I for one think that Grammar schools are a good thing and were/are an aid to social mobility (why did Labour decide that we could select on how well you could kick a football but not on how well you could use your brain). I can't believe I am the only person on this (11+) site that believes in academic selection.
No, you are not alone. High five!
In fact, if academic selection does not happen at 11, it happens later anyway. I come from a country where there is no academic selection at 11, but there is a tough system after the Baccalaureat. Unfortunately, because of that particular system, some students may find themselves with no diplomas after trying twice medicine and then twice pharmacy: thus, at 22 year-old, after four attempts at competitive examinations , they have to start their undergraduate studies. How fair is that? Wouldn't an earlier selection be more appropriate?
A selective system exist in Germany with the gymnasiums. It might exist in some other countries, I am not enough documented on that issue.
To impose a broken, damaging model on everyone else just because it isn't working in a few leafy counties seems madness to me! JD
Who said that, in term of social mobility, GS are not working? When I see certain posts on the Birmingham thread ( of parents concerned by the ethnicity of certain pupils in certain GS. And I have to say this is a discussion I do not want to open as it makes my stomach completely knotted), I am under the impression that they do work, though they also cater for many children of parents having high-paid career, who may prefer for their children to be mixed with children coming from many walks of life! As the KE foundation in Birmingham puts it, ‘All of our schools take children from a variety of ethnic, faith and socio-economic backgrounds and it is one of the great strengths of our schools that there are no social issues whatsoever.
’ Sad that I have no access to some data to give it as proof! Maybe Petitpois can help for that if this data is in the public domain?
Imho, it was rather a mistake to close many GS in the seventies!
If the first purpose of GS was to permit social mobility and it has appeared that the ‘up escalator’ is no more functioning as it should, some people with a vision try to ‘fix’ this issue with the introduction of the Pupil Premium (linked with a familiarisation programme and outreach work with primary schools ) as you can read on this webpage of the KE foundation in the ‘leafy county’ situated in the midde of England
:http://www.schoolsofkingedwardvi.co.uk/ ... licy-faqs/
Just a few exerpts here for those who have no time to read the whole of it:last part of A1: More recently we have all been challenged to address the social mobility of children in education and the Government has urged selective schools (grammar schools) to increase the number of children in our schools who come from less privileged backgrounds.
Q5. Will this mean that if you are poor you won’t have to score as high in the 11+ admission tests?
A. That is essentially correct – up to 20% of places (25% at Aston) are set aside for pupil premium children who achieve “a qualifying score”. This qualifying score will be set before the test in September after we have reviewed data in order to ensure that children who achieve the score can flourish in our schools.
Q14. Will this create a two-tiered system of pupils in your school?
A. No. Definitely not. We have evidence of children across all of our schools who continue to amaze us with their achievements who come from an extremely diverse range of backgrounds. We know our pupils and will, discreetly and professionally, ensure that no child is excluded from accessing any part of our curriculum offer by reason of their financial circumstances. We already do this very effectively.