What price Grammar Schools? Latymer grammar school asks parents to make up financial shortfall

Theresa May’s education policy in question as north London school says it cannot expand due to financial pressures

Theresa May’s plans to revive grammar schools risk being undermined by government cuts in education funding, after one leading selective school said it was is unable to expand and had asked parents for donations to meet looming deficits.
Parents of pupils at Latymer school, a popular grammar school in Enfield, north London, have been warned that unrelenting financial pressures may mean staff cuts, larger class sizes and fewer subjects for pupils to study at GCSE and A-level.
Latymer’s leadership invited parents to a meeting last week to discuss the school’s “very significant financial shortfall”, with parents urged to make regular donations.
“We are now appealing to all parents and carers of current students to support the school either by making a new or increasing an existing voluntary regular donation,” parents were told in a letter from the school’s headteacher and chair of governors.

“Typically the amount you would pledge would be £30-£50 per month (£360-600 per annum) over the period your child attends Latymer. This averages out at between £1.89 and £3.15 per school day and is considerably less than the average fees of an independent school.”
The financial plight of even successful schools such as Latymer, one of the most over-subscribed in London, suggests grammar schools are looking to retrench rather than expand, as is widely believed by supporters of selective schools.
Founded in 1624 by a city merchant, Latymer is highly sought-after for its excellent exam results and is rated outstanding by Ofsted. But its headteacher, Maureen Cobbett, said grammar schools such as Latymer were subject to the same budget pressures as other state schools.
“We’ve appealed to parents for any support they can give us, and like many other grammar schools we’re appealing to alumni as well, to see if they can offer us any support,” Cobbett said.
The school has been asking parents for voluntary donations for 20 years, and in the past has used the donations to fund new sports facilities and school refurbishment.
“The difference is that we’re saying there’s more urgency this year, because of all the cuts that have affected the school,” Cobbett said.

More at : https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/02/latymer-school-grammar-parents-financial-shortfall-theresa-may-education-policy


Parents were also told that there would be staff cuts, fewer subjects taught and more children per class.

Grammar schools seem to be in the news alot lately.

Yep, May wants to bring them back, rather than making sure all children have the best education possible.   Because you can bet you life they won't be putting money or effort into the schools that aren't grammar schools.

sassy wrote:Yep, May wants to bring them back, rather than making sure all children have the best education possible.   Because you can bet you life they won't be putting money or effort into the schools that aren't grammar schools.

Well this is why I have been keeping my eyes open. The Tory way is of course, to get everyone into boxes and make robots.
Don't get me wrong, I think grammar schools are great but not at the cost of free education - which is where the money is lacking IMO

They carry on the way they are going, nothing will be 'free' (which of course it isn't, we pay for it).   It will all be privatised, education, NHS etc, so that their mates can make a mint.   Personally, I don't think grammar schools are good, and I went to one.   It made me realise that a lot of my friends who didn't go could have done just as well, they simply improved at a later date.  Deciding at 11 that some children are cleverer than others is a step backwards.

I went two a gud gramma skule.

sassy wrote:They carry on the way they are going, nothing will be 'free' (which of course it isn't, we pay for it).   It will all be privatised, education, NHS etc, so that their mates can make a mint.   Personally, I don't think grammar schools are good, and I went to one.   It made me realise that a lot of my friends who didn't go could have done just as well, they simply improved at a later date.  Deciding at 11 that some children are cleverer than others is a step backwards.

So when do you decide that some kids are cleverer than others...?


13?

15?

16?

Gcse results?

A levels?


Or is it unfair to ever acknowledge some kids are cleverer than others...?


You lefties claim to want the best for all kids... but what you really mean is you want all kids to come out the other end of school exactly the same... equally stupid!!


What's best for cleverer kids is to have a higher level, more challenging, intensive education... and being in an environment where this is possible without the chaos and disruption caused by many of the idiots!

I think the point is Tommy, education should be the same everywhere to give everyone a chance.

No... it needs to be at different levels depending on the abilities of the kids.


Putting stupid kids in grammar school level classes is pointless... they are not going to understand what's going on and will not learn much... this is a waste of their time and the teachers time...


Putting bright kids in a slow class is just as bad for the bright kids... they aren't going to learn much... their abilities are never utilised... they become bored and lose motivation.


The best education for all kids is one where it is given at the kids own level of understanding.


We have already had different ability streams in comprehensive schools for decades!


And sometimes the top ability stream is too slow for the brighter kids!


And they do suffer!!!

That's how i see it Tommy.

Yes I agree with all your points Tommy - that's not my point though. Free schools and academies should be run at the same level as grammar schools.

Surely the point of the 11+ was to see which children were more likely to pay attention, and which were not.

Raggamuffin wrote:Surely the point of the 11+ was to see which children were more likely to pay attention, and which were not.

No.  I my day they were virtual IQ tests.

Here you go, sample paper

http://www.elevenplusmock.org.uk/documents/Sample11+Verbaltest.pdf

When I was at school they were compulsory. I passed but I didn't go to a grammar school. Can't remember the reason my mum gave.

My son took his privately as his school simply didn't sit them. He chose not to go to a grammar school as he said he wanted to go to the same school as his friends, which is a really good school anyway.

eddie wrote:Yes I agree with all your points Tommy - that's not my point though. Free schools and academies should be run at the same level as grammar schools.

Turning up the level/speed of the education given to kids is counter productive if the kids on the receiving end are unable to fully take in and understand it when delivered at this higher rate...


Kids learn and understand things at different speeds/rates... and also have different levels of retaining said taught information/knowledge/understanding...


And also have different levels of interest in the variety of different things taught...


The best education for each kid, and for all other kids, is for each to be put in a class of similar level ability kids and learning at the appropriate level/speed for each group... this is the only way for each of them to learn at the best level they can and to understand as much as they can and be the best that they can for their own level of ability...

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Surely the point of the 11+ was to see which children were more likely to pay attention, and which were not.

No.  I my day they were virtual IQ tests.

Yes I know. The ones who bothered to do the test properly were the ones who were more likely to pay attention.

The point still remains; poorer kids fare worse than rich kids. So rich kids will always have a better chance of going to grammar school.

eddie wrote:The point still remains; poorer kids fare worse than rich kids. So rich kids will always have a better chance of going to grammar school.

Poor kids can pass a test just as well as rich kids. It's not always about money.

eddie wrote:The point still remains; poorer kids fare worse than rich kids. So rich kids will always have a better chance of going to grammar school.

Doesn't matter about how much money a parent has or doesn't have... the real rich kids will still go to private schools... it's about being taught at the speed/level that is best suited to ability.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:The point still remains; poorer kids fare worse than rich kids. So rich kids will always have a better chance of going to grammar school.

Poor kids can pass a test just as well as rich kids. It's not always about money.

Very few can. Poorer families are nearly always on benefits or have low-paid, low-skilled jobs due to being uneducated themselves.

Most grammar school children aren't there because they got extra tuition - which costs.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Poor kids can pass a test just as well as rich kids. It's not always about money.

Very few can. Poorer families are nearly always on benefits or have low-paid, low-skilled jobs due to being uneducated themselves.

Most grammar school children aren't there because they got extra tuition - which costs.

Not all people on low pay are uneducated. As I said, there's no money involved in passing a test. If the kids had paid attention at primary school, they could pass it as well as any rich kid.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Poor kids can pass a test just as well as rich kids. It's not always about money.

Very few can. Poorer families are nearly always on benefits or have low-paid, low-skilled jobs due to being uneducated themselves.

Most grammar school children aren't there because they got extra tuition - which costs.

The same argument can be used against kids passing GCSEs and A levels with good grades and getting into good universities...


How many of them have had extra paid for private tuition?


And while we're at it... how many kids have had their parents helping them with their homework and coursework assignments, or even doing the bulk of it for them...?


Which enables THEM to get better overall end 'exam' results...?


As much of the exams these days only make up part of their overall results... a lot of their end exam grade results are based on the coursework done over the time before they even sit the exams!



Really bright kids shine in a way that makes them stand out on their own from others because of their clearly visible higher level of mental agility, with their ability for quick learning and the ease they have of being able to understand the more complicated and technical concepts that others find difficult to comprehend 1st time round... 2nd time round... and who still fail to grasp even after numerous attempts to explain...



You cannot give/buy this ability to/for any kid... no matter how much you might want them to have it, or how much money or private tuition you throw at them...