Join the Labour Party and save your country!

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

And in the latest round of news, May intends to lift the ban on new grammar schools to improve social mobility for bright but not so well off kids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37002495

And surprise surprise, Labour and the Lib Dems intend to oppose it. I guess reducing social mobility helps preserve Labours voter base. :roll:

At least entrance will be based on ability and not ability to pay.

Step forward Diane Abbott. Total hypocrite.

ballysmate

I give you, the comprehensive school.

ballysmate

What we have at the moment is a system based on parental wealth. There is a premium to be paid on housing in the catchment areas of 'good schools'. The wealthy can and do move house to get little Johnny into the best schools.
I'd rather have selection on ability rather than wealth.

The problem never was grammar schools, it was the standard of the secondary moderns.

TheBigBean

Grammar schools. Boo.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

What we have at the moment is a system based on parental wealth. There is a premium to be paid on housing in the catchment areas of 'good schools'. The wealthy can and do move house to get little Johnny into the best schools.
I'd rather have selection on ability rather than wealth.

The problem never was grammar schools, it was the standard of the secondary moderns.

Completely agree, we need an overhaul of funding in state education, crazy that my local academy school is 700k in debt just to keep up with modern syllabus and now is forced to cut teaching posts across all departments, inc getting rid of Chinese language dept... its now in special measures as teaching standards have dropped... what a surprise!!!

meanwhile local grammar has a waiting list as long as your arm, guess where the Chinese teacher has gone???
concentrating on the brightest, yet not making enough of the talents (which could be in more tech subjects)of less academic pupils is just a sure fire way to make us reliant on migrants to do our pumping etc.

Looks like May is just going to following in the last few tory Gov foot steps, despite the rhetoric.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

What we have at the moment is a system based on parental wealth. There is a premium to be paid on housing in the catchment areas of 'good schools'. The wealthy can and do move house to get little Johnny into the best schools.
I'd rather have selection on ability rather than wealth.

The problem never was grammar schools, it was the standard of the secondary moderns.

Good point, the state comps are generally selecting based on catchment area which is typically pretty small - which means that there is more selection going on by virtue of ability to move into the area, compared to a grammar which selects on ability only has a very wide geo catchment area if any (my kids schools has a 10 mile radius which means you can live anywhere from Greenwich to the M25 in Kent.

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.

All you've shown is some evidence that grammar schools have better exam results.

The paper you linked to (and the full Sutton Trust report mentioned) go further. The evidence is that there is little value added increase in exam results - that the kids would have achieved those results anyway.

Grammar schools take fewer pupils from, for example, families that qualify for free school meals, children with SENs, looked-after children. If you want to claim that grammar schools are good for social mobility then you need to show that they are taking children from these backgrounds and improving on what they could achieve elsewhere.

You can't, because they're not.

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Maybe this reinforces the argument for more grammar schools as I know they teach good debating skills?

narbs

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.

All you've shown is some evidence that grammar schools have better exam results.

The paper you linked to (and the full Sutton Trust report mentioned) go further. The evidence is that there is little value added increase in exam results - that the kids would have achieved those results anyway.

Grammar schools take fewer pupils from, for example, families that qualify for free school meals, children with SENs, looked-after children. If you want to claim that grammar schools are good for social mobility then you need to show that they are taking children from these backgrounds and improving on what they could achieve elsewhere.

You can't, because they're not.

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Maybe this reinforces the argument for more grammar schools as I know they teach good debating skills?

Good debating requires evidence, not just repeated assertions.

Just repeating 'some poor kids go to grammar schools' isn't an argument for achieving increased social mobility, however simple it is for you to type.

Have a look at this (hint - it contains evidence, so might not be your thing, but give it a go) - http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media- ... a-bad-idea

TheBigBean

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Maybe this reinforces the argument for more grammar schools as I know they teach good debating skills?

I'll join in.

1. You can't compare the performance of the elite with the performance of the average. Is the average academic achievement of grammar schools and secondary moderns (or whatever they would be called) betting than a comprehensive?

2. Academic selection at the age of 11 is not based on some magic component of nature, but rather more on the nurture provided to that point i.e. a kid who is a bit dim, but is sent to evening classes by his wealthy parents will get in whereas the corresponding working class kid won't. This is why selective private schools have feeder schools all set up to prepare the kids to pass the entry exams.

Lookyhere

TheBigBean wrote:

2. Academic selection at the age of 11 is not based on some magic component of nature, but rather more on the nurture provided to that point i.e. a kid who is a bit dim, but is sent to evening classes by his wealthy parents will get in whereas the corresponding working class kid won't. This is why selective private schools have feeder schools all set up to prepare the kids to pass the entry exams.

Many Grammar schools are heavily over subscribed, so even a bright kid scoring way over the pass mark, isnt certain of getting in.
the only way to up those odds is by coaching and thats not available to poorer households.

Also, consider that middle income higher educated parents sitting on school governor committees can really bring a school on, do we want to take away even more educated parents from Comps? what would we be left with? some sort of sink school, serving only the poor and the less able and very easy to cut funding as those parents are less likely to be complaining about it.

Considering the problems facing this country, amazing that May is evn talking about this, should be way down the list of priorities.

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.

Anecdotally, my kid attends a grammar school and is doing really well there - as are her friends, some of whom come from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.

Where is the evidence you say you have?

And what is your alternative solution? Keep the comprehensives?

I think a lot of peoples issue with it is you're writing off the half that didn't get into the grammar school. As happened to my mum who went on to get a 1st from the OU in later life - which is quite hard even if you're not working full time and have 3 kids - she was robbed of the chance to get the qualifications she was capable of due to doing badly in a couple of tests when she was 11 years old.

Edit: what BigBean said.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.

Anecdotally, my kid attends a grammar school and is doing really well there - as are her friends, some of whom come from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.

Where is the evidence you say you have?

And what is your alternative solution? Keep the comprehensives?

Are you proposing to rid us of Comps then? to be replaced with Grammar schools?

i think even u might see there are some issues with that.

i cant believe you let your kids mix with children from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.

verylonglegs

Moving back towards the topic...the latest shenanigans, in the high court no less, regarding who can or can't vote on it's leader for me proves the Labour party in whatever form isn't fit to govern anything anytime soon, no matter what 'side' wins. Bunch of clowns.

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.

All you've shown is some evidence that grammar schools have better exam results.

The paper you linked to (and the full Sutton Trust report mentioned) go further. The evidence is that there is little value added increase in exam results - that the kids would have achieved those results anyway.

Grammar schools take fewer pupils from, for example, families that qualify for free school meals, children with SENs, looked-after children. If you want to claim that grammar schools are good for social mobility then you need to show that they are taking children from these backgrounds and improving on what they could achieve elsewhere.

You can't, because they're not.

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Maybe this reinforces the argument for more grammar schools as I know they teach good debating skills?

Good debating requires evidence, not just repeated assertions.

Just repeating 'some poor kids go to grammar schools' isn't an argument for achieving increased social mobility, however simple it is for you to type.

Have a look at this (hint - it contains evidence, so might not be your thing, but give it a go) - http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media- ... a-bad-idea

What that tells me is that part of the problem is the intense competition to get kids into Grammars. That is a function of their rarity and clearly the fact that they are good - otherwise why would they be so popular? Thanks for pointing that out.

Clearly the answer is to have more of them and meet the demand that so clearly exists. This will then allow more kids from orer backgrounds to go. Actually it will allow more kids to go, full stop, Its not just about the poor, unless your name is Jeremy Corbyn.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.

Anecdotally, my kid attends a grammar school and is doing really well there - as are her friends, some of whom come from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.

Where is the evidence you say you have?

And what is your alternative solution? Keep the comprehensives?

Are you proposing to rid us of Comps then? to be replaced with Grammar schools?

i think even u might see there are some issues with that.

i cant believe you let your kids mix with children from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.

If that bothered me I'd have taken her private, it was an option. But it didn't. I'm from a bit of an armpit of a town and worked hard to better myself. Pity that Labour had removed the chance for me to go to a grammar school.

As mentioned above, we need more grammars, clearly there is strong demand for them. Why do you think that might be?

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Maybe this reinforces the argument for more grammar schools as I know they teach good debating skills?

I'll join in.

1. You can't compare the performance of the elite with the performance of the average. Is the average academic achievement of grammar schools and secondary moderns (or whatever they would be called) betting than a comprehensive?

2. Academic selection at the age of 11 is not based on some magic component of nature, but rather more on the nurture provided to that point i.e. a kid who is a bit dim, but is sent to evening classes by his wealthy parents will get in whereas the corresponding working class kid won't. This is why selective private schools have feeder schools all set up to prepare the kids to pass the entry exams.

As mentioned above, if there were enough grammars this would be much less of an issue. People clearly want more given how oversubscribed they are. Give then people what they want....

Stevo_666

bobmcstuff wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.

Anecdotally, my kid attends a grammar school and is doing really well there - as are her friends, some of whom come from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.

Where is the evidence you say you have?

And what is your alternative solution? Keep the comprehensives?

I think a lot of peoples issue with it is you're writing off the half that didn't get into the grammar school. As happened to my mum who went on to get a 1st from the OU in later life - which is quite hard even if you're not working full time and have 3 kids - she was robbed of the chance to get the qualifications she was capable of due to doing badly in a couple of tests when she was 11 years old.

Edit: what BigBean said.

See my posts above. If the lefties hadnt nearly abolished grammars your mum probably would have got into one. Blame Labour.

narbs

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I've shown you the evidence and explained how - it is not difficult to see how those results benefit a child attending such a school - a proportion of which will be from poorer backgrounds given the selection is on academic ability. All you need to do is put two and two together.

All you've shown is some evidence that grammar schools have better exam results.

The paper you linked to (and the full Sutton Trust report mentioned) go further. The evidence is that there is little value added increase in exam results - that the kids would have achieved those results anyway.

Grammar schools take fewer pupils from, for example, families that qualify for free school meals, children with SENs, looked-after children. If you want to claim that grammar schools are good for social mobility then you need to show that they are taking children from these backgrounds and improving on what they could achieve elsewhere.

You can't, because they're not.

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Maybe this reinforces the argument for more grammar schools as I know they teach good debating skills?

Good debating requires evidence, not just repeated assertions.

Just repeating 'some poor kids go to grammar schools' isn't an argument for achieving increased social mobility, however simple it is for you to type.

Have a look at this (hint - it contains evidence, so might not be your thing, but give it a go) - http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media- ... a-bad-idea

What that tells me is that part of the problem is the intense competition to get kids into Grammars. That is a function of their rarity and clearly the fact that they are good - otherwise why would they be so popular? Thanks for pointing that out.

Clearly the answer is to have more of them and meet the demand that so clearly exists. This will then allow more kids from orer backgrounds to go. Actually it will allow more kids to go, full stop, Its not just about the poor, unless your name is Jeremy Corbyn.

It's like having a discussion with a blacmange.

You've got no evidence to back up your original claim that grammar schools improve social mobility, so now it's apparently not just about the poor. Unless your name is Theresa May.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And what is your alternative solution? Keep the comprehensives?

Are you proposing to rid us of Comps then? to be replaced with Grammar schools?

i think even u might see there are some issues with that.

i cant believe you let your kids mix with children from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.

If that bothered me I'd have taken her private, it was an option. But it didn't. I'm from a bit of an armpit of a town and worked hard to better myself. Pity that Labour had removed the chance for me to go to a grammar school.

As mentioned above, we need more grammars, clearly there is strong demand for them. Why do you think that might be?

you ve made the argument against grammars, you ve done well without them, as have i and my siblings, maybe your local comp was a better place than you think it was? or your parents instilled values in you, that in all likelihood, many parents do not?

Grammars do well because they can skim the cream, should they become common place, they d lose their attractiveness, at mo, many can give private education for free.

the ans is to properly fund state education.

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

It's like having a discussion with a blacmange.

You've got no evidence to back up your original claim that grammar schools improve social mobility, so now it's apparently not just about the poor. Unless your name is Theresa May.

I have if you read my posts above, not my problem if you cannot make the simple logical connections.

Also a bit rich coming from somebody who has not shown any evidence to the contrary.

florerider

I'm with Bally on this, noting no one seems to want their kids to go to a secondary modern, but that is one of the realities.

when I was 11, some of us went to Grammar school, those who failed the 11 plus went to secondary moderns, or private schools if dad had the money and needed to save face.

Went to a meeting a little back where the Chancellor of a "metropolitan uni" said they were a major trainer of apprentices ffs. So, if local further education colleges can call themselves universities, let's just call comprehensives grammar schools and move on.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

It's like having a discussion with a blacmange.

You've got no evidence to back up your original claim that grammar schools improve social mobility, so now it's apparently not just about the poor. Unless your name is Theresa May.

I have if you read my posts above, not my problem if you cannot make the simple logical connections.

Also a bit rich coming from somebody who has not shown any evidence to the contrary.

You said it improved social mobility, so where is the evidence for that ?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

narbs wrote:

It's like having a discussion with a blacmange.

You've got no evidence to back up your original claim that grammar schools improve social mobility, so now it's apparently not just about the poor. Unless your name is Theresa May.

I have if you read my posts above, not my problem if you cannot make the simple logical connections.

Also a bit rich coming from somebody who has not shown any evidence to the contrary.

You said it improved social mobility, so where is the evidence for that ?

FFS read my posts earlier in this the thread as I have said several times now. Seems like comprehensive education let you down as well.

Aside from that, why do.you think to you know better than the masses of parents who want grammars? Give the people what they want.

verylonglegs

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And what is your alternative solution? Keep the comprehensives?

Are you proposing to rid us of Comps then? to be replaced with Grammar schools?

i think even u might see there are some issues with that.

i cant believe you let your kids mix with children from what most people would call poorer backgrounds.

If that bothered me I'd have taken her private, it was an option. But it didn't. I'm from a bit of an armpit of a town and worked hard to better myself. Pity that Labour had removed the chance for me to go to a grammar school.

As mentioned above, we need more grammars, clearly there is strong demand for them. Why do you think that might be?

you ve made the argument against grammars, you ve done well without them, as have i and my siblings, maybe your local comp was a better place than you think it was? or your parents instilled values in you, that in all likelihood, many parents do not?

Grammars do well because they can skim the cream, should they become common place, they d lose their attractiveness, at mo, many can give private education for free.

the ans is to properly fund state education.

Unfortunately the answer lies with decent parenting, kids spend a far greater percentage of time at home than in school and if that isn't right then you are always up against it. I say unfortunately because then it means there are no real answers as no-one advocates intrusive state intervention in the home. I'm thinking back to the kid throwing V-signs at me and calling me a c*** once when I was playing Sunday football in a rougher part of the city. His old man (or guardian) stood next to him drinking Stella and smoking an enormous joint any festival goer would be proud of at 11am in the morning. That little lads life was already ruined...social mobility? He'd have to beat incredible odds. That's an extreme example but kids from poorer backgrounds can succeed, sure they may have to try a lot harder but if the attitude isn't right in the home then any state education isn't going to patch over those cracks.

narbs

Stevo 666 wrote:

I have if you read my posts above, not my problem if you cannot make the simple logical connections.

Also a bit rich coming from somebody who has not shown any evidence to the contrary.

I've read your posts, and nowhere do you provide any evidence that grammar schools improve social mobility. It's simple.

You quoted from a government report which proves nothing of the sort and helpfully even linked to some research that indicates the exact opposite.

So to make it nice and clear for you - the Sutton Trust research AND the Policy Exchange paper both suggest that grammar schools do not improve social mobility.

You were the one who introduced the topic parroting May's claim that they improve social mobility. A few people have asked you to provide some, indeed any, evidence to support the claim. You can't (a couple of anecdotes don't actually equate to evidence) and you seem to object to having this pointed out to you.

Still, make a couple of digs about comps (not sure what your issue is there other than having attended one) and all will be well in your world.

tangled_metal

I reckon Stevo is not seeing performance of.schools as comparing inputs with outputs. You start at a high.level such as passing the 11+ significantly.that you beat others who also passed to the limited grammar school. The kids start at a higher level then ends at the same higher level.

Kids who don't have grammar schools to try for or who fail to.get a high enough score to get in are, most likely, starting at a lower level. Then if they end up going to the same top universities as grammar school.kids they've.effectively.reached the same level. This means the school has performed better I reckon.

It's as much about the improvement not the end product in comprehensive schools I think. Grammar schools, and private schools, are all about the bottom line. That bottom line is kids in top universities. My.private school operated very much like the grammar school it used to be.before the Labour council stopped the grammar school system. They measured the success of a year by the number of kids into Oxbridge. Irrespective of those two universities being the best for the subjects students applied for they still got pushed to Oxford university or Cambridge university. If you had done your research and applied for other universities they still tried to get Oxbridge into the 5 options for the brighter kids.

They also had a good line in coaching to the exam/course. This has definitely come into comprehensive schools I believe. Then there's the way they opted for the harder and more respected exam boards. Not sure if.it's still the same but the same subject across the boards when I was a kid had such a wide variation in difficulty. That meant those in my private, grammar school had to work harder to.get over the higher qualification difficulty but also stood in.better standing with admission officers at good universities.

The issue, IMHO, is that education is a postcode lottery in many ways like healthcare services. The aim should be leveling the field among state comprehensive schools not a retrograde step back to grammar and the catchall secondary modern.

Not every kid develops such that the nominal age of 10-11 years for a major decision on the capabilities of a child to be fair. Someone develops early and gets into grammar has a major advantage. A later developing kid might have the same potential by the end of the school stage of life but it's nearly impossible to get into the grammar school system later on. Develop early you've got a decent chance to.get on, Late development by the time you catch up in.ability the grammar school kid has left you behind.

Selection on.ability at any age is wrong IMHO. Grammar schools are not a progressive education format. It's not about spending to help the cream of the crop but it's about spending to get the best out of all. The current system is broken so fix it. Don't just skim off the best to leave tree rest condemned.

Stevo_666

narbs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I have if you read my posts above, not my problem if you cannot make the simple logical connections.

Also a bit rich coming from somebody who has not shown any evidence to the contrary.

I've read your posts, and nowhere do you provide any evidence that grammar schools improve social mobility. It's simple.

You quoted from a government report which proves nothing of the sort and helpfully even linked to some research that indicates the exact opposite.

So to make it nice and clear for you - the Sutton Trust research AND the Policy Exchange paper both suggest that grammar schools do not improve social mobility.

You were the one who introduced the topic parroting May's claim that they improve social mobility. A few people have asked you to provide some, indeed any, evidence to support the claim. You can't (a couple of anecdotes don't actually equate to evidence) and you seem to object to having this pointed out to you.

Still, make a couple of digs about comps (not sure what your issue is there other than having attended one) and all will be well in your world.

Either you don't understand the point or you are prerending to ignore the points that I made. I'll post them again to help you and ask you again to pick out what part you disagree with.

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Here you go. Which points do you disagree with?

And please explain how you know better than all of the parents who want to send their kids to grammar school.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Selection on.ability at any age is wrong IMHO. Grammar schools are not a progressive education format. It's not about spending to help the cream of the crop but it's about spending to get the best out of all. The current system is broken so fix it. Don't just skim off the best to leave tree rest condemned.

Why would we not want to give those with the most potential the chance to contribute? After all they will be the taxpayers of the future who take up the slack for the kids who could be bothered to work and and achieve something.

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Selection on.ability at any age is wrong IMHO. Grammar schools are not a progressive education format. It's not about spending to help the cream of the crop but it's about spending to get the best out of all. The current system is broken so fix it. Don't just skim off the best to leave tree rest condemned.

Why would we not want to give those with the most potential the chance to contribute? After all they will be the taxpayers of the future who take up the slack for the kids who could be bothered to work and and achieve something.

So you believe that it's better to just help those who show potential at a particular stage of their life and stuff the rest? What if you have developed slowly such that you are below this cut off point at that particular age but well above it a year later? It's too late.

What about those whose home circumstances are such that they can't cram for the 11+? When.grammar schools worked there was a better attitude to.education. Back then it was more like developing countries in that more people believed in education. Now there's generational lack of aspiration. Kids grow up with other kids on the streets in many areas. Lack of good adult input leads to poor chances in education and life in.general.

I guess what I'm saying is selection doesn't pick the best when it's done by the 11+/grammar school system. To make that work you need to put all the other broken bits of society to rights. Then you need to account for development patterns and variations. So then and only then can you be sure academic selection is fair and finds those with the greatest potential to hot house for the benefit of society.

Don't get.me wrong, I'm all for getting the potential out of kids I even believed in grammar schools once. Now I just think there should be and is a better way.