Anyone else disappointed with their state choices?

WhoreGasm And, as the vast majority of tutors are qualified teachers, most still working, they only have a few hours a week to offer for tutoring.

What source did you use to determine that the vast majority of tutors are qualified teachers as I am sure I read, granted some while ago, that is not the case.

WhoreGasm If grammar schools were mainly filled with average pupils who had just been well prepped for the 11+, then their GCSE and A Level results would be pretty average.

I think this very much depends on the school. I do know of schools which put a lot of pressure on children to change their GCSE options after moc results, arguably justifiably so in some cases. The shuffle around for 6th form entry gives a very distorted view of how the children who entered via the 11 plus route actually went on to performed in A levels.

taxguru Granted your area still has a very relaxed attitude to getting into Grammar schools. However, in every single area this attitude is changing and the competition for places is increasing. This is evident from reading through posts on this web site:

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/index.php

That's how it always used to be and how it should be now. It's the minority of super-selectives in certain areas that seem to give the entire country's grammar system a bad name. An example of one such school is this:

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=42996&sid=48c69d2400d75d7133b6551f695318b5

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=37182

On attending a meeting which was attended by the parent of a QE hopeful, my DH was shocked when the parent announced that they were currently doing 3 hours maths homework every night with their DS then asked what more should they be doing.

What people often don't realise is how widely Grammar schools vary:

The 11 plus test content varies from area to area.
The cohort varies from area to area.
The number of a academic places allocated varies from area to area.
The size of catchment varies from area to area.
Where your DC needs to be academically in relation to the tested cohort varies from area to area (some schools you need to be in the top 5% of the tested cohort, other schools you need to be in the top 30%, then it is down to distance).

In our area, it's the way it should be, grammars sit alongside church and comp schools and people can make a real choice about which school to choose according to what they offer and their children's preferences.

Unfortunately, as schools are becoming increasingly more oversubscribed, competition for places, especially in grammar areas, is growing too. The relaxed approach is diminishing. Where distance cut offs are shrinking preventing access to preferred schools, music, academic, sports, technology or faith are alternative routes in. You yourself dropped one selective route and chose another (not criticising btw).

The number of areas where there is actually a "choice" of school are becoming more outnumbered.

Not all grammars are super-selective. Pass marks for entry to our local ones are around 60% in each 11+ paper. I read with horror that some super-selectives pass rate is 90% +!!!!

9 kids in our DS's year at primary school went to the local grammars out of just 28 in his class. Tutoring isn't an issue round here - only a couple out of those 9 had private tutoring because it's well known that working on the "top table" in the later years of primary is virtually a guarantee of 11+ success when it's such a low pass mark. There is little snobbery round here because the grammars aren't perceived as elite - they're just regarded as another option to compare with the church schools, a variety of comps, etc. Many people simply don't choose the grammars for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting a single sex school, not wanting to be taught the compulsory classics, or even simply that they're easily accessible due to their locations (not on bus routes, so a long walk!).

That's how it always used to be and how it should be now. It's the minority of super-selectives in certain areas that seem to give the entire country's grammar system a bad name. Back in the 60's in my town, the grammar school was half the size of the secondary, so the top third of primary school leavers passed the 11+ and got a place in the grammar. That's certainly not elitism.

My son's best friend decided not to take the 11+ as he'd decided he didn't want to go to the grammar anyway (he would easily have passed it). Reasoning was that it didn't do football as a games option whereas he wanted to play footie in school. He's at a church school instead!

I can imagine that the super-selectives are horrendous due to snobbery, extensive tutoring, pushy parenting, etc., but some people need to look beyond their immediate local area and realise that not all areas are like that. In our area, it's the way it should be, grammars sit alongside church and comp schools and people can make a real choice about which school to choose according to what they offer and their children's preferences.

There are many many good state schools but people are highly unlikely to start a thread complaining about their state choices if they have good state choices.
London is quite different from other areas around the country, firstly because London schools are funded very well in comparison to other state schools around the country and secondly because a lot of state schools in London have a greater mix of lower, middle and higher income families than in some other inner city areas.
The region I live in has taken a far bigger percentage of refugee families over the last 15 years than most other areas, if has certainly taken more than its fair share (and much more than London). The area also has pockets of very high deprivation and very high unemployment. Some children do succeed and do well at even the worst schools in the region, but sadly many do not. If I pop over the 'border' from the main inner city part of the region and into the leafy suburb much wealthier part of the region all of the state schools are excellent and all achieve very good results statistically.
Being in the catchment of the poorer schools means those parents who want something better might come on here and have a moan or they might try and get a place at an out of catchment school or an independent school (or do all 3) and I don't see what is wrong with that.
It would be great if everybody had the option of a state school where the top sets all get A.*-A but not everybody does.

Well I don't aspire to speak for all schools but in the city I work in we have the highest % by far of EAL pupils and the best results, levels of progress etc. I have also visited schools such as Mulberry in Tower Hamlets and been in awe of the attitude to learning there. It always irritates me when people assume that because I work in an inner city school in an area of high deprivation pupils have low aspirations/ achievements.in my top set of 32 not one pupil didn't get at least one A and no one got below a B. Over half the class got A* in both Language and Literature and 70% of the class had lived in the country less than 7 years. There are so many comments on mumsnet about how poor the state option is, it is a shame there is so little publicity about the many, many good ones!

Sorry that 26% is actually 26% of pupils getting 5 grades at A*-C, which is still very poor IMO.

But that is just your school dexter and doesn't necessarily translate into similar results at other inner city schools.
The inner city school that my DS would have gone to had we not moved house (and where several of my relatives attend) has a lot of ambitious refugee families but it still only managed 26% A-C with very few of those grades at A or A whereas the independent school that my DS attends (which is the most local indie to the inner city school) got 90% A*-A.

We really cannot say that all inner city schools are great or that all indies are great as that just isn't the case.

I would totally agree that inner city schools with high levels of EAL are the best for high achievers. Last year we had a very week cohort on paper but when results came out they were amazing. But it did make us smile when the local indies and grammar lauded their 10/11 A* pupils in the local press when we had more than double the amount. The work ethic and ambition of refugee families is startling and certainly makes teachers lives easier.

And, as the vast majority of tutors are qualified teachers, most still working, they only have a few hours a week to offer for tutoring.

Thousands and thousands of secretly ''average' ability grammar pupils all needing constant support, in loads of subjects, from extra tutoring. And all throughout the 7 years of their school career.

Where do they find all the necessary tutors to fulfil this hidden demand? And where do all these tutors find all the spare hours every week necessary to tutor in (on top of their teaching careers). And where do these secretly average grammar pupils find all the spare hours every week to spend with tutors, getting tutored in all their subjects? Assuming these children attend school every day, and have regular homework every night (approx. 1.5 hrs per night for our grammar). Many children travel in from miles away. Long commutes. Then they have to eat and sleep of course.

Just not enough time. Nowhere near enough time.

So it's lucky that none of it is actually necessary isn't it.

Talkinpeace. A very large number of the children who sit the 11+ here do pass it. Parents put their child in for it, knowing they have a very healthy chance at passing becayse they're bright and because they have prepared.

It's not mandatory to sit it. Lots of children don't sit it.

Many parents are perfectly happy to send their child to their local school and have no interest in a grammar education.

I disagree talkinpeace.

I think the majority of grammar pupils happen to be both very bright AND well prepared.

If grammar schools were mainly filled with average pupils who had just been well prepped for the 11+, then their GCSE and A Level results would be pretty average.

Unless of course, thousands of grammar parents were paying to have their average child very well tutored and prepped in all their GCSE subjects and A Level subjects for years and years.

That's a lot of money. Tutors typically charge £30 per hour, per subject. Most grammar pupils take 10 or 12 GCSEs. A very lot of money.

And that's a lot of tutors. 1200 pupils at our grammar. All of them needing hours and hours of tutoring every week, in lots of subjects. For years. That's a huge number of tutors. Especially as there's another grammar in town with over 900 pupils. And the grammars in surrounding towns. More thousands of 'average' pupils all needing this extra tutoring for years?

Not enough tutors. Not even close.

Whore
Are there tutors in your area?

Do 80% of pupils get told they failed at age 11?

We're not massively selective here. Just the top 20% I think? So still room for plenty of VA presumably?

Can see it would be much harder in a top 5% supet selective grammar though.

Oh Clavinova lets not go there :
the very presence of selective schools, by definition creates "fail" schools
and thus the tutoring war
the kids who get in are those who are best prepared, not the brightest
which makes all KS1 / KS2 comparisons an utter joke.

But tutoring isn't magical. What I have witnessed among my friends and aquaitances around here is children who are already clever. Predicted high level 5s in Yr 6. Have gone through school always on the top table etc. Then they go and get some 11+ technique and timing skills with a tutor.

I don't think there's many average kids, intensively being tutored, scraping a pass and then spending the next 7 years hopelessly struggling and constantly needing extra tuition in lots of subjects.

There just aren't enough tutors around here to anywhere meet that sort of demand.

Not all grammar school areas are highly selective - in some areas the grammars will have 10-15% of pupils with level 4s who come out with As and Bs at GCSE instead of the usual Cs.

clavinova
the multiple of Bertrands children is not data

statistically, selective schools do much worse in VA due to tutoring

I thought your dd had a level 4 in maths (??) going in to her grammar and came out with an A Bertrand. That would be good value added.

"We've just heard that our grammar has the best value added score in the county I think?"
Really? I presume best value added for a grammar school, rather than overall?

whoregasm
^We've just heard that our grammar has the best value added score in the county I think?
Extremely unlikely
BUT, come the January league tables, we'll all hit the sort button

grammars can only hit high VA with tutored kids by fiddling the numbers
I hope they get what they deserve

the GOOD VA schools are those who have a shit intake and do pretty well with them : infinitely harder and should be much higher paid

sadly our policy makers are London Centric prep school arses who would not know a comp if it hit them in the face

We've just heard that our grammar has the best value added score in the county I think?

I used to think that teaching in a grammar was probably a bit of a sinecure. But after speaking to some of the teachers at DD's school I realise they are under huge pressure to show good value added scores. Not easy when virtually every girl enters the school in Yr 7 on high Level 5s and lots of Level 6s.

Pressure can be intense, and there's high concerns if a girl is consistently 'only' ever getting a B in a subject.

Look on the DfE website where you can easily compare 'expected progress' between any schools you choose for the categories of low, middle and high ability.
it provide a way of comparing like-for-like which GCSEs don't.