Grammar school areas.... thoughts?

Sorry @cantkeep. I should have been clearer. I don't know much about Comps from personal experience as DC and I all went to Grammars. My DSis is a Geography teacher and her school don't set till Y9. But yours does so there's no hard and fast rule.

Of course a large factor in IF children will mess around is whether they are children who want to do this. As in primary schools, some children do and some don't. The children who didn't mess around in primary were in the same setting as the others who did mess about. Therefore it couldn't purely be explained in terms of the school approach.

There are potentially disruptive children in all ability groups. The numbers of them can make a real difference to the impact they have. Funnily enough, Grammar schools do have less problems with behaviour and funnily enough, schools with larger percentages of low performing entrants do seem to have bigger behavioural problems.

People often say that if you are in the top sets in a Comp, there is little disruption and great progress is made. Great if you're in the top set and great in the subjects which are setted. What about if you are in the middle or lower sets and for the majority of subjects which don't set? Yes of course schools need to deal with bad behaviour, but pretending it is easy is daft and low level but persistent disruption is cited as the key hinderance to learning.

It's no wonder parents are keen to get their children into schools where this is in little evidence. These schools might well be Grammars because effectively everyone is the higher sets and every subject only includes those children. It might not sound like a PC reason to give for choosing a school, but avoiding certain children and being with certain children is absolutely a factor in people's decision making, whatever they say.

Its true what a PP said, they were both glad to say goodbye to the kids that messed about and disrupted primary school. Although Maths and English may be setted at comps most other lessons aren't.

I don't know much about Comps to be honest

Might it have been better to add the caveat that you don't know much about Comps BEFORE making sweeping statements about what they set for?

I would also say that 'messing around in primary school' is not necessarily an indicator of 'will mess around in secondary' - the variable in 'do kids mess around' is NOT necessarily the children or their ability, but IS the school and how they deal with them.

DC are at Grammars and I went too so I don't know much about Comps to be honest. We were set for Maths and languages (and DS is also set for PE) but other classes were mixed ability. I assumed that other schools would be the same, just with a much broader ability range. Obviously I'm wrong.

In my kids comp they are sort of streamed, and then setted out of that. So you can be in a middle stream but be put in a top set for French if you are an ace linguist, or top stream and put in a middle set for maths if you need a slower pace, and so on.

There’s no problem with being ‘geeky ‘, there are plenty of them, it is cool to be clever, and plenty of friendships across ability groups.

Another local-ish comp does do lots of mixes ability teaching, they have smaller classes and specific methodology, and it gets extremely good results.

We live in a super-selective area and I'm happy to call the non-grammar schools comps - not everyone takes the 11+ so it's not the same IMO! In fact, my super-selective area has been mentioned upthread. Being super-selective over a very wide area means that the number of children that go from each Primary probably isn't that big - it's not like all the class bar one are going, quite the opposite in most cases!

My DD wanted to give the 11+ a go (as did some of her friends) and we did a little practice at home but no outside tutoring at all. They were fine taking the exam and the school that they sat it at made it as nice as possible for them. I appreciate that the lack of tutoring is probably less pressure for her too (she didn't get the school she wanted).

However, she is quite happy with the other schools available and we are waiting to hear. I'm fine about living in a grammar school area and had DD passed the 11+ for the school she wanted she would have gone.

DD's school had a lot of pupils go in for the 11+, and I'd say the majority had tutoring. Most didn't get in but were happy to celebrate the ones that did, which I thought was lovely.

Why do people think comprehensive means mixed ability teaching? And why, actually, do people think mixed ability teaching is necessarily s bad thing?

Comp parent here - History and geography are setted from Year 8/9, and then obviously from year 10 they are not setted but are only done by the pupils who choose them for GCSE.

It is mixed sex, though - that bit can't be replicated in our local excellent comps, it's true.

Hi Lizard. I made the assumption that lessons like history and geography etc weren't setted. So the PITA kids that were messing about in primary would still be at it in Y9. DC are happy to be in classes where everyone pretty much does as they're told.

Haven't read the whole thread, sorry.

In Gloucestershire there are 7 grammar schools. 4 single sex ones in Gloucester which makes it a properly GS area. The secondaries remaining are adversely affected by having the grammars, though all are 'super selective' in that they take the top 120/150 etc but some are easier to get a place in than others.

Cheltenham has one super-selective co-ed grammar school that takes 150 pupils per year. It has no catchment and takes pupils from as far afield as Swindon, Worcester and Bristol. Is has only a very small effect on the local secondaries, in fact Balcarras is a very high performing comp indeed.

My DC are a mixed bunch and grammars were not for them, certainly not worth travelling to Gloucester for. I'm very happy with the education they received in their comprehensive schools. If I lived in Gloucester and they hadn't got into one of the grammars I wouldn't' have been happy sending them to one of the city 'comprehensives,' they are definitely more like secondary moderns.

Whiterose: it is replicated in my Dc's S London comp, where mine are in top sets.
Strong work ethic.
Good behaviour.

Across all ability bands, actually.

What is your doubt based on?

In answer to your question fox, stay or go should depend on whether your DD would thrive or sink at that school. And what the alternative would be if she doesn't get in.

Both DD and DS love their Grammar schools and the work ethic. They work hard because all their friends do. They also both chose single sex and still think it was the right choice. I doubt this would be replicated at a comp. Its true what a PP said, they were both glad to say goodbye to the kids that messed about and disrupted primary school. Although Maths and English may be setted at comps most other lessons aren't.

The thing is, I know it's selfish but the system suits us so no we wouldn't go anywhere else.

The other really depressing thing about being in a wholly selective area is that the hideous class divide means that the grammar schools hoover up the kids who have been playing instruments and having sports coaching since birth too. So all that stuff about the “non academic sporty/musical kids getting a a chance to shine” is bollocks too.

Y9, he’s 14 and in his third year there. Can’t see any difference thusfar.

Except awful teenage hormone stuff

Taffeta how old is your DS though? Mine is in Year 12 so the polish has had time to rub off on him .

Whilst I’m very impressed by the SS my DS is at, it neither offers a broader education nor seems to have instilled a “private school confidence” in him.

What does happen in our fully grammar county is that grammar school kids look down on secondary modern kids, without a shadow of doubt. That then impacts both: grammar kids thinking they are better and sec modern kids feeling failures.

It’s shit, TBH.

It's a bit like the EBacc, currently under discussion on another thread. Does going to a grammar school really have any relevance post leaving school? If DC can do equally well (if not better in some cases) at comprehensives then surely it doesn't? It may be a 'badge of honour' to be boasted about by some parents, but it doesn't hold any sway once the DC become students/adults, does it? Aside from being a type of 'unwritten code' to intimate perceived superior intelligence (which of course may not be the case!).

And I do think that some children will probably suit the grammar school environment more than others. It's not always easy to tell.

If so many children are coached long-term to get into grammar schools (particularly the super-selective) then surely that doesn't make them the naturally brightest anyway? Exam results alone don't tell the whole story (which feeds into the great Oxbridge debate, the subject of another talk thread).

Looking at DS, I think that his super-selective school has helped to give him some of the positive attributes that many associate with good independent school education - (quiet) confidence, polish and good manners, access to some amazing experiences and generally a much broader education (and way of thinking) than he probably would have got at one of the good, local comprehensives. And of course, surrounded by a whole school of intelligent, by and large motivated (with some exceptions) pupils.

It's a difficult one to call.

If I were choosing a new place to live, knowing in a few years my DC would be choosing secondary schools, I would probably not go into a Grammar area, but if I could afford it, move close to a great Comp that I knew they would get into - this would probably mean lots of research and moving very close.....and yes I know that schools slide in success and boundaries change.

The thing with Grammars, is that unless your child is exceptionally bright, you just cannot know they will definitely get in - there is no certainty and even less certainty in a super selective area. People on MN are always saying their child is on the top table or top of their class and asking if that will be good enough for grammar. The trouble is that no one knows for sure - some top table children get in and some don't. It's difficult to be precise about exactly how clever our children are, whether they will be 'clever' in the skills tested and if they will perform on the one day. That is a lot of uncertainty. The tutoring and rigorous home prep that happens is a way parents use to try and reduce the uncertainty, but it cannot remove it, as every year, many children don't get in, obviously. And as we know, increasingly it's children who are prepared who get the places ....dispelling the idea that a tutored child will then struggle at garammr ..... well some might, but the majority have had some coaching. In superselective areas you need to be super bright and super prepared to really have a chance.....and it's not possible to know for certain that they will get in.

And the question is, do parents really have a back up then that they can honestly say they are happy with and tell their children honestly that they are happy with, and move forward without feeling they are getting second best? Many people don't have that back up that they are truly happy with....and it's for this reason that I think Grammar areas are best avoided if possible. No one wants their kids to feel they are getting second best or are second best at 10, and it's not good for the parents either.

I think it's a bit different in a super selective area, esp if you aren't very near to the grammar, or very few go from anyone area, as the vast majority will go to non-Grammars anyway. It's a bit different if you have Independent as a back up and you really would be happy with that. It's a bit different if you have an over the border possibility of a Comp. however, if you're in a full grammar area, I think you have to be somewhere where the sec mods are great and absolutely not second best, to be able to genuinely feel okay about them. Great if that is the case, and if not best avoided in my view, especially if you would want it badly, because most won't get in.

I live in an area very like drofrub's, but closer to the grammar schools.

My DC took and passed the 11+ (I now regret putting them through it, but when DS was 10 I had not understood their negative influence quite so fully) but we chose for them to both go to the 'other school in a partially selective area', which is near-comprehensive.

On the coaching point: I have never, in my years as a parent and as a teacher, encountered an 11+ passer to the county's [superselective to different degrees] grammars who was not tutored either by parents at home [ranging from familiarisation with a few papers, to full on every night homework from Year 4] or by professional tutors [usually from the start of Year 5, once a week with significant homework].

It is something of an arms race.

• There are private primaries who teach to the test from 4. Almost all pupils there are then coached from 9

• Parents of pupils at other schools (state schools are not allowed to offer test preparation) feel they should coach

• Coaching becomes the norm, with parents who choose not to being afraid of missing out

• Parents who don't employ coaches feel the need to coach (or at least familiarise) children themselves...

I currently live in a fully grammar school area. DD only 4 and no idea yet if she's pass the 11+. I grew up in a fully comprehensive area and I'd like that for DD to so hoping to move before she reaches secondary age.

Aroela makes the comment that those that need tutoring may not be suited to a grammar school. However, the maths in the 11 plus exam my dc took wasn’t covered in junior school either. Also, the exam included verbal reasoning and non-verbal reasoning which Was new.

I live in a county with super selective grammar schools. However, they're all based on the other side to the county from me, so a good 40 min drive away.

A few children go there every year from DC school, but it's only ever between 1-4 children.
I gave my children the option of applying, but didn't encourage it particularly. Apart from the mega mixed sex one (which I don't think my dc would have got in or would have coped with if they had...) Upon looking at the schools in more detail, I didn't feel the single sex schools offered anything worth an extra two hour commute a day. I also felt that my DC would have struggled with the commute at 11. I was also concerned about them having friendships with children who lived 1-2 hours away, being isolated in our village growing up because all their friends lived so far away.

Instead, we chose a fantastic comprehensive school over the county border, and my eldest has thrived there. The friends all live within a 20 min drive, the progress made has been fantastic and I couldn't have wished for a better secondary school.

We may revisit grammars for A levels though, as I feel they'd be better at coping with the commute / friends etc etc then.

I think for us, it has little effect because so few children choose to make the commute, but those that do seem to thrive and enjoy it.

My daughter probably could have gone to the local grammar (was my old school) but we went for a look round (so scary, the Georgraphy teacher remembered me!), and she didn't like it as much as the local comprehensive. So she didn't take the 11+ - & I'd not have turored her for it. I do feel if you have to tutor for it then perhaps it doesn't come naturally, and thus you might struggle?
She did great at GCSE all B, A, A and went on to get ABB and is at Uni. I think it suited her to be near the top at a comprehensive rather than lower down at grammar, and I'm sure she was more confident in her abilities and did better as a result. I do think though that there is not any one system to fit all children, I've a friend who had one son state comp all the way the other has gone private as the smaller classes suit more, both did exceedingly well.

“A lot of posters would rather kids went to the 'shit' schools in the comprehensive area than the non grammar schools in the selective area.

This is to protect their ideological purity !”

What evidence do you have for this nonsense, Mountford?

Plenty of PP have said they are happy that the High school has been a happy alternative.

The things PP object to are;

• selection/ pressure / a cut off point / flawed selection
• High schools / sec mods that do not offer the same quality of education or the same range of subjects as either grammars or good comps
• comps that don’t set
• not having good schools as an alternative to grammars.

It seems from this thread that the situation is different in different areas. You seem happy with your child’s education, which is great. You don’t seem to give a damn about what impact the system has on anyone else and your only children tribution to addressing some of tne grammar flaws was to move the grade boundary at which a
(flawed) grade boundary occurs!