Poor grammar

Once again I am limping towards the end of the month, desperately waiting for my wages to be paid into my account, having to put £10 worth of diesel in the tank just to get to work. And when I do get paid, I won't have as much money as I did last month because of my overdraft. You could say I am starting April at a slight disadvantage. I anticipate, that notwithstanding my winning the lottery, I will be at a slightly greater disadvantage at the start of May - I am getting no pay rise, there is no real possibility of me increasing my hours until September, I am a full time teacher and writing this at midnight, so it doesn't look like I have any chance of earning any extra between now and ever. So that pattern continues to be consolidated for the foreseeable future. I don't think I am qualified for anything else, but I would quite like to work in Aldi right now.

A report on the BBC website today suggests that "Grammar schools perform no better than non-selective state schools, once their pupils' higher ability and wealth is taken into account" 

I can almost hear every teacher glancing at the report and barely raising a "meh?" in unimpressed response to this report. The study has found that "the "apparent success" of these wholly selective schools was down to their brighter and more advantaged pupils."

So what it's saying is that grammar school would not really increase social mobility? And that those students would be likely to do well in comprehensive school? But the government still want to work "to widen access to grammar schools." You could say that this is consolidating the advantage of the wealthy and the disadvantage of the less wealthy. What government would want to do that? Perhaps a government that doesn't really have any interest in increasing social mobility. Perhaps a government that would prefer all of us to stay in our places. 

When we find out who wants grammar schools it tends to be parents. Middle-class parents, that is. Right up to the point that their precious little Toby fails his 11 plus. I trained in a Secondary Modern. There was a pass score of 120 to get into the local grammars. Every student who scored around 117 was repeatedly sent for re-testing by their parents. At least the well-off ones. They didn't rate the school, they didn't respect the teachers, why would they? Their parents told them every day that they were better than that school, and every time they failed the test and their parents they were reminded that they could not succeed. 

Then there are parents like me who are opposed in principle - but what would I do if I lived in an area where there was a choice of school? We are teachers and want the best for our children. Of course that wouldn't happen. We would have to acknowledge that we are not the kind of people that grammar schools want. My son has special needs, I am a teacher, which is financially acceptable, but my husband also is, which is not. I have debts and an old car. I am not as middle class as I think I am.  

I don't think the government needs a report to tell it that grammar schools don't really work. Teachers could have told you that, but when do we ever get asked. We are sick of experts, or at least those who don't get listened to. However, if that government fancies paying me for my opinion, it would go some way to paying off those debts, giving me the chance to have a fair start, or even a slight advantage. It might even give me a chance to be a bit more middle-class. Perhaps if I stop buying avocados, I could even pay off my mortgage...