Are grammar schools better for above average children?

It's also possible to be "academic" and "good with your hands"

of course .... DD is

Talkin you do realise it is possible to be arty, musical, sporty and top set science?

also - I don't believe all grammar schools do force everyone to do triple science. Although they do at DD1's school. I know grammar schools where they don't force triple science on the unwilling.

At DCs school only those who were in the top science sets are forced to do triple science

those who are arty or musical or sporty are most certainly NOT forced to do triple science : it would be a waste of the school's resources

they all do double (except for the lowest set)
but only those with a science mind do the triple

PS Thornden does not set at all ... but it is very unusual

curlew That'll be because you did triple science. (Your lack of imagination, I mean).

"Or, top set forced to do triple science whether they want to or not...."

I can't imagine circumstances where top sets shouldn't. They certainly do in grammar schools- or "the top sets of comprehensives" as the same children are called in rational LEAs

Or, top set forced to do triple science whether they want to or not....

I've never come across a comp which doesn't do some sort of setting or streaming. I'm sure some manage it better than others but you hear problems with it (combined with 'option block' woes) all the time on MN. The commonest is probably the 'top set only allowed triple science' - with strict limit on numbers determined by the size of one or two classes.

Curlew No it wouldn't it would just mean that some kids were not having their educational needs met by the state system (as is already the case in those areas with no access to super selectives).

Sorry, what I meant by at a national level is that all schools should be expected to do it. How individual schools manage it is up to them, but there should be setting in all schools. That would mean grammar schools were no longer needed.

Grimma Oh they very could address the GCSE timetable thing easily at national level :( And it would look like this: Every child does 2xEng, 1 MFL, 1xmaths, 3xscience or 2x science 1xhistory 1xDT 1xRE (maybe. Or 1xGeog). Bye bye music, art, drama, extra maths, kids studying more than one additional language etc etc. Unless you go to posh school then you can do good stuff.

How can setting everything not be logistically difficult? working out the timetables for GCSEs to allow pupils to do the combination of subjects they want seems to be difficult enough. (Of course, quite a lot of schools don't seem to allow pupils to do the subjects they really want, instead getting very constrained 'option blocks')

Its not something that could be addressed 'at national level' - the devil is in the detail.

Why is setting so difficult? Lots of schools manage it fine. And if it is difficult, then surely the solution is to sort it the difficulties with setting nationally rather than maintain an antiquated, divisive system in a few pockets.

which is why they should all be at a efficiently streamed comprehensive school.

That throws up problems too - setting everything is difficult logistically (so you may end up with too much of a mixed ability in non-core subjects) and streaming can be a disaster for pupils who are strong in one area but weak in others.

there just isn't a one-size fits all solution. Breaking parts which do work well for the pupils they serve doesn't seem too helpful to me.

Talkin I have a child at the comp my DD1 would be at if she wasn't at the SS. She would most certainly be an outlier there, and she would be as isolated as she was at her primary school. It's not self aggrandisement at all, it's actually a bit sad. And she would most certainly have been forced to work at a slower pace since the kids at her school do all their GCSEs at the end of Y10, which is not the case at the comp. I don't agree with the Kent/Bucks system, and I can see why people think the outcomes from a completely comp system in those counties would be better - but that is not the case for the SSs.

Russians
They would be outliers, they'd be forced to work at a slower pace
a nice piece of self aggrandisement for which there is no evidence at all

they are not 'outliers' they are merely the tail of the normal distribution and the next kids along the tail are within 0.1 IQ points of them

Russiansonthespree
I have to agree with Curlew

round here the "grammar" kids are the top sets
late maturers move up the sets over time
early maturers or those who were over tutored slide down the sets

but they stay in their same pastoral tutor group, with their friends, and the sports and arts and transport all in place
rather than the pain and cost of changing school

AND parents relax and support their children, safe in the knowledge that EVERY child has the chance to get into the top sets at any time

Curlew No they shouldn't. This is a top performing SS serving a gigantic geographical area including 4 (or possibly more) LEAs. Disperse them all to their 'local' comp and you'd get probably 2 or 3 per school. They would be outliers, they'd be forced to work at a slower pace than they are easily comfortable with, and they would be completely let down by the system.

"The usual situation at DD1's school is that everyone who gets in does Very Well (this year, who knows, of course ). The issue lies with the ones who didn't get in but would also have done Very Well, rather than the ones who do get in. Sadly. Grammar schools are not allowed to expand, at the moment, and that is the real problem - I reckon you get get a whole 25% more kids going to DD1's school (ie a whole extra form at entry) without lowering the standard at all."

which is why they should all be at a efficiently streamed comprehensive school.

You would need to have spare places available(NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN)
as I said, really hard to see how to do that in a school which can't take everyone who passes the 11+ who wants to go there. Schools are physically limited in size - already they've taken one or two more than can really fit in some classrooms (28 desks, 28 lockers, 29 pupils)

The pupil who left your DDs Grammar, did she suffer from embarrsment and stigma caused by other pupils and perception of not being quite good enough for her chosen school.

I don't know - DD reported it to me as a simple matter of fact that one girl had decided to leave.

The usual situation at DD1's school is that everyone who gets in does Very Well (this year, who knows, of course :( ). The issue lies with the ones who didn't get in but would also have done Very Well, rather than the ones who do get in. Sadly. Grammar schools are not allowed to expand, at the moment, and that is the real problem - I reckon you get get a whole 25% more kids going to DD1's school (ie a whole extra form at entry) without lowering the standard at all.

Equally they should be moved to the secondary modern if they don't cope. It is wrong to keep a place you got at 11yrs if you are not up to the standard.

The comprehensive allows for movement, either way,which is much better.

Grammar schools never- slight exaggeration, but hey ho- have spaces!

GrimmaTheNome. You would need to have spare places available(NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN) i know at both Selective and non Selective Schools. The pupil who left your DDs Grammar, did she suffer from embarrsment and stigma caused by other pupils and perception of not being quite good enough for her chosen school.