New grammars by 2020 which will exclude 90% of local kids

greenginger
Stats show more able do less well in comps.
Indeed.
The most able kids get 1/3 of a grade higher at grammars than at comps
(as per the published recent research)

So DD would have got one extra A* rather than an A
and DS would have got two extra A* rather than A

utterly not worth the stress of selective schooling

Surely people who worry about poor behaviour in comps are those who are convinced that its universal and that every bright child is having their head shoved down the toilet? People who worry specifically about poor behaviour in lower sets must realise that the chances of their child passing the 11+ are incredibly slim.

There are so many ifs and buts around attempts to compare the performance of children in different schools its dangerous to give them too much reliance. However selective counties do not perform better than non-selective counties with similar socio-economics. So if higher ability children are performing better in the grammars then this surely must mean that children are performing worse in the secondary moderns? Otherwise selective counties would have significantly better figures than the non-selective?

Well TM has stated they won't be returning to secondary moderns. Many areas have grammars that are fed by large numbers of primary schools and thus have very little impact( if any) on comps in the county.

Not every county with grammars are like Kent.

I have read on other threads that they do only very slightly less well in a comp whereas everyone else does significantly less well in a sec modern.

Stats show more able do less well in comps.

But many people aren't quite clear ex rely where their children sit in the ability ranks.
They might know they aren't top of the top set in primary, but be unclear if they would make it into the top or middle sets in secondary, or if they would pass the 11+ in a fully selective area that takes 25% for grammars. In Primary people often just don't know - being in the top set in a weak primary isn't necessarily a sign of passing the 11+ or avoiding a low set at secondary.
For many people it isn't the comprehensive system per se that they worry about....it's about disruption in lower ability sets. Yes this is possible in both Comps and in Secondary moderns - hence manic tutoring in grammar areas and people in Comp areas often being keen on the 11+ system.

In my mind, all of the systems serve the more able better. The more able get a good education at a grammar or in a top set of a good comp. as ever, the problem remains for the less able and provision can be worse for them in all types of school. That said, many Comps and Secondary Moderns do very well and add lots of value to their weaker students too. These tend to be in the more affluent areas, hence the comments upthread from people saying the key thing is to be in a school in an affluent area rather than in a selective school in a poor area. Look at the Secondary moderns in the affluent bits of Bucks and see the fantastic results they deliver, despite having a less able cohort, or some of the great Comps which exist near to Super selectives.

Unles you are proposing an alternative 11+ system in which children are selected by behaviour rather than ability.

But if they would be in the bottom group with disrupters in a comprehensive, they would be in a similar group with similar children in a secondary modern.

Not at ours Four we were told about the smaller groups for G&T kids and poked our nose round the door.

I've heard before it's the one up from the bottom that is most disruptive. A teacher friend said that the very bottom set in a big school was very docile, but the next set up was full of badly behaved characters, who had enough about them to find lots of ways to misbehave and try and get away with it. Some weren't really low ability but had ended up in the group through laziness or poor behaviour which meant they underperformed. Kids like that....with ability but poor attitude must ne worse to teach than those who are just quite limited in ability but willing to try, or at least not to disrupt.

I think avoiding thes kind of groups is why some people are so desperate to avoid some Comps. If your kid will definitely be in the top set with well behaved kids, then great. If you can't be sure they will and might end up in that low but not not bottom group with all the disrupters, then you can see why people worry and might pay or slave to get through an 11+ in a grammar area.

It's the lower sets that have the "smaller booster" classes rather than the top sets. Disruption is indeed worse in the bottom sets and it's not helped by disruptive bright kids being moved down from the top sets. It is often the case that it is not the very bottom set that is disruptive - it's the next one up! The issue is that the kids in the top sets do not need to be taught in a separate school. My DS was in top English and Science sets and a low Maths set. He started off in bottom set English (he has dyslexia) but worked his way up to the top. If he'd been streamed or in a secondary modern, there would have been no top set there for him to work his way up to. He's doing A Level English now.

It's true that moving between sets is difficult and doesn't happen as much as people would hope.
In maths, top groups cover the ground much faster,mso someone from a lower set who deserves to move up might not be moved up because they simply won't have covered the ground the higher sets have. There can come a point when it's not possible to move up. THere might be some movement but probably not loads. If you start on the top set, you are much more likely to be there at the end, than someone who starts in a middle set. That is the reality.

And schools don't really stream anymore, although sometimes a couple of subjects might be connected together for timetabling, so setting determines who is in which group for another subject too. It is true that you could be top set for perhaps maths and bottom for English. In reality though, often those in the top groups and in the top groups across the board and this is what can lead to those of differing ability getting little time together, certainly in academic subjects. Yes, PE, Games and some other subjects will be mixed ability so the will be some mixing.
Dot you tend to find though that kids often make friendships amongst those of similar ability anyway? It might be that it's reinforced by them being together in maths, English, languages etc....but don't they often (not always) naturally gravitate towards those who are similar in this regard?

I guess good Comps find ways and activities that help kids of all abilities mix and get on together.

No not streamed just regular setting.

Stands to reason as if you are in the bottom sets for Eng and maths it is going to be harder to access top sets in other subjects. So many children are worlds apart. Friends of mine teaching secondary say disruption is far worse in the lower sets. Those in the smaller top booster sets will be getting a whole different education.

DS is in sixth form at a comp... he has a school friend that went to Oxford Uni last year, school friends with 10 As and others who didn't pass any of their GCSEs.

But even with setting it isn't always that easy to move.

DH went up a set in French but the higher set were miles ahead of him so he struggled and lost interest. Probably ended up doing worse than he would have in the lower set.

Just saying...

Comps that set will have mixed ability PE, Drama, Art, etc, and students will be able to be move up and down the sets in Maths, English, Science, etc. It sounds like the school you are talking about streams rather than sets so the students are stuck where they are. Personally, I would not want my DS to a go a school that streams and neither would I want him to go to a secondary modern.

If you come from a weaker primary,have unsupportive parents it is harder to access those top groups. In some schools fluidity is lacking and it is very hard to move once curriculum has been covered.

Those in the top and bottom sets rarely mix.My DC have different ability friends who never see their primary friends or siblings,who seem to get an entirely different education within the same school.

Starting selection in comps is no better.

If they are all in the same school then everyone has a chance to get into the top sets or be in lower sets if they need a slower pace or more support. Some students are strong in some subjects and weak in others. A test at 11 cannot accurately or fairly separate the academic from the non-academic.

Why didn't they go to the local comp?

Resources have never been aimed at the top 10%. Everything from early on gets pumped into those struggling. Those in the middle are catered for as that is what most is pitched at.

Opening a few grammars would hardly cause a funding inequality when those who struggle quite rightly are a priority. Starting selection in comps is no better. It would simply be the same system on the same site and similar to what already exists. The lower set kids never mixing with the top and in some areas setting pretty much guaranteed by which primary you attend with parents buying primary places through property.

Our local comp doesn't benefit the more able as stated by Ofsted. How is it ok for parents to bus their kids out to the better comp but not the grammar?

I'm a sharp elbowed MC mum. My kids did not go to the local comp
But they still went to a comp.
And as A/A* students I utterly believe they benefited from that mix.

MumTryingHerBest

I agree entirely with providing a better quality of education for all. There is no reason why good grammars can't co-exist with good comprehensives.

Setting up a new school isn't the only way to create more grammar school places. If existing schools could convert or have an element of selection then I don't see why it has to cost as much as a new school. Particularly in a place where there are sufficient places overall and a new school would result in empty seats. I do believe that good quality teaching must be easier for the teacher if the class is not so wide ranging in ability with specific adaptions having to be made for all styles of learning.

LRGS used to have 120 day places and 24 boarders in each of year 7-11. The also take an additional 50 into the sixth form. This increased last year to 150 day places and 24 boarders so the current numbers you quote for GCSE and 6th form are out of step with the current number of places for year 7. I think it is similar for Clitheroe except that they seem to have a much bigger sixth form.

I think the stats for a school in an 11+ area would be totally different as many more children will take the test. In Lancashire there is an element of "self selection" as most kids don't take it.

It's a bit like the 'age of school start' issue. At least until very recently, the push in England was to get children into school, or school like environments earlier and earlier. The push in Scotland was to defer as much as possible to make your child one of the oldest in their class. 2 different mindsets, fuelled by 2 slightly different underlying systems.

It's interesting, because Scotland essentially does have my model 2. I suspect you can't get BACK to model 2 after letting the genie of 'apparent choice' out of the bottle, but where the mindset and tradition IS model 2 it can work fine. The high stakes Ofsted system, league tables, rhetoric of 'choice' from the Government etc has led to an 'overall mindset' in England that is simply different from that in Scotland

MumTryingHerBest How can they provide a better quality education for all? Like I've said they have tried everything they can legally do. Throwing money at it with the super school 250 million initiative for one. The UTC (failed and closing). There is a superschool on the verge of closure (only 40 applied for it last year) so potentially a shiny new building spare. Faith selection certainly hinders better quality for all but they can't abolish it as the Govt has made it clear they are pro faith schools.
That isn't true in all grammar areas. 200 in catchment sitting for 100 places. Chances of a 'top table' child here going to the grammar from catchment is very high. They only need to score 70/75%.
I'm not familiar with Lancaster.

Can't keep away that is a great post. I think whilst there are faith schools and all the unfairness associated with that and the catchments for the best comps largely governed by house prices then there cannot be your model 2. I suspect the deprived town i'm talking about will never get a grammar but instead have Islamic high schools trying to emulate the top of the league tables ones in similar town nearby. So selection in a different way. The children in the worse position at the moment are those with less choices, so unless all ways of selecting are abolished i'm still in the one more choice can't make things any worse camp.