Tories to reject grammar schools

katel · Post by **katel** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:16 pm

My daughter goes to a very socially diverse primary school - lon the edge of a big council estate, higher than average free school meals and so on. Also a commuter town, so lots of escapees from North London. 62 in year , 25 too the 11+, 11 passed. The 11 who passed ALL come from middle class families. Coincidence? I think not!

mousaka · Post by **mousaka** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:25 pm

If the existing grammars were to be abolished lucky the ones whose schools sit in good areas. So do not worry SJ355. Barnet is OK. What about Latymer!!!!!??????

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:26 pm

The 11 who passed ALL come from middle class families. Coincidence? I think not

Not really, unlike chavs, and free loaders, the so-called middle class want their kids to continue to carry the success baton. Don't blame or stop those who want to get on. Being part of a so called socially diverse school doesn't mean a thing, either your kids want to do well because parents encourage them or they don't. It is a case of working hard, getting there and being critisised for it, and the free loaders moan and try to steal by wht ever means.

I want my boys to have the best education, and damn if I will let anyone stop me or critisise my decisions!

sj355 · Post by **sj355** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:30 pm

katel wrote:My daughter goes to a very socially diverse primary school - lon the edge of a big council estate, higher than average free school meals and so on. Also a commuter town, so lots of escapees from North London. 62 in year , 25 too the 11+, 11 passed. The 11 who passed ALL come from middle class families. Coincidence? I think not!

As I foreigner, I have to ask this:

What is the definition of "middle class"? Financial, parental or determined by current occupation? If middle class is ocupationally related (professional/white collar?) then it does not necessarily mean that rich people sent their kids to grammar. We should not confuse rich with middle class.

sj355 · Post by **sj355** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:35 pm

mousaka wrote:If the existing grammars were to be abolished lucky the ones whose schools sit in good areas. So do not worry SJ355. Barnet is OK. What about Latymer!!!!!??????

You mean Enfield, as many kids from Barnet do go to Latymer!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:39 pm

Here, Here, I totally agree. The boundaries have been blured somewhat. To my understanding, there is no formal social class in the Uk. If I win the loterry and become a millionaire, do I automatically become a Middle to upper class over night, no I don't. To be part of the social class takes many years and is an evolving process. This should not be used in defing the education standards that a child get. I for example, am the son of uneducated parents, who has two degrees and senior manager of a large company. What is my social status?

Point taken!

sj355 · Post by **sj355** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:40 pm

Being part of a so called socially diverse school doesn't mean a thing, either your kids want to do well because parents encourage them or they don't. It is a case of working hard, getting there and being critisised for it,

It seems you are right. I have copied this from one of my messages in the beyond 11+ thread:

Several econometric studies from colleagues at the university show that the single most imprortant factor in school sucess is parental influence (although this is proxied in a variety of ways across these studies) Hence, it seems it is up to us (or is it down to us?) people!

katel · Post by **katel** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:45 pm

Middle class does not mean rich. In this context it means probably white collar, parents probably educated beyond elementary level (possibly grammar school) probably books in the house, probably supportive about homework, prepared and able to provide either outside coaching or practice at home...generally able and willing to understand and operate withing the system.

This means that the clever child from a disadvantaged or unsupportive home (exactly the sort of child that the grammar schools were intended to provide with a step out of disadvantage) haven't got a snowball's chance in **** of getting a place. Unfair and socially divisive.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:49 pm

Take an example, a footballer and his girlfriend. He is a millionaire from football earnings, and she hangs around him. Due to their financial status, and living in a high class area of the country, does this put him in a high social class? Likewise, a Lord or Baron can be poor for whatever circumstances, does that mean is of low social class due to his financial situation? Parents who are educated and in a good job will encourage their children to do well. Likewise, some parents in low paid jobs staring up from a barrel, will also encourage their children.

kentmum1 · Post by **kentmum1** » Wed May 16, 2007 2:50 pm

Our primary school is also very socially mixed, with a large percentage being from poorer families. One of our year groups has 50% special needs. Unfortunately, it is a reality that some of the parents are just not bothered to help their children. If you were to offer them free tuition, I'd doubt many would take it. We all know that tutoring does not need to be expensive but, to some, it would mean too much time and effort. We have children who get little support at home with homework, reading, etc, that I can imagine the thought of their child going to a grammar school, and all the work that goes with it, is a total turn-off. At least 70% of our students go to an out-of-county comp that they seem perfectly happy with. Saying that though, we have had a minority of poorer parents who have managed to gain local grammar places, through sheer hard work and effort. When that happens, it's fantastic!