Are grammar schools better for above average children?

Well for what it's worth DS, at a superselective, got decidedly average end of year results. Nevertheless he still came home saying that his form teacher told him he was still in the top 5% academically in the Country! Not entirely sure that's the right approach to take though....not for DS anyway!

Good point, well made. Superselectives often quote 5-10% but I think the real answer is that nobody knows the exact figure.

Cecily
Superselectives take much less than 10%
If you look at the area that the blessed Tiffin picks up from, its around 1% from each area
The catchment alone is
KT1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19
TW1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
SW13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20
W3, 4, 5, 7, 13
UB1, 2
SM4
CR4
which is around a million people!

In terms of KS2 results, high achievers means level 5 which is achieved by around 30% of the ability range, and is, coincidentally, around the same percentage who achieve 5 grade Bs or above at GCSE.

Therefore a superselective taking the top 10% of children will, in effect, reject 67% of those level 5 high achievers, so is it really surprising that their pupils do better on average than level 5 pupils in other schools?

Added to which, in many parts of the country, the 11+ is an opt in system, so that only children from homes where they will get continued encouragement to do their best will be likely to apply.

Agreed Talkin about "high achievers" being rather esoteric. It will be interesting to see if next year's tables differentiate between level 5 achievers and level 6. I know only a tiny fraction of all children get a level 6 but if the very selective grammars are crammed to the rafters with those level 6 children, then that would go a long way to explaining the discrepancies.

THis page is interesting to play with .....
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=SSC&tab=512&ord=descaamp;sort=ks4_12.ptac5em&set=20&no=136417&superview=sec&sscla=886

go to BBC league tables, click on a school and then click on the compare box ....

Agreed. Should read "non selective schools in wholly selective areas are not comprehensives schools"

curlew
looking at the stats for much of London, I can accept that the numbers siphoned off by the superselectives is less than those at Private school so the rest of the schools are as comprehensive as they will get.

The grammar counties are a different matter.

Some kids from here bother to get the train into Wiltshire to go to the grammar. Most stick with the comps - DCs school loses around 2 pupils a year to the grammar. I'd say that makes it pretty "comprehensive"

Not forgetting a couple of important facts.

A non selective school in a selective area is not a comprehensive school.

Comprehensive does not mean mixed ability teaching -even if once it did.

In that case they probably need a kick up the backside!
I defend comps, but not lazy ones

NB "high achievers" is a rather esoteric number : at my local yob central, its 10% of the kids, at the aforementioned Thornden its nearly 50% of pupils. "Above level 4" can mean a 5c or a 6 (what the superselect will be full of)

Talkinpeace, I am in a non grammar area. The superselective takes a tiny number of children from the local area - the children who get in travel from all over London and beyond. The presence of the grammar has a negligible effect on the intake of the local comp (3-5 children at most based on information published by the grammar.) Also, the average I was talking about is the average of the "high achievers" so you really shouldn't be factoring in the E grade candidates for either school.

It still doesn't explain why the average grade of the "high achievers" in one school is 2 full grades below the average grade of the "high achievers" in another. Interestingly in another comp (not my local but close enough) the average gcse grade of high achievers is an A. Again, what is one school doing that the other isn't?

I'm not saying there is any easy answer to this, but sometimes I think it's worth asking the questions!

musical
most of the ones round here (except Thornden) set by subject groups so yes, they are in sets for everything
very, very few schools do NOT set for most things by year 9
and years 10 / 11 are effectively set by the subject choices

legallady
That is entirely logical.

The superselective has taken 10 out of the top 30 kids (allowing for tutoring and private preps) from every one of the schools in the area.
Therefore all of the kids there should get A*
Every other school is missing ten of its A* candidates, but none of the E grade ones, so the average will be suppressed.

A better comparison would be to look at the grades of those taking, say, triple science and see how the non selectives do.

And in a non grammar area, roughly 10% of the kids are expected to get A* = the top set

I ignore SAts grades - they are a fix

Also, many comprehensive schools (around here anyway) only set for English and Maths. Although these are important subjects, surely it must be demoralising for a child who say loves history or art, to be sat in a mixed group with children who have zero interest in the subject?

Or do some schools set for everything?

Agree with most of what's said above - right school for the right child etc.

However, as just one additional research tool when looking at different schools, the Dof E performance tables can be useful - (www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/). They allow you to compare the outcomes of high/middle/and low achievers (i.e. those coming out of primary school with a Level 5, 4, or below) at GCSE. So for example, you can compare a grammar and a comprehensive and see what the average grade of children who came out of primary at a level 5 is. In my local area, the average gcse grade for high achievers at my local comprehensive is a B but the average grade for high achievers at the nearest superselective grammar is an A*.

Of course, Level 5 encompasses a huge ability range and so you are not necessarily comparing an identical cohort of children. However, it is worth asking what the grammar is doing to get these Level 5 children to an average A * grade at GCSE which the comprehensive isn't.

Before anyone flames me, I would like to reiterate that no assessment tool is perfect and there is so much more to finding the right school for your individual child than just the academic results of another group of children. The performance tables also only give the "average" outcomes and there will always be children who do considerably better than average .

It's a difficult one isn't it? I know that some of DS's classmates who went to comps (and didn't pass the 11+ exams) are in the G&T stream and being pushed to the nth degree. DS who comfortably sailed thro' his three 11+ exams is at a super-selective grammar, but isn't exactly doing brilliantly at the moment. I think the super-selectives expect them to be very self-motivated and DS is by nature quite lazy.

As ever with these questions - it depends on the individual child, and it depends on the schools available. For my DD, the girls' grammar was definitely the right choice; apart from that she is the sort who does benefit from being somewhere where everyone is bright, the subject choices available exactly suit her and aren't available at either the comp or any of the independents near us. There's a girls' comp on the other side of the town which might have suited her quite well (also has strong emphasis on science) but she simply wouldn't have got in there because of catchments - whereas the GS 20 miles up the road was possible as she got a residual place.

She's got bright friends at the local comp - which is the sort people move house to get kids into - so I guess I'll be able to answer this better in a couple of years time.

Interesting the people who say that the grammar cured the problem of bright bored kids.
No. The large cohort cured the problem of bright bored kids.

DCs junior was single form entry - 30 pupils.
They both spent year 6 at the top of the group bored out of their minds.

Come year 7 in a 300 pupil cohort they are suddenly in the middle of the top set and surrounded by people like (or brighter than) them.

And because its a big school with non academic kids there are lots and lots of extra curricular sports, arts, music activities where the non academic can trump the lot.

If you are starting to consider your options, it won't do any harm to look at both. My daughter wasn't willing to even look at the practice test papers for the grammar, so we said if she wasn't willing to prove she could work hard, it would have to be a local comp where she would have less pressure on her to keep up with everyone else.

There were four very bright ones in my daughter's year (which included her) at primary school. She is now at comprehensive school and in all the top sets and tells me she's about average in them, so there are obviously children from other schools who are higher achievers. In English and Maths there is extension work at the bottom on homework for all those who want to do it and I know of one set of parents who are requesting work for the holidays for their daughter and have been given it. What I'm saying is that if you get the right comprehensive school, they can certainly still be stretched and work to the best of their ability.

Another great thing for my daughter is the fact she is only five minutes from the local school, so has many friends in the immediate area who she can easily see. I know most of us think about schools from an academic point of view, but I also think the social side is something to consider - it's good to have friendships but also learn from them.

From personal experience, yes. The selective (L5 ability, but not a super), my boys go to/will go to, is a dream.

No more behaviour 'issues', no more boredom. My eldest fits right in and is doing better than we could ever have expected.

We're lucky enough to have the choice of several grammars AND an excellent comp that has good results in turning out kids that are happy and reached their full potential be it all A's or vocational / diploma type qualifications.

To me the choice is whatever best suits your DC's personality and apptitude not what grades the school churn out. If they are happy & stimulated they will do well regardless of the type of school.

I went to a grammar school and it wasn't right for me, as I was in the lower grade boundary there the school just ignored me. If your child is in the top 5% then I would recommend a grammar school, otherwise not.

I went to a grammar and have taught in grammars in different counties. They are different to comps. But then all comps are different. Ask to visit the schools on a normal day and see if they're right for your DC. All children are also different.