Go to navigation
It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:28 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:39 am
Posts: 22
lea2124 wrote:
I don't think it's the private schools that are the issue. It's the OOC children.
Here's the link for some of the statistics.

https://www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/451073 ... h-2018.pdf

5775 children in Bucks took the exam. The total amount of children who took the exam was 10069.

The children in Bucks who got automatic qualification was 26%. The children OOC who got automatic qualification was 47%.

Does this prove that the children in bucks are disadvantaged because no primary school in catchment can teach for the 11+? Or is it because people OOC are more likely to tutor the children to get a qualification where people in catchment are more against the whole system and therefore do not tutor. Either way the OOC children are pushing up the passmark which means less children in Bucks qualify which in turn puts more pressure on the secondary modern schools in our county. If the passmark was lowered to 117 or 118 more local children would qualify and then the only children who wouldn't get a place are the children OOC. This would also ease congestion in secondary schools.

But who am I to question this system?
Just a parent who's DS scored 120.75.........

It's going to be a long 105 days!


There is also quite a discrepancy between the pass rate in the major towns Vs the villages, with the former being much lower. I think the bucks overall is lower as all kids do it unless they opt out, whereas OOC parents are only going to go for it if they have coached their kids and they have a decent chance of passing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1762
However one cuts the data, the inescapable conclusion is that the system generally selects on financial, cultural and social wealth rather than on innate suitability for grammar school. I don't see anything that persuades me otherwise and some well-qualified people on here have kindly provided research findings to help me form (and change) my view over the years. We can probably all give examples of heavily-tutored children not qualifying and some surprising examples of children qualifying with no preparation but those are the exceptions to the norm. The myth of grammar schools providing opportunity for social mobility is well and truly busted and it's becoming harder to find supporters of selective education who can present a compelling case. I attended a debate on the subject this year and the two panellists arguing for selective education were bludgeoned by their two opponents' use of research findings and data to the point where one conceded that their thinking had perhaps become outdated and the other resorted to reeling off anecdotal stories of children the system had helped, themselves included.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:59 am
Posts: 8055
anotherdad wrote:
However one cuts the data, the inescapable conclusion is that the system generally selects on financial, cultural and social wealth rather than on innate suitability for grammar school. I don't see anything that persuades me otherwise and some well-qualified people on here have kindly provided research findings to help me form (and change) my view over the years. We can probably all give examples of heavily-tutored children not qualifying and some surprising examples of children qualifying with no preparation but those are the exceptions to the norm. The myth of grammar schools providing opportunity for social mobility is well and truly busted and it's becoming harder to find supporters of selective education who can present a compelling case. I attended a debate on the subject this year and the two panellists arguing for selective education were bludgeoned by their two opponents' use of research findings and data to the point where one conceded that their thinking had perhaps become outdated and the other resorted to reeling off anecdotal stories of children the system had helped, themselves included.

+1 obviously.

It is unsustainable and should be abolished. There are no arguments in favour apart from those coming from middle class parents whose children pass. It is significant that when the comprehensive system was briefly introduced in the 1970s (and it was a very brief experiment, there are no comprehensives now), the loudest supporters of it were neither the 'red hot' socialists nor the parents of the poor who never had a hope of grammar schools anyway - they were the parents of middle class children who failed the 11+.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:56 am
Posts: 283
I'm afraid I'm with Amber and anotherdad on this. Happy to debate the merits of mixed ability teaching vs streaming but the 11+ system is just too open to abuse.

It doesn't have to be this way though. A hard working child supported by their parents during their primary school years with minimal 11+ prep, can reach the GS standard. The 11+ is based on the primary curriculum after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2018