Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

@thing47
According to quite a few people there are plenty of bright children not selected for grammars. Ones that go on to get firsts from uni etc.

I can actually see that working at school without the brightest can be a huge advantage. Your child might be top! They might actually thrive. They won’t have the continual pressure of being not as good.

I think you over state what parents think about grammars. I know few who have had this angst about grammars or non grammars. Two neighbours were awful with their DC but they basically have screws loose and average DC! As was proved by exam results! The others I know who embraced the secondary schools had DC who did extremely well. Boast worthy on MN. The ones who were pushed (2 of whom got in at 12 and 1 at 13) did far worse. Snd definitely were not happy. Parents are to blame and they should know better. But some cannot bear to be seen as not having the brightest DC.

Why does anyone think they are all disadvantaged?
Well of course they're disadvantaged! They're disadvantaged by dint of being in schools which are missing the top 25% (or whatever) of children in their area, who are at another school. That isn't the same as saying they're being failed, and the disadvantage can be somewhat lessened by a school's efforts, parental involvement and of course a child's own hard work but they are disadvantaged in a way that they wouldn't be if all the children were at the same school.

And let's face it, if nobody thought that grammar schools were an advantage, they wouldn't send their children to grammar schools, would they? It's flies in the face of reason to argue otherwise.

@Neurodiversitydoctor
You should have lived in Bucks then. She would have been a shoe in!

I have seen countless DC do very well at secondary moderns. Their parents very much support them. Why does anyone think they are all disadvantaged? And doomed to failure. These schools can have 30% high achievers and very many go to university. The progress 8 scores are good. So the DC are not failed. But not every school isn’t great. I also know some comps are far worse.

You are not going to turn the average child into a top 10% child. So we need schools where all DC thrive and parents need to chill out.

I think that ambition can make a huge difference regarding employment. Having parents in a well paid job helps with ambition but not always. DC follow their own ideas I tend to find and not everyone wants money!

There is research that shows less well off students at Oxbridge are far more likely to go into lower paid work. They must know higher paid work is within their grasp but decide it’s not for them. That’s surely ok!?

It's similar I guess to English Lit
It's really not that's sort of the point really.

Secondary Moderns don't have to 'fail' their brightest students (the 20% that just didn't get in to the local Grammar school. The ones that PPs have claimed are the most negatively impacted.

Here in South Trafford the local high school, Wellington, gets excellent results.

For family friends the older DS went to Grammar with my DS. The DD went to Wellington and did better in her A Levels than her brother.

She would have been 'average' in a proper local comp but at the secondary modern she was at the nurtured top.

A close friend had a similar complaint about his popular Manchester comprehensive. The top sets were nurtured (grammar equivalent stream); the bottom sets got lots of attention. He said that he felt that he was in the forgotten middle.

It's similar I guess to English Lit.

If you have a bright avid reader, you wouldn't go out of you way to make sure they read An Inspector Calls at age 11 if you knew it was on the GCSE syllabus. You would give them a wider range of books consciously avoiding those they would study later (if you didn't want them to be bored later).

I understand the theory I happen to particularly agree with it. A bright DC will much through maths topics like a hungry catapillar.

By pushing ahead you potentially end up bored later. Whereas by exploring interesting but non core topics you can enrich the subject knowledge.

Your DD's grammar could presumably choose to set for maths if it wanted.
So the best girls at maths would be all together.
But the school doesn't.
So presumably it feels that the best at maths don't all need to be together?

(Just glad I ended up In Hants not Kent!)

Possibly also had she been Summer born. The system is not perfect.

Dd would have got into the SS had she been male. She missed it by 20 marks, I think she would have been better served in the SS (rather than the regular grammar)

Something which benefits the top 10% (or whatever percentage) at the cost of disadvantaging the other 90% is not a model we should be encouraging

It doesn't disadvantage the other 90% though does it ? It disadvantages the next 20% who have fewer opportunities. The least able 10% are likely to be getting additional support regardless.

No Dd is an non SS grammar. She wants to move to SS for sixth form as there won't be enough girls doing further maths (nearly all Kent grammars are single sex).

(I didn't say greater depth, I said extend to areas outside the curriculum.)

Something which benefits the top 10% (or whatever percentage) at the cost of disadvantaging the other 90% is not a model we should be encouraging.

I agree he was not well served by the "teaching to test" for the yr 6 SAT s (X3). However why not push ahead ? Particularly in maths where little maturity is needed, just attention and cognition.

I picked up maths v. quickly and wasn't much stretched in maths lessons in my selective school, even at A level.

But I was stretched in other lessons.

An exceptionally bright all-rounder is more like top 1 or 2 %, not top 10%. So yes, do schools for them if the population is big enough.

Oh that old chestnut "greater depth".
Neither of my Dd's schools set for maths in year 7. Dd is doing GCSE maths in a non set class.

It sounds as if your DS wasn't at all well served at primary, plus the school he didn't go to is pretty unusual in not setting for maths in y7. Almost every school I see discussed on MN sets at least for maths in y7.

Schools should be able to extend the brightest sideways without just pushing ahead. There are whole swathes of maths areas that aren't in GCSE at all that a bright youngster could be directed at, for example different bases, or investigating patterns of prime numbers or whatever.

Ultimately I guess I don't care if Jimmy Bright isn't massively extended up to y11 in school. He can still come out with straight 9s, and then go on to be extended at A levels, degree, PhD. Or he can study extra things out of school, or do extension work in some lessons

But he will be bored and unhappy without a peer group or does that not matter either ?

[quote TizerorFizz]@thing47
Actually James Corden went to both. Probably transferred at 16. The Misbourne always had the better 6th form. First secondary to have one.[/quote]
Ah, that makes sense. Around here Sixth Forms offering academic A levels (as opposed to more vocational routes such at HNDs and BTECs) used to be fairly uncommon in secondary modern schools so as you say The Misbourne was ahead of the game..

DD's school did split GCSEs when she was there, ie half in Y10 and half in Y11, but have abandoned that approach owning to its inherent flaws.

I guess for me, if people really thought the grammar system was 'fair' they'd be happy to enter children to the 11+ completely untutored (whether paid or by parent). But generally they're not. So they must believe that the 'non-grammar' isn't as good.

I disagree.

In the grammar system the kids who just miss the cut are disadvantaged, especially if they come from less well off families who couldn't afford tutoring. Or even kids who aren't entered because their parents aren't organised enough

Nobody can argue with this, undoubtedly this is the cohort who suffer most under the selective system. However in Kent there is movement at 13 and 16.

In higher education the brightest are well looked after by Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Bristol, whoever
Again this is inarguably, however a system that only teaches to your potential at 18 will have huge wastage before that point. DS was "upclassed" in yr4 to a mixed 5/6 class. He spent 3 years effectively doing the yr6 curriculum three times. Had he gone to the local comp there would have been no setting for yr7 and they described to us how it would be spent "consolidating the basics" eg: the same yr 6 work for a 4th time. At his SS they effectively "skipped" yr7 maths. Had he had to do that work for a 4th time he would have almost certainly disengaged. FWIW in yr 13 he is "bored" he has completed his 4 A-level syllabus and can't wait to go to one of the Univesities you mentioned

In work the brightest most qualified get the best jobs with the best pay

In my experienced those with the greatest naked ambition get the greatest rewards. University Professors weren't brilliantly paid last time I checked.

The less bright end up sometimes with highly responsible jobs for very low pay (nursery workers for example)

But some vocational jobs are highly paid, electricians, plumbers, HGV drivers. Many people from this type of background go on to run their own businesses and make a fortune.