DH had decided DD should not go to grammar school - Help!

LaQueen, in an area where there are no grammars, where do you think the really really bright kids go? Academy Outer Space?

They go to what you call the 'local comp' (why are grammars in all-grammar areas not called 'the local grammar' in that dismissive way, I wonder?)

In my DS's S London Comprehensive School there are children who are astoundingly bright. Super-selective, brighter than bog-standard grammar fodder. And a representative % who are very bright. Routinely the top set kids go to RG Unis and Oxbridge. (it is an area with a very high FSM %, too). There is also a representative number of kids across all ability bands. So the GCSE %'s are not as high as a grammar's would be. Obvious.

But there is absolutely no sneering or tormenting of clever kids, the solo violinists in the orchestra, the boys who perform in the award wining dance group, the sensitive boys, the non-fashion-toting girls....

I sincerely hope that the OP's dd ends up in the school where, for whatever reason, will be best for her and she does well.

But please let it not be based on outdated scaremongering about the horrors of the 'local comp' unless you are commenting on a particular known school and cohort.

There is a private school near us where a child recently committed suicide due to bullying and FB comments about weight. Numerous pupils have eating disorders, it is an acknowledged problem in the school. I wouldn't dream of making sweeping generalisations about all private schools and what they are like based on what was happening in this one.

LaQueen - as you live in a GS area, your local non-selective school is likely to be less comprehensive than a comprehensive in a non-grammar area. There are three comprehensives in my town and the exam results for all three schools are better on quite a few measures than Cranbrook School in Kent, for example. Which is pleasing but surprising.

LaQueen I think the lowest attaining 10% in a middling Kent grammar might well not beat the top 10% in a middling similarly leafy area comp.

I'm also quite interested to know what you consider to be the lowest set of grades to count as 'superb' or 'excellent' at GCSE, AS and A2?: 7A/5A at GCSE? 4A at AS? 2A/1A at A2? What grades match your superlatives at the lower end? I think there's quite a bit of misunderstanding about exactly what grades are achieved in these schools - it's quite a range.

smokepole so you consider 75% of the intake as "a couple of low attainers at year 7"? Interesting way to view it.

It is interesting to hear you say that they are Grammar schools as they are generally not seen as such in the league tables. This article highlights the fact: www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/23/watford-grammar-school-girls-gcse-rankings

Polonium 25% are academic, 10% music. Queens also selects on sports aptitude and Bushey Meads on Technology aptitude.

I would be interested in knowing how schools with only 1/4 selected by academic ability are able to compete with schools with 100% academic selection.

Parmiter's is partially selective (35% iirc). The same percentage selective as Watford Grammar School for Boys and Watford Grammar School for Girls.

mumtryingbest. Parmiters and Watford Boys/Girls are grammar schools, that because of political reasons admit a couple of low attainers at year 7.

That is the only reason they are not full on grammar schools.

I've just been looking at the 2013 published A level results, for the grammar that my DD has started at this week. Just fyi: across all the listed subjects 215 out of 364 kids got A*s or As, roughly 59%. Across Eng lit, maths, further maths and sciences 130 out of 232 got those top 2 grades, roughly 56%.

I don't know how that compares really to our local comps. Their stats for high attainers range from high 60%s to low 80%s for grades A - C, I don't know the breakdown of A grades only. But the high attainers are less than a third of the cohort IIRC from recent DfE browsing.

We chose to apply to the grammar because it's walking distance from our home, my DD was also familiar from a young age with a family friend who went to it so it was part of the landscape for her as she progressed through primary school, and my DD was very keen to be in a more challenging environment (she found primary boring at times and was often frustrated with the slower pace of work). And I prefer a single sex school based on my own prejudiced experience of bullying in a mixed school (not denying that bad behaviour doesn't exist in grammar schools too!)

I think there are rights and wrongs to both sides of the argument. It's a far from ideal system but we all try to do the best that we can for our children first, followed by whatever else we can do to help other kids and improve the system IMHO.

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs - But it doesn't say what percentage of those pupils got all A or As. so what percentage of students at your DDs school get all A or As?

I wonder what people who feel that Grammar schools are the best place for academically able children make of schools like Parmiters in Hertfordshire. LaQueenOnHerHolibobs, any thoughts?

LaQ, would have to be the top 10% in a secondary modern, not a comp ie those who had only just failed the 11+ being compared with those who only just pass.
I'm not sure that every comp has disruption and bullying as the norm. I know quite a few bright kids who have got a load of A* and never had bullying issues, my goddaughter for one who is fond of listing her peers who went to a private grammar and got worse results.

LeQ, the GS near me does get good gcse results, but they are comparable to comprehensives who cater for everyone.

Several children are tutored through GCSEs and probably beyond.
If this generation is anything like my own, their mediocreness shines once they reach university and beyond, and slip beyond the grasp of ambitious parents.
Of my peers, most are mediocre, some are amazing. I can see how the grammar school system has worked for a minority of genuinely academic students, but for the rest, although they are undoubtedly bright, their career has not matched up to their GS expectations.

There are a few famous alumni, one of whom memorably turned down the opportunity to speak at speech day. If rumours are correct, because the school couldn't wait to get rid of him until he excelled in his field, something that had nothing to do with his GS education.

I'm not against grammar schools at all, but where I live, it matches up to Rowan and Quint's descriptions. (IMO I should say!)

It would be interesting for someone to do a study comparing GCSE results of the "last 10%" to get into a grammar school and the "top 10 %" who failed. (Hope that makes sense). Done over three or four years that should be enough children to be statistically valid in a county like Bucks or Kent.

Children do best at school if the parents are happy with it and supportive. This has been proved time and time again. The detail is less important.

I feel so sorry for the child - it is so close to term time, and she will not be able to please both parents, whatever she does, and does not have the adult experience to make the choice on her own. The parents need to sort themselves out and stop using MN to score points.

Only posting to say to Rowan - please move your dd. if she is bright and has a good work ethic, which it sounds like she has from your posts, she will do fine at another school.
Please don't underestimate how much bullying and being miserable can impact how a child learns.
She probably doesn't want to move because she is in a familiar place, and she will be worried about settling in somewhere else.

I went to a Grammar school, I hated every second of it.
I was bright, but could not reach my potential because I was so miserable, and still haven't reached any kind of potential, as the feeling of being a useless failure sticks with you.
If the school is anything like mine was (and still is by all accounts), it is a middle class bubble, populated with tutored children who have had at least two years of intensive training to scrape in.

A very intersting account MarianneSolong. Hope I'm allowed to add another:
I have a daughter who seemed likely to be hovering "in the middle" at school. So I was glad to live in a comp area where I felt she'd have a better chance than at a secondary modern. However in last couple of years she's really motored and at end of Year 5 had levels of 5B, 5C and 4A. Of course, I don't know how this relates to passing the 11+ but I would imagine she'd have a chance of setting into a non-super selective gs.

But I really do feel no differently even though my daughter would now have a chance at getting into a gs. Because I can't get round the fact that I wouldn't want her to be labelled a failure and be in an environment where other children feel they're failures. No matter how much a sec modern might strive to overcome this ( and I'm sure that many do strive very hard) its not what I would ever want for her. And I can't tell other people that it's good enough for their kids when I would never want it for mine.
I've read lots of good, well-reasoned arguments on both sides but in the end that's what it comes down to for me .

Re the great grammar school debate. I live in an area with grammar schools and these are my personal impressions.

1. Stepson. Tutored at mother's insistence. Got grammar school place at mixed school about 10 miles away. (His and mother's choice. Father would have preferred a nearer school - though that was single sex.) Stepson found Y7 difficult. Lost everything possible. He's never been a morning person and the early start didn't suit him. Mother kept having to drive him to bus stop at last minute. As teenage years progressed, he rebelled against the schools traditional style. School very poor at communicating with parents who didn't live together. Repeated requests to copy father in on communications ignored. Stepson became increasingly unhappy, didn't do well at GCSEs and was not admitted into sixth form. Later it emerged that stepson had Aspergers. My impression was that pastoral care was poor, and that another school that was more interested in individuals' general well-being and development, might have picked up on his somewhat different functioning. Essentially he was regarded as a square peg in around hole.

2. Stepdaughter. Tutored as above. Went to local comprehensive school. Rather slipped under the radar there, and did okay but not spectacularly. Similar story at sixth-form college. Became more ambitious and focused at university and now doing well in chosen career. Happier, and more 'stable' than her brother - as well as earning a great deal more. (He's been unemployed and in casual employment mostly.

3. Daughter. She decided she wanted to apply to go to grammar school. We bought her a couple of books of sample test papers and let her decide if she wanted to do them. Offered a place. Initially found school environment difficult after primary school, but always coped with work side. Currently doing UCAS forms etc. Our main concern is that she has become almost too driven under school's regime. Meaning that as parents we have to tell her to chill out. Also the school can be very results driven, but no so good at looking at education in a broader way.

LaQueen How does having friends with older sisters at a school make your DD familiar with the school?

Selective counties select their grammar school children by wealth, pretty much. They may as well dispense with 11+ and get applicant families to fill out a 'means' form then raffle 5% of places to poor families who are sufficiently motivated to buy a raffle ticket.