of humour and humility to get me through. I was actually bullied by younger girls (shamefully) who looked down their noses at me. The teachers...... Well they walked around in their sweeping capes full of self importance and probably couldn't give a stuff about the skinny little kid from the council estate who was never going to amount to much anyway. How right they were.

Just before I post this I would like to say that there was one teacher who recognized my love of books and literature. She said that I could have been good at English if I could have had some help with grammar (my biggest failure) . Needless to say the "help" did not come. But I had a lot of respect for my English teacher.

There was an attempt at keeping gender balance but that was to some extent at least a result of the fact so many grammars were single sex. I was at a mixed grammar and, in my year at least, there were quite a few more girls. I wonder whether the decision to make so many grammars single sex was actually driven by a wish to ensure gender balance without openly giving boys an advantage in competing for the same places?

My point, Fitzy was that selection for grammar school was really quite arbitary. It was not the equal opportunity for all Nirvana that people make it out to be.

I have to say that my girls grammar school wasn't in the least bit like gillybob's. I don't recall any blatant snobbery or bullying. However, looking back, I don't think it offered a particularly good education. It really squandered the talent it had available. Top 10 -15% of girls in the area yet at least half left at 16 and only a handful made it to Uni.

I expect that the decision to make grammar schools single-sex was to do with the fact that most of the older ones were originally very old foundations, when only boys were educated beyond elementary level. Girls' schools didn't really exist before the late nineteenth century and were often founded by early feminists. Some of them still exist today as independents and grammar schools.

Boys and girls do mature at different ages,so it's probably reasonable to give boys a "handicap". I worked at one comprehensive school, where the policy was to make all sets gender-balanced. At first I objected, because it meant that top sets had boys who were less able than girls in the second set. However, the boys did tend to catch up by the age of 13 or thereabouts.

When I was 11, all the schools in town were single-sex.

Mine was very much like gilly's school. It was a direct grant grammar. 75% of the girls' parents paid fees and the other 25% didn't. The 11+ results were published in the local paper, so everybody knew who the free place girls were.

Bullying and snobbery were rife. Nearly all girls stayed to 18 and most of us went to university, although the ones who went to the most prestigious universities all had parents who were top professionals or academics. In my year (I don't know about other years), all the girls who went to Oxford or Cambridge had been fee paying and had encouragement from home. I don't remember anybody who lived on a council estate. I was probably one of the poorest, so the idea that grammar schools provided social mobility was nonsense as far as I was concerned.

DD, all you say makes sense. I wasn't suggesting the need for gender balance was not a sensible idea, not least because boys mature later. Some credit in scoring is also given to younger kids whatever their gender as children of that age make demonstrable progress over a single year. All this is just grist to the mill in terms of what you say about the unfairness of basing so much on a single test at 11. Added to all this is the fact that kids can do much, much better in 11+ tests with coaching, despite the original intention of creating a coaching proof examination. Go to any of the remaining grammars and I have no doubt at all that they will be filled with kids that have been heavily coached by tutors and/or prep schools. State primary schools don't coach as far as I know. Indeed one Head I know told me they were not allowed to in his area.

I recognise that, daphne, except I left school after the first year in the sixth form because I was having to take languages (sorry) and being the only one who never went on holiday, let alone to France and Germany, was left well behind in my understanding of Schiller and Goethe.
Four 11+ girls against the rest.

There was no snobbery or bullying at all that I remember in my all girls grammar school.There was, of course a mixture of social backgrounds, including a lot from council estates ( including myself and sister). It was thought ( still thought?) that girls do better within an all girls environment and they compete better ( than with boys in the class.)
I dislike the idea though of 11 year olds feeling failures, and many of my friends were really upset, and their parents too that they had to go to the sec mod.
Good comprehensives have to be the best option for all.

At last something we agree on, roses!

Am sure that there are other things we may agree on Maizie we mustn't fall into the trap of stereotyping people.

I agree with your post rosesarered

A 'girl from the council estate' (of whom there were quite a number) became Head Girl, we were all a very mixed bunch from council estates, not-so-well-off private estates, the 'posh' end of town and outlying villages.

I remember MIL telling me that she was informed that BIL 'passed' the 11+ but then had a letter saying that there were not enough places at the grammar school. He went to the local (excellent) secondary modern, then did a 5 year apprenticeship, became an officer in the Navy, later ran his own business. A lot does depend on teachers who encourage, parental backup and self-motivation.

He he Jen I did a degree in German and still don't understand Goethe and Schiller. At my comp we read a play by Durenmatt once - no idea how I managed to get a top grade?

Was it "Der Besuch der alten Dame"? I did it for A level and have recently had to re-read it,because one of my tutees has to study it. Strangely enough, I'm quite enjoying it.

All I can remember about Goethe is "Leck mich am Arsch", which is rude, but it must be OK, because it's a quote from "Götz von Berlichingen"and was considered acceptable for sixth formers.