One in four grammar school pupils are from out of Southend (From Southend Standard)

Headline contradicts story - is it 1 in 4 from out of town or 3 in 4? Clarity please! By the way, do you need a proof reader? LOL

This is not new news. Southend's Grammar Schools have always taken a percentage of their pupils from outside what is now the Borough. When I took the 11 Plus in the mid sixties several of my peers went to Westcliff or Southen High. I guess Julian Ware-Lane would rather leave the places empty than fill them from outside the Borough.

Why not educate the kids of southend upto the level which grants them access to the schools.

http://jamescourtena
y.wordpress.com/2013
/02/01/lets-sort-the
-fact-from-scaremong
ering-fiction/

But the fact remains that if the primary schools of southend fail in turning out enough well educated pupils to two fill 4 secondary grammar schools they are failing their pupils at that level. I would like to know how many of those children from southend have had to under go extra tuition at great expense to gain their place.

leighmum wrote:
Headline contradicts story - is it 1 in 4 from out of town or 3 in 4? Clarity please! By the way, do you need a proof reader? LOL

I think the Echo should employ more people that went to the Grammar Schools, then they might not make these sort of errors!

CllrJamesCourtenay wrote:
http://jamescourtena

y.wordpress.com/2013

/02/01/lets-sort-the

-fact-from-scaremong

ering-fiction/

James, you can actually have shortlinks available in wordpress to enable links that work easily in media such as this. For those that want to read the blog it is at http://tinyurl.com/a
hn5kxw

FYI, my understanding is that you do not pass or fail the 11 plus, you just attain a certain value which, depending on the year and the "competition " that year, may or may not be high enough to grant you a place at the school of choice.

I do not think you are correct that all children who achieve “the basic pass mark” get a place . Children just achieve a certain mark, which may or may not be enough to gain a place in their school of choice –

•11 + score – highest score downwards until all places are filled. It is illegal under the School Admissions Code for priority to be given to siblings for schools where places are allocated by highest score in the 11+ tests. (taken from an article about demystifying admission policies and rules on the elevenplusexams.co.u
k website – http://tinyurl.com/b
dgy5l8

If memory serves me correctly( and I have a child at each of the Westcliff Grammar Schools), a certain number of places at each School are allocated to children schooled at primary Schools in Southend District and another bunch for those in Essex but who were in primary School outside the District. The places are given to those achieving the highest mark down until all the places are filled.

These rules are set to change soon so that there is no legal requirement to reserve places for local children.

The Schools are always oversubscribed by a huge number and I know that many children wanting to attend the Grammar Schools fail to find a place as they have not achieved a high enough score.

There is an interesting document on the Southend council website about the selection criteria for the Southend selective schools at http://tinyurl.com/b
gdtpkp


Julian Ware-Lane appears to be under the misguided impression that Good School = Grammar School, and also that Southend fund the Schools!

As a result of having grammar schools in this area our comprehensives are always going to be inferior, I am totally in support of having no grammar schools at all. Other areas in the country where there are no grammars have far better local comprehensive schools.

Currently many of the local primary schools hardly do anything in support of the 11+ and it isn't a fair system. I know that most of the questions that were in the 11+ are now only being covered in my daughter's final year at school in year six which is too late as the exam is now taken immediately after the summer holidays.

What does "live in westcliff" propose to put in the place of grammar schools? This was the whole problem 50 years ago nationally. Secondary Modern schools were suddenly called Comprehensives, without any provision being made for brighter pupils, and the mess we have now is as a direct result. It is no good holding back brighter children. It frustrates and short-changes them, and does not help the others.
Anthony Crosland and Shirley Williams (who sent her daughter to one of the top private schools, St Paul's Girls School) and who were the architects of the destruction of grammar schools should rot in hell for what they did. Why do Labour/Socialist politicians like Diane Abbott, Tony Blair, Paul Boateng, Harriet Harman, Nick Clegg etc do everything they can to avoid sending their offspring to bog standard comprehensives?
Be proud of your Grammars, Southend. Even Westcliff! From a proud and grateful Old Southendian.

I was wrong about Williams. She sent her daughter to a direct grant school, Godolphin & Latymer. Direct Grant schools enabled bright children from poor backgrounds to be privately educated, so, like Grammar Schools which did the same in the state sector, they were abolished by Labour.
The left hates academic excellence, hence its current bleatings about Michael Gove's reforms.
In Labour's ( and the Liberals') ideal world, only the rich should have a good education. Funny how so many Labour and Liberal politicians went to public or very good independent schools.

If eurodoomed knew anything at all about Education he would understand what a pile of dysfunctional rubbish Gove's reforms are, which was why he ditched them

grammar schools are a relic of the past.

the argument about excellence is nonsense....

Any school can promote and teach high academic ability. The mindset that a separate school is required where a higher standard of education is provided in contrast to the many sink schools that are laid on with the utmost afterthought for the typically and demographically poorest children is the reason why we have such a divisive educational landscape in Southend.

grammar schools are a relic harking back to a time where providing a high standard of education to the poorest children was considered an act of philanthropy by the elite who had this privilege as a given right.

what grammar schools represent today is not what they where designed for in the past.

if anyone can provide evidence that at least 25% of any one of southends grammar school intake is of children from low income families or children who receive free school meals then I will offer a full and frank retraction.

I would be surprised if the figure was 10% of any one selective school.

there are bright children in Southend but they are denied access to these schools that are supposedly available to them by the method of subtle social and financial control measures intentionally limited information about the criteria for selective schools to prospective students from socially divers backgrounds and an institutional prejudice right at the top and the bottom of the Tory party that want to maintain the privilege to them and their own....

I doubt James Courtenay will have any further input on this thread. Its to much like hard work in actually responding to individuals who may have a different viewpoint on the matter.

Just bash out a link to a controlled arena where the communication is a one way street, thats Southend councils modus operandi after all..

jayman wrote:
grammar schools are a relic of the past.

the argument about excellence is nonsense....

Any school can promote and teach high academic ability. The mindset that a separate school is required where a higher standard of education is provided in contrast to the many sink schools that are laid on with the utmost afterthought for the typically and demographically poorest children is the reason why we have such a divisive educational landscape in Southend.

grammar schools are a relic harking back to a time where providing a high standard of education to the poorest children was considered an act of philanthropy by the elite who had this privilege as a given right.

what grammar schools represent today is not what they where designed for in the past.

if anyone can provide evidence that at least 25% of any one of southends grammar school intake is of children from low income families or children who receive free school meals then I will offer a full and frank retraction.

I would be surprised if the figure was 10% of any one selective school.

there are bright children in Southend but they are denied access to these schools that are supposedly available to them by the method of subtle social and financial control measures intentionally limited information about the criteria for selective schools to prospective students from socially divers backgrounds and an institutional prejudice right at the top and the bottom of the Tory party that want to maintain the privilege to them and their own....

I doubt James Courtenay will have any further input on this thread. Its to much like hard work in actually responding to individuals who may have a different viewpoint on the matter.

Just bash out a link to a controlled arena where the communication is a one way street, thats Southend councils modus operandi after all..

'divers' should have been 'diverse' I myself am the product of a peace meal 80's Tory education.. lol

If comprehensive schools are so marvellous, why do Labour politicians, including Williams herself, not choose them for their children, and why are standards slipping against other countries? My parents could not have afforded to pay for my education, as my father was a vicar, paid a pittance in those days, but I was bright enough to get to Grammar school on merit, not money.
The fact that you almost certainly need tuition now to be able to get to grammar school, is a condemnation of primary school teaching, not of grammar schools.
Re Gove's reforms, I was not in favour of the Baccalaureate myself, but I am in favour of more rigorous learning of times tables, of promotong foreign languages (Labour, supposedly pro EU, devastated language teaching when it dropped them as a compulsory subject at secondary school) and of teaching British history properly, including a proper appreciation of Churchill. In current GCSE textbooks, he is barely mentioned!!! I also strongly support removing political correctness, such as an excessive emphasis on the EU, global warming etc, which I am delighted to see are in the reforms.
We owe it to our children to give them the very best education we can, even if that means upsetting the left wing establishment. Our children have been let down for 50 years. Fortunately, pillars of excellence do still exist. We need to cherish them, and seek to improve all schools, not do away with the best for reasons of sheer class envy and misplaced egalitarianism.

Jayman is sort of heading in the correct direction. Grammar schools are allowed to "cherry pick". Rather than offer places to the best of the "local" pupils they will pick the best from all applicants. They do not have a shortage of applicants to choose from and a larger pool of applicants means that they will be able to fill their classrooms with their prefered type of student. The bottom line reason for the selection processes they use is that they are scared witless to offer places to less than their ideal pupil just in case it is seen that the schools standards are dropping.

If there were more grammar schools, more children could attend them. In any event, all grammar schools in Essex are introducing, or in some cases, have introduced, rules to limit the intake from outside a specific radius, by effectively requiring higher marks in the 11+ for those students.
The schools are acutely conscious that they should be rooted in the local community.
I repeat, Southend should be immensely proud that it has some of the best schools in the country. We owe an enormous debt to the head masters/mistresses of the time who fought tooth and nail to save their schools, and local councillors, who defied vicious political dictats, and left a wonderful legacy.

Southend high school for boys number of children eligible for free school meals.

(1.6%)

number of children eligible for free school meals in the past six years.

(5.1%)

http://www.education
.gov.uk/cgi-bin/scho
ols/performance/scho
ol.pl?urn=136443

--------------------
-----------------

chase high school number of children eligible for free school meals.

(31.1%)

number of children eligible for free school meals in the past six years.

(49.4%)

http://www.education
.gov.uk/cgi-bin/scho
ols/performance/scho
ol.pl?urn=131146

almost half of chases school population are in receipt of free school meals which is used as a bench mark to track poverty amongst school children.

the rest of the stats on both schools are even more telling of the massive divide that exists..

i want a full and frank apology from James Courtenay that addresses the fact that children from poor backgrounds are being failed by a council that cant or wont recognise there is a problem.

Southend high school for boys, five good GCSEs or equivalents.

(99%)

chase high school five good GCSEs or equivalents.

(40%)

shocking!!

eurodoomed wrote:
If there were more grammar schools, more children could attend them. In any event, all grammar schools in Essex are introducing, or in some cases, have introduced, rules to limit the intake from outside a specific radius, by effectively requiring higher marks in the 11+ for those students.
The schools are acutely conscious that they should be rooted in the local community.
I repeat, Southend should be immensely proud that it has some of the best schools in the country. We owe an enormous debt to the head masters/mistresses of the time who fought tooth and nail to save their schools, and local councillors, who defied vicious political dictats, and left a wonderful legacy.

Here here
Well put

The comment that comprehensives willbe inferior because some pupils fromthe area go to grammar schools is ridiculous. If comprehensives did their job properly there would not be a need for grammar schools. England falls very short of those that are needed in the sciences in particular compared to other countries.The problems start at primary schools with nutty new ideas and not teaching what is useful and needed. Parents are a big problem because in my experience it has been the parents and not the teaching staff that say their children have 'failed' the 11 plus if they took it and di not get to grammar school. Ask how many primary school children even have a dictionery at home or use a book as well as the internet for their homework and then you will see where it also goes wrong.

I believe that the 11+ selection tests should not be fully open to all and sundry. The Grammar school places should be 80% reserved for primary pupils attending a state primary within the Borough boundary and to ensure this the test should be sat by those qualifying pupils in their primary school. The other 20% of places should then be open for all other pupils, those from outside the borough and the local independent schools.
This would ensure that the brightest and most driven of Southend's children would have the chance of one of the best educations on a level playing field.
The need for parents of pupils in local state primary schools feeling that they have to pay for coaching to get a pass is driven by the fact that the local independent primary schools coach their pupils specifically to pass the selection test and gain a grammar school place and therefore they need the extra coaching to put their children back on a level playing field.

The headline figure is that 75% of grammar pupils are from outside the borough, I would be interested to see what percentage were previously at non-state primary schools.

grammar schools enjoy an incredibly low proportion of SEN pupils and FSM pupils. lowest proportion of pupils receiving action and action plus education support and the highest number of intake pupils from fee charging primary schools..

welcome to the level playing field.. :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/education-2138
3243

a pressure grammar schools are systematically immune from..

jayman wrote:
Southend high school for boys number of children eligible for free school meals.

(1.6%)

number of children eligible for free school meals in the past six years.

(5.1%)

http://www.education

.gov.uk/cgi-bin/scho

ols/performance/scho

ol.pl?urn=136443

--------------------

-----------------

chase high school number of children eligible for free school meals.

(31.1%)

number of children eligible for free school meals in the past six years.

(49.4%)

http://www.education

.gov.uk/cgi-bin/scho

ols/performance/scho

ol.pl?urn=131146

almost half of chases school population are in receipt of free school meals which is used as a bench mark to track poverty amongst school children.

the rest of the stats on both schools are even more telling of the massive divide that exists..

i want a full and frank apology from James Courtenay that addresses the fact that children from poor backgrounds are being failed by a council that cant or wont recognise there is a problem.

Southend high school for boys, five good GCSEs or equivalents.

(99%)

chase high school five good GCSEs or equivalents.

(40%)

shocking!!

Maybe the solution is to build classrooms for 1,000 pupils on the sports fields of Westcliff to increase the size of the school, then knock down Chase and turn it into playing fields for Westcliff.

grammar schools should have no more then a ten percent GCSE advantage over comprehensive education.. lets start driving standards up not down for the majority.

Jeremy Bentham said

"It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong"

I entirely agree that people who can afford private education at primary level can afford it at secondary stage, and suggest that the answer is to limit the number of grammar school entrants from the private sector (to say 25% or may be less) thereby re-establishing the principle that grammar schools help children from ordinary families such as I was in the 1960s, and my children have been over the past decade or so, who are bright enough to be able to keep up with the fast pace they set.
Then, we need to drive up standards in primary schools so that tuition is not necessary, and, of course, ensure that comprehensives look after all sections, the brighter ones as well as the strugglers.
If we do this, we get back to the original intention of the grammar school system, and will see a real improvement in educational standard across the board.
Hopefully, in due course, John Major's aim of a grammar school in each town will be realised. That is surely the way ahead for 21st century Britain.

Any of you who don't agree, just spend 30 minutes inside a Grammar School. You will be amazed by the quality of the teaching, and the varied opportunities for children, That has to be the aim for all schools, and that is what we lost so disastrously 50 years ago.

We have no Grammar Schools now in Southend! They are now Academies!

We have got rid of the Grammar Schools here at long last!

rhowes wrote:
We have no Grammar Schools now in Southend! They are now Academies!

We have got rid of the Grammar Schools here at long last!

a thorn by any other name...

Grammar / Acadamies get results because:
.
The parents really care about their childs education and participate. The teachers are competent. The child wants to and is encouraged to learn. The culture is one of achievement and disruption is not tolerated.
.
It is not about social class, parents wages or ability. If any of the above are not predominant in a school the child will have to work harder to flourish. The rot set in with Secondary and Comprehensive initiatives by labour governments to drag education down as part of a class issue (excuse the pun).

2shedsjackson wrote:
Grammar / Acadamies get results because:
.
The parents really care about their childs education and participate. The teachers are competent. The child wants to and is encouraged to learn. The culture is one of achievement and disruption is not tolerated.
.
It is not about social class, parents wages or ability. If any of the above are not predominant in a school the child will have to work harder to flourish. The rot set in with Secondary and Comprehensive initiatives by labour governments to drag education down as part of a class issue (excuse the pun).

It is proven with government statistics that class and wealth influence factors, whether directly or indirectly in selective school admissions.

the majority of parents who have children who attend comprehensive school are hard working and caring and act in there childrens best interests.

i have proven evidence to this in my above posts. Please prove evidence in the contrary that supports your view that grammar schools are indeed open to all. how many children from poor background attend these schools?

jayman wrote:

2shedsjackson wrote:
Grammar / Acadamies get results because:
.
The parents really care about their childs education and participate. The teachers are competent. The child wants to and is encouraged to learn. The culture is one of achievement and disruption is not tolerated.
.
It is not about social class, parents wages or ability. If any of the above are not predominant in a school the child will have to work harder to flourish. The rot set in with Secondary and Comprehensive initiatives by labour governments to drag education down as part of a class issue (excuse the pun).

It is proven with government statistics that class and wealth influence factors, whether directly or indirectly in selective school admissions.

the majority of parents who have children who attend comprehensive school are hard working and caring and act in there childrens best interests.

i have proven evidence to this in my above posts. Please prove evidence in the contrary that supports your view that grammar schools are indeed open to all. how many children from poor background attend these schools?

You are using statistics to bolster your conspiracy theory of class discrimination. You request evidence on my alleged view that "grammar schools are open to all" . Read my post where did I claim that?
.
I pointed out a statement of the blee-ding obvious that without certain components in place in any school a child will find it harder to flourish. In the main these components are found in Grammar schools and exam results will support that.
.
Are you in favour of grammar schools accepting the low achievers who would struggle to keep up, just so the socialist dream of equality is met?

2shedsjackson wrote:

jayman wrote:

2shedsjackson wrote:
Grammar / Acadamies get results because:
.
The parents really care about their childs education and participate. The teachers are competent. The child wants to and is encouraged to learn. The culture is one of achievement and disruption is not tolerated.
.
It is not about social class, parents wages or ability. If any of the above are not predominant in a school the child will have to work harder to flourish. The rot set in with Secondary and Comprehensive initiatives by labour governments to drag education down as part of a class issue (excuse the pun).

It is proven with government statistics that class and wealth influence factors, whether directly or indirectly in selective school admissions.

the majority of parents who have children who attend comprehensive school are hard working and caring and act in there childrens best interests.

i have proven evidence to this in my above posts. Please prove evidence in the contrary that supports your view that grammar schools are indeed open to all. how many children from poor background attend these schools?

You are using statistics to bolster your conspiracy theory of class discrimination. You request evidence on my alleged view that "grammar schools are open to all" . Read my post where did I claim that?
.
I pointed out a statement of the blee-ding obvious that without certain components in place in any school a child will find it harder to flourish. In the main these components are found in Grammar schools and exam results will support that.
.
Are you in favour of grammar schools accepting the low achievers who would struggle to keep up, just so the socialist dream of equality is met?

im not using the statistics to prove any conspiracy theory.

the facts speak for themselves.

class discrimination is occurring by default as the facts prove..

you are trying to win an un-winnable point as you have no 'facts' to support your view..

jayman wrote:

2shedsjackson wrote:

jayman wrote:

2shedsjackson wrote:
Grammar / Acadamies get results because:
.
The parents really care about their childs education and participate. The teachers are competent. The child wants to and is encouraged to learn. The culture is one of achievement and disruption is not tolerated.
.
It is not about social class, parents wages or ability. If any of the above are not predominant in a school the child will have to work harder to flourish. The rot set in with Secondary and Comprehensive initiatives by labour governments to drag education down as part of a class issue (excuse the pun).

It is proven with government statistics that class and wealth influence factors, whether directly or indirectly in selective school admissions.

the majority of parents who have children who attend comprehensive school are hard working and caring and act in there childrens best interests.

i have proven evidence to this in my above posts. Please prove evidence in the contrary that supports your view that grammar schools are indeed open to all. how many children from poor background attend these schools?

You are using statistics to bolster your conspiracy theory of class discrimination. You request evidence on my alleged view that "grammar schools are open to all" . Read my post where did I claim that?
.
I pointed out a statement of the blee-ding obvious that without certain components in place in any school a child will find it harder to flourish. In the main these components are found in Grammar schools and exam results will support that.
.
Are you in favour of grammar schools accepting the low achievers who would struggle to keep up, just so the socialist dream of equality is met?

im not using the statistics to prove any conspiracy theory.

the facts speak for themselves.

class discrimination is occurring by default as the facts prove..

you are trying to win an un-winnable point as you have no 'facts' to support your view..

and i am not a socialist... im a pragmatist.

I'm not on here to win anything matey.
.
You seem to keep on about class rather than the childs ability.
.
By your other posts which on this site which attack the tories I took you for a socialist.

jayman would prefer everyone fail rather than some succeed. that's the socialist dream (or nightmare). the problem is it's not just a few that don't give a rat's testicle. it's the many.

2shedsjackson wrote:
I'm not on here to win anything matey.
.
You seem to keep on about class rather than the childs ability.
.
By your other posts which on this site which attack the tories I took you for a socialist.

What.. You where the first to mention 'class' to which I responded in kind.. Ah. The swan song of your pointless comments..

Asbo, I think you're right , the politics of envy no matter what they call themselves.
.
Jayman - please do not insult other posters because they do not agree with your philosophical outlook.

The opponents of grammar schools have had 50 years to come up with an alternative, but all they want to do is to send all children to secondary moderns!
Why is it OK to pay for education, but not OK to choose a state school which selects on merit, not on ability to pay?

the 11 + is a test of ability. as far as i'm aware there are no questions on the paper which ask about household income, preference for x-factor or downton abbey

2shedsjackson wrote:
Grammar / Acadamies get results because: . The parents really care about their childs education and participate. The teachers are competent. The child wants to and is encouraged to learn. The culture is one of achievement and disruption is not tolerated. . It is not about social class, parents wages or ability. If any of the above are not predominant in a school the child will have to work harder to flourish. The rot set in with Secondary and Comprehensive initiatives by labour governments to drag education down as part of a class issue (excuse the pun).

Yes, bang on.

The posters who go on about cherry picking are forgetting that you have to grow the cherry first.

Where do they expect all the top children from Benfleet / Basildon / Canvey to go then? The grammar schools serve more than just Southend!