Grammar school head hits back at ‘middle class’ jibe

Southend Standard: Grammar school head hits back at ‘middle class’ jibe Grammar school head hits back at ‘middle class’ jibe

A GRAMMAR school boss hit back at claims his type of school was “stuffed full” of middle class children and that they do nothing to increase social mobility.

Michael Skelly, headteacher at Westcliff High School for Boys, replied to comments by Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief inspector of education watchdog Ofsted.

He criticised selective education in England and said it was a “nonsense”

that only 3 per cent of grammar pupils received free school meals.

However, Mr Skelly said grammar schools were about abilty, not people’s backgrounds.

He said: “Grammar school education really isn’tamatter of class.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re middle class – if you’ve got the ability you can access a place in a grammar school.

“Young people put themselves forward for the test and, based on their results, they have the chance to get a place. Grammar school education is just a type of education; it’s suitable for some and not so suitable for others.”

Mr Skelly said the focus should be on finding out why the figures for pupils on free school meals were so low.

He said: “Firstly, there are only a small number of grammar schools in the UK, so it’s difficult to represent the entire population.

Secondly, is it the case that more children on free school meals are not taking the test and not passing it? The matter should be focused on why this is happening.

“We encourage and promote grammar school education to everyone and would welcome more children taking the test and coming to our school.”

Sir Michael’s criticism came after last month’s start of a yearlong study to examine why only a third of Southend’s grammar school places are taken by its pupils.

Nine cross-party councillors are conducting the study to find out why fewer borough pupils are gaining entry into the schools, after only one in ten passed this year’s 11-plus. There are four grammar schools in Southend, including Westcliff High School for Girls, Southend High for Girls and Southend High for Boys.

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:56am Wed 18 Dec 13

supermadmax says...

Who cares, they will always rig it so wealthier families send there kids to better schools. Its not even that important nowdays, any dimwit can get into university.
Who cares, they will always rig it so wealthier families send there kids to better schools. Its not even that important nowdays, any dimwit can get into university. supermadmax

9:33am Wed 18 Dec 13

sansculotte says...

Grammar schools offer best chance for poorer kids to have a decent chance in life if they have academic ability.
We have seen the alternative system of local comprehensives systematically fail their brighter pupils (poor and rich) in the last 30 years.
Now we need to remove low achieving and dogmatic management from our Junior Schools to ensure more local talent can share in Southend's Grammar school success story.
Grammar schools offer best chance for poorer kids to have a decent chance in life if they have academic ability. We have seen the alternative system of local comprehensives systematically fail their brighter pupils (poor and rich) in the last 30 years. Now we need to remove low achieving and dogmatic management from our Junior Schools to ensure more local talent can share in Southend's Grammar school success story. sansculotte

11:31am Wed 18 Dec 13

jayman says...

sansculotte wrote:
Grammar schools offer best chance for poorer kids to have a decent chance in life if they have academic ability.
We have seen the alternative system of local comprehensives systematically fail their brighter pupils (poor and rich) in the last 30 years.
Now we need to remove low achieving and dogmatic management from our Junior Schools to ensure more local talent can share in Southend's Grammar school success story.
"Grammar schools offer best chance for poorer kids to have a decent chance in life"

Problem is that most 'poorer kids' don't attend grammar school and that is a fact.

Here are some suggestions for better socio-economic inclusion.

1) remove 'conceptual' social barriers. this includes the removal of. expensive, bespoke style school uniforms. discontinuing expensive school trips to locations that are or could be seen to be 'predominately middle class' (for want of a better word) that command a great financial burden.
2) The removal of 'fee charging/private school' branding. Latin motto's, exclusive/socio-econ
omically prohibitive image, including the title of 'grammar school'
3) scrap the 11+. pass legislation in parliament to enable the DfE to set a national criteria for an 'evidence based' 'key stage' entry pathway into 'support schools'
4) ensure that the school governors are as 'representative' of the 'whole' community as possible. socio-economically or otherwise.
5) ensure that 'support schools' have a proactive outreach programme in local primary schools.
[quote][p][bold]sansculotte[/bold] wrote: Grammar schools offer best chance for poorer kids to have a decent chance in life if they have academic ability. We have seen the alternative system of local comprehensives systematically fail their brighter pupils (poor and rich) in the last 30 years. Now we need to remove low achieving and dogmatic management from our Junior Schools to ensure more local talent can share in Southend's Grammar school success story.[/p][/quote]"Grammar schools offer best chance for poorer kids to have a decent chance in life" Problem is that most 'poorer kids' don't attend grammar school and that is a fact. Here are some suggestions for better socio-economic inclusion. 1) remove 'conceptual' social barriers. this includes the removal of. expensive, bespoke style school uniforms. discontinuing expensive school trips to locations that are or could be seen to be 'predominately middle class' (for want of a better word) that command a great financial burden. 2) The removal of 'fee charging/private school' branding. Latin motto's, exclusive/socio-econ omically prohibitive image, including the title of 'grammar school' 3) scrap the 11+. pass legislation in parliament to enable the DfE to set a national criteria for an 'evidence based' 'key stage' entry pathway into 'support schools' 4) ensure that the school governors are as 'representative' of the 'whole' community as possible. socio-economically or otherwise. 5) ensure that 'support schools' have a proactive outreach programme in local primary schools. jayman

12:19pm Wed 18 Dec 13

jayman says...

this is a fascinating article. its from the Essex chronicle and is dated March 17, 2012.

http://www.essexchro
nicle.co.uk/Essex-sc
hools-face-11-plus-r
ush-demand-places/st
ory-15520310-detail/
story.html

I draw your attention to the quote at the bottom of the article.

Parent Ranjita Sen, who lives in Romford, is delighted her son Arpen has won a place at Westcliff High School for Boys 34 miles away.

She said: "The current economic situation means families who may have previously just gone for independent schools are now looking at grammar schools as they are the free alternative to a private education."

grammar schools. backfilling for the economically 'hard up' middle classes..
this is a fascinating article. its from the Essex chronicle and is dated March 17, 2012. http://www.essexchro nicle.co.uk/Essex-sc hools-face-11-plus-r ush-demand-places/st ory-15520310-detail/ story.html I draw your attention to the quote at the bottom of the article. Parent Ranjita Sen, who lives in Romford, is delighted her son Arpen has won a place at Westcliff High School for Boys 34 miles away. She said: "The current economic situation means families who may have previously just gone for independent schools are now looking at grammar schools as they are the free alternative to a private education." grammar schools. backfilling for the economically 'hard up' middle classes.. jayman

12:40pm Wed 18 Dec 13

norglishman says...

My brother & I came from a poor background, living on a council estate in Laindon & then Harlow, where my mum raised 3 of us on her own with no support from my dad. She worked hard to put us through a good schooling so that we could have a better life than she did. We both passed the 11+ & were educated at Brentwood Grammer school. As we passed the 11+ we got a grant towards education but still had to pay for boarding. So it goes to prove that it is not your social background that dicates whether you attend grammer or comprehensive schools - it is your ability. It has helped tremendously in later life so that I could get a well paid job and take another family out of socail poverty.
My brother & I came from a poor background, living on a council estate in Laindon & then Harlow, where my mum raised 3 of us on her own with no support from my dad. She worked hard to put us through a good schooling so that we could have a better life than she did. We both passed the 11+ & were educated at Brentwood Grammer school. As we passed the 11+ we got a grant towards education but still had to pay for boarding. So it goes to prove that it is not your social background that dicates whether you attend grammer or comprehensive schools - it is your ability. It has helped tremendously in later life so that I could get a well paid job and take another family out of socail poverty. norglishman

1:28pm Wed 18 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

This so easy.

The 11+ is open to ALL. There is no entrance fee or background check on your social status.

Take the 11+ and pass, you get a place in the grammar.
Take the 11+ and don't pass, you don't get your place in the grammar.

So, instruct the local primaries to speak to parents and the children, encourage them to strive to do well rather than either simply not caring or actually being blatantly anti 11+/grammar.

Then I'm sure we'd see more success from the Southend school.
This so easy. The 11+ is open to ALL. There is no entrance fee or background check on your social status. Take the 11+ and pass, you get a place in the grammar. Take the 11+ and don't pass, you don't get your place in the grammar. So, instruct the local primaries to speak to parents and the children, encourage them to strive to do well rather than either simply not caring or actually being blatantly anti 11+/grammar. Then I'm sure we'd see more success from the Southend school. stopmoaning1

1:38pm Wed 18 Dec 13

A_Myers says...

I was a student at Westcliff High School for Boys less than a decade ago and was eligible for free school meals. I grew up just down the road in Westcliff and my family didn't have much money at all.

Obviously I begged my parents not to make me join the poor boys who signed a form at the till, rather than handing over money. They conceded and gave me £2 for lunch each day (all they could afford), which I spent on cigarettes. To feed myself simply I tucked a sandwich from the cold counter into my inside pocket and paid for just a small coke at the till.

Anyway, the point is, just because only 3% received school meals, doesn't mean more weren't eligible. My brother went to a local comprehensive school and received free school meals, but my parents understood that I wouldn't fit doing that at Westcliff with all the rich Brentwood kids.
I was a student at Westcliff High School for Boys less than a decade ago and was eligible for free school meals. I grew up just down the road in Westcliff and my family didn't have much money at all. Obviously I begged my parents not to make me join the poor boys who signed a form at the till, rather than handing over money. They conceded and gave me £2 for lunch each day (all they could afford), which I spent on cigarettes. To feed myself simply I tucked a sandwich from the cold counter into my inside pocket and paid for just a small coke at the till. Anyway, the point is, just because only 3% received school meals, doesn't mean more weren't eligible. My brother went to a local comprehensive school and received free school meals, but my parents understood that I wouldn't fit doing that at Westcliff with all the rich Brentwood kids. A_Myers

2:18pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Ellen-mj says...

I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation.

The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them.

The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.
I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation. The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them. The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test. Ellen-mj

4:39pm Wed 18 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

Ellen-mj wrote:
I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation.

The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them.

The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.
Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass.
With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this.
It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status.
And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.
[quote][p][bold]Ellen-mj[/bold] wrote: I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation. The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them. The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.[/p][/quote]Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass. With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this. It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status. And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that. stopmoaning1

4:40pm Wed 18 Dec 13

DannyK86 says...

jayman wrote:
this is a fascinating article. its from the Essex chronicle and is dated March 17, 2012.

http://www.essexchro

nicle.co.uk/Essex-sc

hools-face-11-plus-r

ush-demand-places/st

ory-15520310-detail/

story.html

I draw your attention to the quote at the bottom of the article.

Parent Ranjita Sen, who lives in Romford, is delighted her son Arpen has won a place at Westcliff High School for Boys 34 miles away.

She said: "The current economic situation means families who may have previously just gone for independent schools are now looking at grammar schools as they are the free alternative to a private education."

grammar schools. backfilling for the economically 'hard up' middle classes..
If she's living in Romford, I doubt she's particularly wealthy.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: this is a fascinating article. its from the Essex chronicle and is dated March 17, 2012. http://www.essexchro nicle.co.uk/Essex-sc hools-face-11-plus-r ush-demand-places/st ory-15520310-detail/ story.html I draw your attention to the quote at the bottom of the article. Parent Ranjita Sen, who lives in Romford, is delighted her son Arpen has won a place at Westcliff High School for Boys 34 miles away. She said: "The current economic situation means families who may have previously just gone for independent schools are now looking at grammar schools as they are the free alternative to a private education." grammar schools. backfilling for the economically 'hard up' middle classes..[/p][/quote]If she's living in Romford, I doubt she's particularly wealthy. DannyK86

4:57pm Wed 18 Dec 13

tricklesthegreek says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Ellen-mj wrote:
I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation.

The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them.

The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.
Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass.
With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this.
It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status.
And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.
FALSE. I work at a primary school and ran 11+ club twice a week after school and once during lunchtime for ANY child that wanted to take the 11+. I do not work at West Leigh. I am sick to the back teeth of people jumping on the band wagon thinking that they know what happens in all of our Southend primary schools without actually checking their facts first. 6 of my children passed their 11+ last year and 4 of them missed out. We ended up having 12 take it - we invited parents in for meetings, encouraged parents to bring them along, made no charges to attend the clubs - but put simply, the majority of the parents did not want their children sitting the 11+ as they wanted their children to go to the local secondary school with their friends. There were easily four more children who could have passed but their parents did not put them through for it as the children didn't want to go. A lot of children don't like the idea of being in an all boys or all girls school and actually a lot of them are 'scared' of grammar schools. No matter what we do in the schools if that is the message they are receiving at home then, because it is parental choice, there is not much more we can do about it.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellen-mj[/bold] wrote: I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation. The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them. The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.[/p][/quote]Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass. With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this. It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status. And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.[/p][/quote]FALSE. I work at a primary school and ran 11+ club twice a week after school and once during lunchtime for ANY child that wanted to take the 11+. I do not work at West Leigh. I am sick to the back teeth of people jumping on the band wagon thinking that they know what happens in all of our Southend primary schools without actually checking their facts first. 6 of my children passed their 11+ last year and 4 of them missed out. We ended up having 12 take it - we invited parents in for meetings, encouraged parents to bring them along, made no charges to attend the clubs - but put simply, the majority of the parents did not want their children sitting the 11+ as they wanted their children to go to the local secondary school with their friends. There were easily four more children who could have passed but their parents did not put them through for it as the children didn't want to go. A lot of children don't like the idea of being in an all boys or all girls school and actually a lot of them are 'scared' of grammar schools. No matter what we do in the schools if that is the message they are receiving at home then, because it is parental choice, there is not much more we can do about it. tricklesthegreek

6:31pm Wed 18 Dec 13

whataday says...

Think a lot of it is down to parental attitude. If parents help and encourage their children to do their work for example by listening and helping them to read and write it shows children that education is important. There shouldn't be a need to pay for tutoring to pass the 11 plus. The primary schools should be teaching to the level to attain that goal. Parents should also be teaching their children respect and to be respectful so that they behave at school and not disrupt the classes. There are some children that are borderline but they should be given the chance to enter grammar school by the 13 plus exam which used to take place (don't know whether this is still in existence nowadays)
There are some children that aren't academically inclined and their parents should be guiding their children to bring out their strengths and encouraging them to make correct lesson choices as they get older
Think a lot of it is down to parental attitude. If parents help and encourage their children to do their work for example by listening and helping them to read and write it shows children that education is important. There shouldn't be a need to pay for tutoring to pass the 11 plus. The primary schools should be teaching to the level to attain that goal. Parents should also be teaching their children respect and to be respectful so that they behave at school and not disrupt the classes. There are some children that are borderline but they should be given the chance to enter grammar school by the 13 plus exam which used to take place (don't know whether this is still in existence nowadays) There are some children that aren't academically inclined and their parents should be guiding their children to bring out their strengths and encouraging them to make correct lesson choices as they get older whataday

9:31pm Wed 18 Dec 13

silverleaf48 says...

i went to chalkwell hall many years ago and i found it hard understand
some of the subjects and i had bad eyesight but like most children got pushed to the back of the class as for parents some don't help their children
for one some couldn't read or write so left their children to get on with it
i move to a new school and did better then this school.
schools should not be charging to teach we pay our tax to the councils
i went and visited the school i went to and could believe its the same school
the children are locked in and you have to ring intercom to get in
is any wonder children are so soft ,no respect is tough in schools
no wonder children are up and out all hours smashing things up getting into trouble
i went to chalkwell hall many years ago and i found it hard understand some of the subjects and i had bad eyesight but like most children got pushed to the back of the class as for parents some don't help their children for one some couldn't read or write so left their children to get on with it i move to a new school and did better then this school. schools should not be charging to teach we pay our tax to the councils i went and visited the school i went to and could believe its the same school the children are locked in and you have to ring intercom to get in is any wonder children are so soft ,no respect is tough in schools no wonder children are up and out all hours smashing things up getting into trouble silverleaf48

10:55pm Wed 18 Dec 13

luvinlife says...

THEY DON'T GET THE SMARTEST KIDS

Play the system - coach your kids to pass the 11+ exam.
My average ability nephew passed because he was heavily coached.
Work out what you want and a way to achieve it. don't **** and moan about the system.
THEY DON'T GET THE SMARTEST KIDS Play the system - coach your kids to pass the 11+ exam. My average ability nephew passed because he was heavily coached. Work out what you want and a way to achieve it. don't **** and moan about the system. luvinlife

9:38am Thu 19 Dec 13

robb789 says...

luvinlife wrote:
THEY DON'T GET THE SMARTEST KIDS

Play the system - coach your kids to pass the 11+ exam.
My average ability nephew passed because he was heavily coached.
Work out what you want and a way to achieve it. don't **** and moan about the system.
Great plan, kids who just scrape through the 11+ with loads of coaching will then face a school life of misery struggling to keep up with the 'genuinely bright' unless you can afford tuition all the way through? Rather have my kids go to the local school where they integrate with all walks of life and not just the pushy middle class elite.
[quote][p][bold]luvinlife[/bold] wrote: THEY DON'T GET THE SMARTEST KIDS Play the system - coach your kids to pass the 11+ exam. My average ability nephew passed because he was heavily coached. Work out what you want and a way to achieve it. don't **** and moan about the system.[/p][/quote]Great plan, kids who just scrape through the 11+ with loads of coaching will then face a school life of misery struggling to keep up with the 'genuinely bright' unless you can afford tuition all the way through? Rather have my kids go to the local school where they integrate with all walks of life and not just the pushy middle class elite. robb789

12:50pm Thu 19 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

tricklesthegreek wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Ellen-mj wrote:
I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation.

The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them.

The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.
Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass.
With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this.
It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status.
And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.
FALSE. I work at a primary school and ran 11+ club twice a week after school and once during lunchtime for ANY child that wanted to take the 11+. I do not work at West Leigh. I am sick to the back teeth of people jumping on the band wagon thinking that they know what happens in all of our Southend primary schools without actually checking their facts first. 6 of my children passed their 11+ last year and 4 of them missed out. We ended up having 12 take it - we invited parents in for meetings, encouraged parents to bring them along, made no charges to attend the clubs - but put simply, the majority of the parents did not want their children sitting the 11+ as they wanted their children to go to the local secondary school with their friends. There were easily four more children who could have passed but their parents did not put them through for it as the children didn't want to go. A lot of children don't like the idea of being in an all boys or all girls school and actually a lot of them are 'scared' of grammar schools. No matter what we do in the schools if that is the message they are receiving at home then, because it is parental choice, there is not much more we can do about it.
TRUE. My children went to Leigh North Street where the head, Mr Frampton positively discouraged children taking the 11+. In fact, he went so far to say in meetings with parents that as HE did not agree with the 11+ system, the school would do nothing to promote it!
After eventually conceding and allowing the kids to at least see and take some practice papers, my daughter was one of only handful who passed.
A few years later we had a repeat performance with my son, who took it and failed it.
As we got friendly with our children's friends parents, we discovered that Mr Frampton was by no means unique.
This was a few years ago now but my niece was at Leigh North Street until a year ago and the attitude was still the same.
Now, if you work at a school that recognises the 11+ and identifies and encourages children, I applaud you and the school and say, at last. Now it's time for the others to follow.
And thank you also for reinforcing my original point that it matters not one iota about the social background of the child, the 11+ is open for ANYBODY to take. Pass and you get a grammar place, don't pass means no place.
[quote][p][bold]tricklesthegreek[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellen-mj[/bold] wrote: I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation. The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them. The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.[/p][/quote]Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass. With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this. It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status. And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.[/p][/quote]FALSE. I work at a primary school and ran 11+ club twice a week after school and once during lunchtime for ANY child that wanted to take the 11+. I do not work at West Leigh. I am sick to the back teeth of people jumping on the band wagon thinking that they know what happens in all of our Southend primary schools without actually checking their facts first. 6 of my children passed their 11+ last year and 4 of them missed out. We ended up having 12 take it - we invited parents in for meetings, encouraged parents to bring them along, made no charges to attend the clubs - but put simply, the majority of the parents did not want their children sitting the 11+ as they wanted their children to go to the local secondary school with their friends. There were easily four more children who could have passed but their parents did not put them through for it as the children didn't want to go. A lot of children don't like the idea of being in an all boys or all girls school and actually a lot of them are 'scared' of grammar schools. No matter what we do in the schools if that is the message they are receiving at home then, because it is parental choice, there is not much more we can do about it.[/p][/quote]TRUE. My children went to Leigh North Street where the head, Mr Frampton positively discouraged children taking the 11+. In fact, he went so far to say in meetings with parents that as HE did not agree with the 11+ system, the school would do nothing to promote it! After eventually conceding and allowing the kids to at least see and take some practice papers, my daughter was one of only handful who passed. A few years later we had a repeat performance with my son, who took it and failed it. As we got friendly with our children's friends parents, we discovered that Mr Frampton was by no means unique. This was a few years ago now but my niece was at Leigh North Street until a year ago and the attitude was still the same. Now, if you work at a school that recognises the 11+ and identifies and encourages children, I applaud you and the school and say, at last. Now it's time for the others to follow. And thank you also for reinforcing my original point that it matters not one iota about the social background of the child, the 11+ is open for ANYBODY to take. Pass and you get a grammar place, don't pass means no place. stopmoaning1

2:30pm Thu 19 Dec 13

mikepaterson says...

norglishman wrote:
My brother & I came from a poor background, living on a council estate in Laindon & then Harlow, where my mum raised 3 of us on her own with no support from my dad. She worked hard to put us through a good schooling so that we could have a better life than she did. We both passed the 11+ & were educated at Brentwood Grammer school. As we passed the 11+ we got a grant towards education but still had to pay for boarding. So it goes to prove that it is not your social background that dicates whether you attend grammer or comprehensive schools - it is your ability. It has helped tremendously in later life so that I could get a well paid job and take another family out of socail poverty.
Did you really go there? Brentwood School is a public School and not a state Grammar School. It is not even called Brentwood Grammar School!
I received a Scholarship to Brentwood butt ravelled each day from Westcliff/ Nobody is required to board there, and there are now much better travel options than when I was a pupil.

That said, your point about education being made available appropriately based on ability is spot on.
[quote][p][bold]norglishman[/bold] wrote: My brother & I came from a poor background, living on a council estate in Laindon & then Harlow, where my mum raised 3 of us on her own with no support from my dad. She worked hard to put us through a good schooling so that we could have a better life than she did. We both passed the 11+ & were educated at Brentwood Grammer school. As we passed the 11+ we got a grant towards education but still had to pay for boarding. So it goes to prove that it is not your social background that dicates whether you attend grammer or comprehensive schools - it is your ability. It has helped tremendously in later life so that I could get a well paid job and take another family out of socail poverty.[/p][/quote]Did you really go there? Brentwood School is a public School and not a state Grammar School. It is not even called Brentwood Grammar School! I received a Scholarship to Brentwood butt ravelled each day from Westcliff/ Nobody is required to board there, and there are now much better travel options than when I was a pupil. That said, your point about education being made available appropriately based on ability is spot on. mikepaterson

2:35pm Thu 19 Dec 13

mikepaterson says...

Ellen-mj wrote:
I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation.

The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them.

The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.
Where are your figures for this? My children had no tutoring for the eleven plus, and whilst I know that some do, I imagine it is not the majority. My father used to do tutoring but he did it because he loved teaching and certainly not for the money which was a pittance anyway. Sky TV costs more than tutoring!
[quote][p][bold]Ellen-mj[/bold] wrote: I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation. The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them. The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.[/p][/quote]Where are your figures for this? My children had no tutoring for the eleven plus, and whilst I know that some do, I imagine it is not the majority. My father used to do tutoring but he did it because he loved teaching and certainly not for the money which was a pittance anyway. Sky TV costs more than tutoring! mikepaterson

2:41pm Thu 19 Dec 13

mikepaterson says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Ellen-mj wrote:
I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation.

The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them.

The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.
Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass.
With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this.
It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status.
And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.
Westleigh coaches specifically for the eleven plus from what I hear. This is not the sort of practice that sould be supported as it leads to children being placed at Grammar Schools when they are not really suitable for them. This leads to high pressure and potentially other issues.

Far better in my opinion to just let any kids sit the test and then those that are most likely to fity well within a Grammar School should have the places, and those that will benefit more from a non-Grammar School education will also be best-served. It should be about getting the most appropriate education for each child, and for some that will be Grammar School, whilst for a much larger number it will not.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellen-mj[/bold] wrote: I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation. The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them. The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.[/p][/quote]Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass. With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this. It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status. And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.[/p][/quote]Westleigh coaches specifically for the eleven plus from what I hear. This is not the sort of practice that sould be supported as it leads to children being placed at Grammar Schools when they are not really suitable for them. This leads to high pressure and potentially other issues. Far better in my opinion to just let any kids sit the test and then those that are most likely to fity well within a Grammar School should have the places, and those that will benefit more from a non-Grammar School education will also be best-served. It should be about getting the most appropriate education for each child, and for some that will be Grammar School, whilst for a much larger number it will not. mikepaterson

6:56pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Fred the Phoenix says...

Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?
Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman? Fred the Phoenix

9:24am Fri 20 Dec 13

jayman says...

Fred the Phoenix wrote:
Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?
No thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Fred the Phoenix[/bold] wrote: Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?[/p][/quote]No thanks. jayman

10:07am Fri 20 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

mikepaterson wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Ellen-mj wrote:
I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation.

The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them.

The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.
Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass.
With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this.
It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status.
And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.
Westleigh coaches specifically for the eleven plus from what I hear. This is not the sort of practice that sould be supported as it leads to children being placed at Grammar Schools when they are not really suitable for them. This leads to high pressure and potentially other issues.

Far better in my opinion to just let any kids sit the test and then those that are most likely to fity well within a Grammar School should have the places, and those that will benefit more from a non-Grammar School education will also be best-served. It should be about getting the most appropriate education for each child, and for some that will be Grammar School, whilst for a much larger number it will not.
That's my point. ANY kid can take the 11+, it doesn't matter about social status.
However, the local primaries need to play their part in identifying those likely to pass and then supporting them.
Secondary schools place children in ability sets with the intention of coaching the most able ones to pass GCSE's at higher grades. If primaries do the same for the 11+, surely it's the same principle.
[quote][p][bold]mikepaterson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellen-mj[/bold] wrote: I think the real reason is due to outside tutoring, which is expensive and not an option to families with a lower income. Even if the children do take the 11+ they are competing with children that have an unfair advantage. So it’s the children that are penalised due to their family’s financial situation. The 11+ should be identifying potential rather than children whose parents are able to have them tutored for a one off exam. The system is open to the effects of coaching and the selection is biased. The signal that is given to children is that you have to pay for your success rather than earn it through hard work. What should happen is that primary schools should be able to identify these children and recommend them. The funny thing is the Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex suggests that only a limited amount of practice should be required before sitting the test yet the truth is that the majority of children will have had over a years worth of paid tutoring. Under these circumstances I wonder if any children from working class homes are able to secure a place at Grammar schools and that the selection is more biased than we are led to believe. Children are being judged based on a one off arbitrary test.[/p][/quote]Back to the point then. The local primaries should do more to encourage those likely to pass. With the possible exception of Westleigh, none of the others do this. It's very simple, the primaries are failing the children, it's not about free school meals or social status. And why shouldn't children be judged based on a one off test. Life is like that.[/p][/quote]Westleigh coaches specifically for the eleven plus from what I hear. This is not the sort of practice that sould be supported as it leads to children being placed at Grammar Schools when they are not really suitable for them. This leads to high pressure and potentially other issues. Far better in my opinion to just let any kids sit the test and then those that are most likely to fity well within a Grammar School should have the places, and those that will benefit more from a non-Grammar School education will also be best-served. It should be about getting the most appropriate education for each child, and for some that will be Grammar School, whilst for a much larger number it will not.[/p][/quote]That's my point. ANY kid can take the 11+, it doesn't matter about social status. However, the local primaries need to play their part in identifying those likely to pass and then supporting them. Secondary schools place children in ability sets with the intention of coaching the most able ones to pass GCSE's at higher grades. If primaries do the same for the 11+, surely it's the same principle. stopmoaning1

11:37am Fri 20 Dec 13

snorters2 says...

Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%. snorters2

5:32pm Fri 20 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
And?
[quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]And? stopmoaning1

5:34pm Fri 20 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
[quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100 stopmoaning1

5:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Fred the Phoenix says...

Fred the Phoenix wrote:
Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?
Well I will anyway cos it doesn't seem to have penetrated your brain. Smart people, who do well at school and get good jobs tend to have smart children who tend to pass their 11+ and go on to grammar school, nothing to do with money or social engineering, just simple biology. Got that now?
[quote][p][bold]Fred the Phoenix[/bold] wrote: Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?[/p][/quote]Well I will anyway cos it doesn't seem to have penetrated your brain. Smart people, who do well at school and get good jobs tend to have smart children who tend to pass their 11+ and go on to grammar school, nothing to do with money or social engineering, just simple biology. Got that now? Fred the Phoenix

6:04pm Fri 20 Dec 13

snorters2 says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And? snorters2

7:58am Sat 21 Dec 13

Nebs says...

snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
My conclusion from this is that there is not enough "brain food" in free primary school meals.
[quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]My conclusion from this is that there is not enough "brain food" in free primary school meals. Nebs

11:13am Sat 21 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.
[quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals. stopmoaning1

3:51pm Sat 21 Dec 13

snorters2 says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.
And?
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.[/p][/quote]And? snorters2

4:23pm Sat 21 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.
And?
And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals
[quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals stopmoaning1

1:43am Sun 22 Dec 13

snorters2 says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.
And?
And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals
Paragraph 3
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals[/p][/quote]Paragraph 3 snorters2

9:17am Sun 22 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.
And?
And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals
Paragraph 3
Any opinion on that then, or did you just want to print some numbers.
[quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals[/p][/quote]Paragraph 3[/p][/quote]Any opinion on that then, or did you just want to print some numbers. stopmoaning1

9:57am Sun 22 Dec 13

snorters2 says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.
And?
And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals
Paragraph 3
Any opinion on that then, or did you just want to print some numbers.
No opinion, fact.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals[/p][/quote]Paragraph 3[/p][/quote]Any opinion on that then, or did you just want to print some numbers.[/p][/quote]No opinion, fact. snorters2

11:32am Sun 22 Dec 13

stopmoaning1 says...

snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
snorters2 wrote:
Free School Meals:
English school average 25%
WHSB average 3%.
Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100
And?
And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.
And?
And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals
Paragraph 3
Any opinion on that then, or did you just want to print some numbers.
No opinion, fact.
Oh OK. Well here's another one;
There is no fee or social background check required for the 11+
It's open to ALL.
[quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]snorters2[/bold] wrote: Free School Meals: English school average 25% WHSB average 3%.[/p][/quote]Percentage of children eligible to sit the 11+ exam = 100[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And the 11+ is open for ALL to take. Nothing to do with who has free school meals.[/p][/quote]And?[/p][/quote]And, I wondered why you thought it was relevant to post figures relating to free school meals[/p][/quote]Paragraph 3[/p][/quote]Any opinion on that then, or did you just want to print some numbers.[/p][/quote]No opinion, fact.[/p][/quote]Oh OK. Well here's another one; There is no fee or social background check required for the 11+ It's open to ALL. stopmoaning1

8:02pm Sun 22 Dec 13

profondo asbo says...

jayman wrote:
this is a fascinating article. its from the Essex chronicle and is dated March 17, 2012.

http://www.essexchro

nicle.co.uk/Essex-sc

hools-face-11-plus-r

ush-demand-places/st

ory-15520310-detail/

story.html

I draw your attention to the quote at the bottom of the article.

Parent Ranjita Sen, who lives in Romford, is delighted her son Arpen has won a place at Westcliff High School for Boys 34 miles away.

She said: "The current economic situation means families who may have previously just gone for independent schools are now looking at grammar schools as they are the free alternative to a private education."

grammar schools. backfilling for the economically 'hard up' middle classes..
i note that you don't post on any of the other school stories. for you it is only about class warfare.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: this is a fascinating article. its from the Essex chronicle and is dated March 17, 2012. http://www.essexchro nicle.co.uk/Essex-sc hools-face-11-plus-r ush-demand-places/st ory-15520310-detail/ story.html I draw your attention to the quote at the bottom of the article. Parent Ranjita Sen, who lives in Romford, is delighted her son Arpen has won a place at Westcliff High School for Boys 34 miles away. She said: "The current economic situation means families who may have previously just gone for independent schools are now looking at grammar schools as they are the free alternative to a private education." grammar schools. backfilling for the economically 'hard up' middle classes..[/p][/quote]i note that you don't post on any of the other school stories. for you it is only about class warfare. profondo asbo

11:01pm Sun 22 Dec 13

tim2101taichi says...

Is it fair that grammar school places are offered not to the brightest but with a preference for those living in Southend? Here's an example, my daughter was too dim to get a place initially even though she beat the score of many of the children who were awarded a place in the borough because we lived just outside the catchment area. On appeal she did gain a place because some parents changed their preference. Originally considered too dim she got 12A* GCSE passes and 3 A grade A levels. How many others at 11 are discriminated against? It's not an even playing field or meritocracy for this and a number of other reasons. Less bright Southend resident coached middle class kids predominate. Brighter kids outside the borough have to be exceptional to gain a place.
Is it fair that grammar school places are offered not to the brightest but with a preference for those living in Southend? Here's an example, my daughter was too dim to get a place initially even though she beat the score of many of the children who were awarded a place in the borough because we lived just outside the catchment area. On appeal she did gain a place because some parents changed their preference. Originally considered too dim she got 12A* GCSE passes and 3 A grade A levels. How many others at 11 are discriminated against? It's not an even playing field or meritocracy for this and a number of other reasons. Less bright Southend resident coached middle class kids predominate. Brighter kids outside the borough have to be exceptional to gain a place. tim2101taichi

9:30am Mon 23 Dec 13

robb789 says...

Fred the Phoenix wrote:
Fred the Phoenix wrote:
Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?
Well I will anyway cos it doesn't seem to have penetrated your brain. Smart people, who do well at school and get good jobs tend to have smart children who tend to pass their 11+ and go on to grammar school, nothing to do with money or social engineering, just simple biology. Got that now?
If that's the case why is the Tutoring sector so buoyant? Surely if these kids of 'the smart people' are so clever they wouldn't need it, and the poor kids wouldn't be able to afford it anyway?
[quote][p][bold]Fred the Phoenix[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred the Phoenix[/bold] wrote: Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?[/p][/quote]Well I will anyway cos it doesn't seem to have penetrated your brain. Smart people, who do well at school and get good jobs tend to have smart children who tend to pass their 11+ and go on to grammar school, nothing to do with money or social engineering, just simple biology. Got that now?[/p][/quote]If that's the case why is the Tutoring sector so buoyant? Surely if these kids of 'the smart people' are so clever they wouldn't need it, and the poor kids wouldn't be able to afford it anyway? robb789

9:36am Mon 23 Dec 13

Fred the Phoenix says...

robb789 wrote:
Fred the Phoenix wrote:
Fred the Phoenix wrote:
Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?
Well I will anyway cos it doesn't seem to have penetrated your brain. Smart people, who do well at school and get good jobs tend to have smart children who tend to pass their 11+ and go on to grammar school, nothing to do with money or social engineering, just simple biology. Got that now?
If that's the case why is the Tutoring sector so buoyant? Surely if these kids of 'the smart people' are so clever they wouldn't need it, and the poor kids wouldn't be able to afford it anyway?
No one I know who has passed their 11 plus was tutored except by parents but ultimately the 11 plus is an IQ test, not a test of knowledge so tutoring can only make so much difference, The fact remains that smart people have smart kids, been proven by recent research too, it's in your genes, smart people are smart cos they have good genes, argue against that and you are living in fairyland.
[quote][p][bold]robb789[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred the Phoenix[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fred the Phoenix[/bold] wrote: Do I have to explain it all to you again Jayman?[/p][/quote]Well I will anyway cos it doesn't seem to have penetrated your brain. Smart people, who do well at school and get good jobs tend to have smart children who tend to pass their 11+ and go on to grammar school, nothing to do with money or social engineering, just simple biology. Got that now?[/p][/quote]If that's the case why is the Tutoring sector so buoyant? Surely if these kids of 'the smart people' are so clever they wouldn't need it, and the poor kids wouldn't be able to afford it anyway?[/p][/quote]No one I know who has passed their 11 plus was tutored except by parents but ultimately the 11 plus is an IQ test, not a test of knowledge so tutoring can only make so much difference, The fact remains that smart people have smart kids, been proven by recent research too, it's in your genes, smart people are smart cos they have good genes, argue against that and you are living in fairyland. Fred the Phoenix

11:58am Mon 23 Dec 13

eurodoomed says...

When grammar schools were all but wiped out 50 years ago, by the evil Anthony Crosland, and the hypocritical Shirley Williams, both privately educated, as was Williams's daughter, nothing was put in their place, All that happened was that secondary moderns were called comprehensives, and generations of bright children from poorer backgrounds were condemned to sub-standard education.
The inevitable result was that primary school education fell away as there was nothing to aim for and so only those who could afford private education or some form of tutoring could hope to get their children through thev 11+.

I could not have had a first class education (at Southend High for Boys) without the 11+ and I am grateful that my sons have also had the same.

Ofsted should be driving up standards at primary school level rather than seeking to drive them down at secondary level.
When grammar schools were all but wiped out 50 years ago, by the evil Anthony Crosland, and the hypocritical Shirley Williams, both privately educated, as was Williams's daughter, nothing was put in their place, All that happened was that secondary moderns were called comprehensives, and generations of bright children from poorer backgrounds were condemned to sub-standard education. The inevitable result was that primary school education fell away as there was nothing to aim for and so only those who could afford private education or some form of tutoring could hope to get their children through thev 11+. I could not have had a first class education (at Southend High for Boys) without the 11+ and I am grateful that my sons have also had the same. Ofsted should be driving up standards at primary school level rather than seeking to drive them down at secondary level. eurodoomed

12:10pm Mon 23 Dec 13

eurodoomed says...

mikepaterson wrote:
norglishman wrote: My brother & I came from a poor background, living on a council estate in Laindon & then Harlow, where my mum raised 3 of us on her own with no support from my dad. She worked hard to put us through a good schooling so that we could have a better life than she did. We both passed the 11+ & were educated at Brentwood Grammer school. As we passed the 11+ we got a grant towards education but still had to pay for boarding. So it goes to prove that it is not your social background that dicates whether you attend grammer or comprehensive schools - it is your ability. It has helped tremendously in later life so that I could get a well paid job and take another family out of socail poverty.
Did you really go there? Brentwood School is a public School and not a state Grammar School. It is not even called Brentwood Grammar School! I received a Scholarship to Brentwood butt ravelled each day from Westcliff/ Nobody is required to board there, and there are now much better travel options than when I was a pupil. That said, your point about education being made available appropriately based on ability is spot on.
Suggest by Brentwood Grammar School, the correspondent meant Brentwood County High, which was a grammar school until it collapsede into the "comprehensive" system and became an under-performing schoo, for many years.
Brentwood School is a rather expensive public school, at the opposite end of the scale!
[quote][p][bold]mikepaterson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]norglishman[/bold] wrote: My brother & I came from a poor background, living on a council estate in Laindon & then Harlow, where my mum raised 3 of us on her own with no support from my dad. She worked hard to put us through a good schooling so that we could have a better life than she did. We both passed the 11+ & were educated at Brentwood Grammer school. As we passed the 11+ we got a grant towards education but still had to pay for boarding. So it goes to prove that it is not your social background that dicates whether you attend grammer or comprehensive schools - it is your ability. It has helped tremendously in later life so that I could get a well paid job and take another family out of socail poverty.[/p][/quote]Did you really go there? Brentwood School is a public School and not a state Grammar School. It is not even called Brentwood Grammar School! I received a Scholarship to Brentwood butt ravelled each day from Westcliff/ Nobody is required to board there, and there are now much better travel options than when I was a pupil. That said, your point about education being made available appropriately based on ability is spot on.[/p][/quote]Suggest by Brentwood Grammar School, the correspondent meant Brentwood County High, which was a grammar school until it collapsede into the "comprehensive" system and became an under-performing schoo, for many years. Brentwood School is a rather expensive public school, at the opposite end of the scale! eurodoomed

4:27pm Mon 23 Dec 13

southend loser says...

Well done sir for hitting back.
I also came from a poor background,passed my eleven plus and went to Westcliffe.
I am proud to have been a pupil at the school,okay so I have not used the excellent education I had to my full extent.
I am also proud to say I come from Southend,despite it's shortfalss it is still my home.
I am not slagging the kids off these days,but there is too much other stuff like texting or whatever forvthem to be interested in education.
Thankyou Westcliffe for educating me and thankyou Southend for giving me a good childhood
Well done sir for hitting back. I also came from a poor background,passed my eleven plus and went to Westcliffe. I am proud to have been a pupil at the school,okay so I have not used the excellent education I had to my full extent. I am also proud to say I come from Southend,despite it's shortfalss it is still my home. I am not slagging the kids off these days,but there is too much other stuff like texting or whatever forvthem to be interested in education. Thankyou Westcliffe for educating me and thankyou Southend for giving me a good childhood southend loser

4:30pm Mon 23 Dec 13

southend loser says...

southend loser wrote:
Well done sir for hitting back.
I also came from a poor background,passed my eleven plus and went to Westcliffe.
I am proud to have been a pupil at the school,okay so I have not used the excellent education I had to my full extent.
I am also proud to say I come from Southend,despite it's shortfalss it is still my home.
I am not slagging the kids off these days,but there is too much other stuff like texting or whatever forvthem to be interested in education.
Thankyou Westcliffe for educating me and thankyou Southend for giving me a good childhood
Sorry about the mistakes in my comment,**** useless education system!!
[quote][p][bold]southend loser[/bold] wrote: Well done sir for hitting back. I also came from a poor background,passed my eleven plus and went to Westcliffe. I am proud to have been a pupil at the school,okay so I have not used the excellent education I had to my full extent. I am also proud to say I come from Southend,despite it's shortfalss it is still my home. I am not slagging the kids off these days,but there is too much other stuff like texting or whatever forvthem to be interested in education. Thankyou Westcliffe for educating me and thankyou Southend for giving me a good childhood[/p][/quote]Sorry about the mistakes in my comment,**** useless education system!! southend loser

11:29am Tue 24 Dec 13

Fred the Phoenix says...

southend loser wrote:
southend loser wrote:
Well done sir for hitting back.
I also came from a poor background,passed my eleven plus and went to Westcliffe.
I am proud to have been a pupil at the school,okay so I have not used the excellent education I had to my full extent.
I am also proud to say I come from Southend,despite it's shortfalss it is still my home.
I am not slagging the kids off these days,but there is too much other stuff like texting or whatever forvthem to be interested in education.
Thankyou Westcliffe for educating me and thankyou Southend for giving me a good childhood
Sorry about the mistakes in my comment,**** useless education system!!
Should have paid more attention at school! Happy Xmas.
[quote][p][bold]southend loser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southend loser[/bold] wrote: Well done sir for hitting back. I also came from a poor background,passed my eleven plus and went to Westcliffe. I am proud to have been a pupil at the school,okay so I have not used the excellent education I had to my full extent. I am also proud to say I come from Southend,despite it's shortfalss it is still my home. I am not slagging the kids off these days,but there is too much other stuff like texting or whatever forvthem to be interested in education. Thankyou Westcliffe for educating me and thankyou Southend for giving me a good childhood[/p][/quote]Sorry about the mistakes in my comment,**** useless education system!![/p][/quote]Should have paid more attention at school! Happy Xmas. Fred the Phoenix

1:00pm Wed 1 Jan 14

mikepaterson says...

eurodoomed wrote:
mikepaterson wrote:
norglishman wrote: My brother & I came from a poor background, living on a council estate in Laindon & then Harlow, where my mum raised 3 of us on her own with no support from my dad. She worked hard to put us through a good schooling so that we could have a better life than she did. We both passed the 11+ & were educated at Brentwood Grammer school. As we passed the 11+ we got a grant towards education but still had to pay for boarding. So it goes to prove that it is not your social background that dicates whether you attend grammer or comprehensive schools - it is your ability. It has helped tremendously in later life so that I could get a well paid job and take another family out of socail poverty.
Did you really go there? Brentwood School is a public School and not a state Grammar School. It is not even called Brentwood Grammar School! I received a Scholarship to Brentwood butt ravelled each day from Westcliff/ Nobody is required to board there, and there are now much better travel options than when I was a pupil. That said, your point about education being made available appropriately based on ability is spot on.
Suggest by Brentwood Grammar School, the correspondent meant Brentwood County High, which was a grammar school until it collapsede into the "comprehensive" system and became an under-performing schoo, for many years.
Brentwood School is a rather expensive public school, at the opposite end of the scale!
You do not get scholarships, or board at Brentwood County High. This is the case at Brentwood School.
[quote][p][bold]eurodoomed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikepaterson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]norglishman[/bold] wrote: My brother & I came from a poor background, living on a council estate in Laindon & then Harlow, where my mum raised 3 of us on her own with no support from my dad. She worked hard to put us through a good schooling so that we could have a better life than she did. We both passed the 11+ & were educated at Brentwood Grammer school. As we passed the 11+ we got a grant towards education but still had to pay for boarding. So it goes to prove that it is not your social background that dicates whether you attend grammer or comprehensive schools - it is your ability. It has helped tremendously in later life so that I could get a well paid job and take another family out of socail poverty.[/p][/quote]Did you really go there? Brentwood School is a public School and not a state Grammar School. It is not even called Brentwood Grammar School! I received a Scholarship to Brentwood butt ravelled each day from Westcliff/ Nobody is required to board there, and there are now much better travel options than when I was a pupil. That said, your point about education being made available appropriately based on ability is spot on.[/p][/quote]Suggest by Brentwood Grammar School, the correspondent meant Brentwood County High, which was a grammar school until it collapsede into the "comprehensive" system and became an under-performing schoo, for many years. Brentwood School is a rather expensive public school, at the opposite end of the scale![/p][/quote]You do not get scholarships, or board at Brentwood County High. This is the case at Brentwood School. mikepaterson

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree