BBC news Kent 11+

seeker
it can

Cory
SO glad to hear your DS is thriving other than at the Purple school - actually I think yours has orange bits

muminlondon
those stats are fascinating. Any chance of a link - for stamping on future variants of this thread

I struggle so much with this. Sometimes there is a flash of honesty on threads like this- like the time somebody said they didn't want their child to mix with lower ability children in the dinner queue. But surely there must be more solid reasons for the system surviving? It can't just be snobbery and fear, can it? Or can it?

You could leave grammar school at 15. My dad did (to join the navy - his family needed the cash). He said that only the richer pupils stayed on to do exam s and go to university - until the mid- 60's when it began to change (he's always been a bit at having just missed the chance to tour around Europe in a VW I think).

seeker Wed 20-Mar-13 13:29:06
""Selective education is fantastic for those who would be a square peg in a round hole at a comprehensive. That does not neccessarily mean that it will lead to better results overall, but it may be a happier time for many children."

But in a comprehensive school, the top sets will be the same children who would, in a selective area, be in the grammar school. "

This is what it is like for my dc in Hampshire (no grammar schools).

academically able and ambitious dd has enough of academically able and ambitious peers in top set not to feel out of place

less academic and ambitious ds gets to see that it is normal and not weird to work hard and be successful

what's not to like?

particularly as today's mentoring meeting showed that ability at age 11 is not necessarily set in stone: 12yo ds, who was regarded as of low ability at junior school and was struggling badly with reading and writing, has gone up two whole stages in a core subject in the last year

I found out an interesting statistic the other day about grammar schools in the 1950s, supposedly the heyday of working class mobility and academic rigour ... in 1955 about 25% of pupils were in grammar schools (like Kent) and less than 5% at private schools. The school leaving age was 15 in the other schools so only grammar school pupils got a chance to do exams. Yet only 10% of the country passed 5 O-levels - so only about 40% in grammar schools actually made the most of it and the rest coasted or failed. About 70% of Oxbridge students were still from public schools. There never was a heyday for grammar schools. It wasn't effective or fair then and it isn't now.

Really
NO, the whole point is that IF you are going to select it needs to be totally fair : ie what is in the normal day to day curriculum.
But the sharp elbowed would never have that
so
I therefore firmly come down against ALL FORMS of selection in state funded schools (by religion, purported ability etc etc) and encourage all schools to take all pupils and once they have them set them accordingly to get the best from each.
Something that the Grammar system always failed to do and nowadays fails dismally to do.

Please somebody explain to me why grammar schools and secondary moderns are better than properly setted Comprehensives? Please!

Talkinpeace
Surely it might be cheaper to pay for the bright, but poor kids to have small group tutoring for a year than make a complex exam every year.

Tutoring can only take a child so far. No amount of tutoring will get a thick kid through the eleven plus.

Schools already use tutors for SEN kids or kids on free school dinners who aren't making progress. Why not use some of the tutoring budget to prepare children who are level 4 standard at the end of year 4 for the eleven plus. A tutor in a school costs about £30 per hour. Thirty sessions would cost £900 for five chidlren or £180 per child to have a decent shot at the eleven plus.

This would be far less than the cost of redesigning an exam. I think with tutoring that there comes a point where it makes little difference how much tutoring a child has had.

The only way the 11+ should be kept is if it becomes an untutorable test of innate knowledge

20 x maths questions
20 x comprehension questions
20 x logic / spatial questions
20 x current affairs questions
20 x spelling / punctuation / grammar questions

BUT
each of the exam setting teams should be forced to write 200 of each question fresh every year
and the 20 picked at random by computer
so the exam could vary massively year on year
NO past papers should ever be released
NO sample papers should ever be released

if your kid is up to the mark they will get a mark in the top fifth
and Prep schools will no longer charge fees to get well heeled kids through into free secondary schools at the expense of bright poor kids

Agreed, Startail.

I picked up on your post because of the general stereotyping and pigeonholing that I have seen on MN generally of the kind Seeker describes.

It is true - I work with many teens from what could be described as the margins of society and the vast, overwhelming majority are lovely people and good kids. Schools in general are not the bear pits that some were in the 80s. Hair raising incidents occur, but are not indicative of the whole school population, and occur in all sectors. When there are specific issues and problems, and when individual children are unhappy, or causing trouble, it needs dealing with.

I think the stereotyping of schools- and children- on here is shocking. Grammar schools are full of sensitive little flowers who would be "eaten alive" at a comprehensive and so have to be kept separate. Comprehensives are full of knife wielding knuckle draggers, and as for secondary moderns- well, I don't think mumsnet has words for them! When actually, most kids are OK, there are a few disruptive people and a few bullies in all sectors (including- gasp- grammar schools and the private sector!) And top set kids do what top set kids do anywhere. And the figures support that view. Or there would be loads more A*s and As in selective LEAs than in comprehensive ones. Which there aren't.

Mintyy, it's an old boys thing innit

Blu :o

I do wonder why Kent insists on keeping this antiquated system.

(own DP, not OwlMan)

And plenty of scholarship students in competitive academic schools who pissed about a great deal, put lolly sticks in the ventilation thing in the classroom window to make a huge racket and disturb class, got a mediocre degree and a very low paid career.

there are plenty of well behaved middle ability children who leave school go onto further study, get a first class degrees and masters/msc and have really great careers too :)!

Startail - but setting is not done on the basis of behaviour, work ethic and concentration levels. There are plenty of well-behaved middle ability children who work hard, behave well and do their best, just as there are top stream and Grammar students who piss about or bully people.

And it's interesting that it's the square pegs who people think would be getter off in a grammar school that seem worth of consideration- but not the equally square pegs in grammar schools and secondary moderns who might be better off in a comprehensive.

"not sure how what i said in that post equates to GM Students achieving same if in comp. But my guess is you are not interested with any views different from yours"

Yes I am. You said you had answered my question of why the results in selective areas are not better than the results in comprehensive areas, and I didn't understand your answer. Please could you tell me again?

not sure how what i said in that post equates to GM Students achieving same if in comp. But my guess is you are not interested with any views different from yours. by the way i do not live in Kent and the comps in my area are appalling. wish i had a choice to choose something free but different rather than going private.

did not say that seeker. you can refer to my particular post so i can clarify.

Sorry, 'fair and important question' not system.

"seeker because Kent doesn't have 100% grammar schools. the SM 's will be akin to mid/bottom set in a comp area."

This is what you said as an explanation of why selective leas don't get better results than non selective. I think. Or am I wrong ?