Selective education, Kent's 11 plus and Grammar School system

Totally agree Camel.
Supportive parents is the key to academic attainment

We moved to Kent in order to get eldest child into a grammar. In retrospect I have mixed feelings about it.

I strongly agree with Lily's comment above. I don't get why, when non-grammar schools suffer problems with disaffected students, classroom disruption, lack of parental involvement etc, that's it's somehow the responsibility of grammar school kids and their parents to come and "save" them. We made the move because DD1 had had such a miserable waste of early years in a primary school that seemed to care about nothing but getting the mediocre children up to level 4 for their SATs. We figured it was her turn to actually have an education appropriate to her.

If kids are disruptive, then they need to not be disruptive. If parents are not involved, then they need to be more involved. Those things are the responsibility of the people concerned, not my or my DD's responsibility.

OTOH, I've also seen the downside of it for many families, with siblings being broken up, children being built up to pass and then failing etc. On balance, I'd probably rather live in a non-selective system. But only on the proviso of being able to offer good quality schools to all children and somehow solve the problems that compromise many secondary moderns and comprehensives. And that's not going to happen any time soon.

I have two kids in grammars in Kent, one in a superselective They came from state schools. Many local kids do have tutors, but there are lots of resources available in book shops, Internet ( elevenplusexams.co.uk) etc, so many parents tutor their own kids.

I found the biggest influence on whether the child goes to a gs is whether the parent has looked in the local system or not. I know a lot of parents suddenly thought about the 11+ exam too late, and so didn't prepare their child for the exam.

There is nothing wrong n tutoring your child for the exam( whether parent. -tutored, or hiring a tutor). The Ntional curricuulm doesn't cover the exam contents, and you need to prepare them for sitting an exam. You wouldn't take a driving test without taking lessons beforehand, so the principle is exactly the same.

People assume on this thread that gs has the best teachers. both docs have had rubbish teachers in their gs, and I know there's good teachers in non-.ds.

I grew up in a comprehensive area. We were fortunate in that all three senior schools were good. The house prices reflected this. Although there wasn't an eleven plus system, there was selection by parental income. I always wondered why we needed up living there, as my parents job and income didn't match the local economy ( scientist v accountants, city people etc)

Dd is starting at a grammar school in September. However, dh and I have misgivings about this school as the pastoral care is inadequate.

But surely in the non selective counties there is still the low level disruption?

As I said up thread ,Bucks is a grammar county and they gave got very good results. In fact the top shire county. They would be even better without RI schools. Regrettably a few schools do have negative added value, ie no added value at all. So Bucks has room for improvement, especially with the PP children. However hardly any of these are in the grammar schools.

Why is that the responsibility of kids in grammars?

Shouldn't your beef be with the school and Ofsted,they are responsible for your dc's education.Kids in other schools aren't.

LilyTucker, my kids are non disruptive kids with involved parents - we were lucky that they got places in one of the better performing non selective schools, but DD in particular found the low level disruption in classes very hard to cope with. Same comments from DS's non disruptive hard working son in his non- selective school.
Not one of my friends with DCs at grammars have similar comments.

And I agree with BertramRussell (I think) up thread - Kent has been selective forever, I took the 11+ (passed) in 1970. If selection produced better results for all children, there should be statistics to show this, which there aren't.If anyone knows different I'd like to be pointed to the relevant info..,

I went to a grammar school, the pastoral care was shocking.

I've worked in a secondary thats slowly turning around and the student support was fantastic. Student behaviour was challenging. But there was loads of help available. The top students there were doing far better than they would have been as the bottom students in grammar.

I now work in a co-ed grammar and it's so much better than the girls school I went to

"Last I heard parents were allowed to decide what is best for their DC and act accordingly"

Not in a selective area you can't.

Your last paragraph could be describing any school in a non leafy area,really don't see why good/outstanding comps in leafy expensive areas are somehow more worthy and frankly I don't see how non disruptive kids with involved parents should be dictated to as to where they go to school. Last I heard parents were allowed to decide what is best for their DC and act accordingly.

Ds is going to a superselective in September. On the open evening the head of year 7 and transition said he was visiting "all the boys, in their prep schools" -tells you everything you need to know IMO

Clavinova, yes, admittedly we are in London, in a borough that bands to ensure a properly comprehensive intake. There are important factors like funding but we're talking here about the best model. A successful comprehensive that's meeting the needs and fullfilling the potential of a wide range of children is surely the best system, unless you believe in social seperation, which from some of the posts here seems to effectively be the situation in Kent, that at its worst could encourage a sense of superiority or entltlement.

And that gives them great advantages in life worthy of frothing about because........

"What exactly are kids at grammars getting that comp kids don't then?"

Education without contact with The Great Unwashed

What exactly are kids at grammars getting that comp kids don't then?

"Why not put a talented grammar school HT to manage a RI school in the same county?"

I know a very talented sec modern HT put in to turn around a grammar school... and she did it. Some grammars sit on their laurels.

In my view the best way to judge a school is to look at its' value added - ie, how they bring their pupils on.

"Why not put a talented grammar school HT to manage a RI school in the same county?"

If by RI you mean a high school, or secondary modern, then because he or she woild have entirely the wrong skill set.

Why not put a talented grammar school HT to manage a RI school in the same county?

We deliberately moved our family to a county without any selection to avoid this nonsense. The nearest 10 secondary schools all get very similar results. Almost everyone goes to their nearest school. Everyone is happy.
Selective schooling for the 25% worked well for an era when everyone else would leave school at 15 to work in blue collar or routine jobs. We don't live in this world anymore.

Bucks is a selective LA and in the 2013 tables was in 8th place. Just below Slough, Barnet, Kingston upon Thames,Sutton, Kensington and Chelsea, the Isles of Scilly and one other! They are the best shire county and had 5500 children in the exam cohort in the tables. This makes Bucks significantly bigger than the authorities above them.

I live in Bucks and obviously our grammar schools are good. However, we continue to have problem secondary moderns. I would say that our difficulties lie in the huge problem of recruiting top quality leadership teams to some secondary moderns. Some have been in and out of special measures, and its latest incarnations, for years. All have become acadamies but some still struggle. Two of the three secondary moderns in Aylesbury are back to RI and worse. Attracting the best teachers is continually problematic. Some teachers want to teach in a high achieving 6th form. Some secondary moderns just don't have this. Other teachers just do not want the social work side of teaching in a sec mod. The challenges are different and some teachers just want to teach without having to worry about if a child is homeless or has a violent parent. (Often not issues found in grammar schools). Bucks is working at "closing the gap" and we have significant problems with this because so few of our underprivileged children get to a grammar school. Money is currently being diverted from the grammars to the sec mods to "close the gap" and the grammars are squealing, loudly.

When you judge a school, the progress the children make is paramount. Clearly the quality of leadership and teaching is a big influence on this. Kent, like Bucks, struggles to get the best leadership and teaching in some of its schools. Mainly, I suspect, because there is just not enough talent out there to meet the significant challenges. Also all Bucks schools are starved of money in comparison to, say, schools in inner London. We are near the bottom of the per pupil funding formula league tables! We do have some fabulous secondary moderns, but making sure they all offer a decent education is a challenge.

There will never be a change to this system. You do not have to take the 11+ here. You can opt out. I never understand why children slog through tutoring and the exams and are still not even remotely close to passing. Parents should know better. It is kinder to not bother. There are a few mistakes made because potential, especially in boys, is not always picked up. The primary school heads can support appeals and lots of children on the borderline are reassessed without needing an appeal. The slow maturing academic child is the type to slip through the process but there is the 12 plus and 6th form later if needed.