Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

The schools only use it when it suits their purposes! Which brings us back to @user149799568's valid point about it being propaganda rather than data. But the raw undoctored data does exist – somewhere!

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.

I would rather James Average gets a chance to do triple science or 2 MFL and not be prevented because there aren't quite enough able ones left in their school to do it.

Plus it wouldn't hurt for Jimmy and James to have PE and drama together in y7-9 together with Jim Struggler.

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.

In higher education the brightest are well looked after by Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick, Bristol, whoever.

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

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

So are you saying that as long as the top 10% brightest are well served by the grammar system (ie incl sec mods) it doesn't really matter whether it serves the middle 50% well or not?

The world including schools is geared to serving the middle 50%.

x-post re SS schools.

I could see a point if you were to argue for super selectives taking the top say 2%. (I have no idea the number going to SN schools but it will be closer to 2% I would think than 10%). Super selectives do take the brightest without impacting other schools massively.

It depends I think - DS's school is a SS they need 360 in the Kent test (pass mark 320). I think they are selecting the highest scoring 10% I could be wrong though. The range of ability at his school is huge.

So the brightest, who are already blessed with good brains must be given provision tailored to their supposed specific needs even if it means that a whole bunch of other kids don't get opportunities to do say single sciences or 2 MFL because with top 25% creamed off there are no longer sufficient kids to support a sec mod in offering those options? (Even though comps can produce kids with straight 8/9s as well as support the 2s,3s,4s)?

In my DC’s comp the top set / stream ( different system for different subjects- there is a broad brush streaming structure with an added setting system to lift kids into faster or slower groups as needed) represent the top 20%.

There is a specific set for extremely high flying maths students. Notably this included a student living in care, and two recent immigrants with ESOL, none of whom would have been likely to be put into an 11+ test…but raised the standard of the top 20%!

@thing47
Actually James Corden went to both. Probably transferred at 16. The Misbourne always had the better 6th form. First secondary to have one.

The idea that the top set at a comprehensive school can offer the same opportunity for the brightest DC is flawed.

Assuming a normal distribution curve, the range of ability in the top 10% (and the bottom 10% for that matter- often with EHCPs ) is much wider than that in the other deciles. From a logistical POV it makes sense to teach these DC separately. There is also the issue of peer support which they won't have in a similar sized comprehensive.

As the data schools collect isn’t for public consumption it’s very difficult to get info from the schools.

sorry no longer

I don't have the data, but I have studied it. Admittedly a few years ago now so it's entirely possible that I am out of date and the situation has changed. For example, the 11+ exam in my area changed a few years ago and the format is now slightly different from when I looked into it, so that might have made a difference.

But @TizerorFizz doubts that schools track this sort of information and I can assure you all that they absolutely do. And anyone's who's really interested enough to do the research can. I'm not because my DCs are no longer school age and I'm not longer working in the education field.

The PowerPoint comment was a joke, hence the smiley after it. Apologies if that didn't come across.

LA wide grammars really don’t have all DC getting the same results regardless of 11 plus score.

This is slightly misrepresenting what I'm saying, though. I'm not saying they all get the same results, I'm saying that 11+ scores are a poor predictor of GCSE results. The top and bottom ends of the spectrum may achieve in line with what scores would predict, ie DCs who score 141 are likely to be bright children who will go on to do well later. But for the large middle range, that's not really the case – a child who scores, say, 131 is not de facto more likely to get a 9 at GCSE than a child who scored 121. This is what the data shows.

@TeenPlusCat
Among my friends/neighbours whose DC have gone to the local secondary modern are PHd holders, university lecturers, head teachers, teachers, accountants, solicitors, and a number of others who could pay but like the local school! DC did well so everyone was happy.

@TeenPlusCat
Never going to happen!

@thing47
If the lower score DC catch up, everyone would get a high number of grade 9s. They certainly don’t do that here! Plenty of lower grades at some grammars (not below a 4 obviously) but LA wide grammars really don’t have all DC getting the same results regardless of 11 plus score. I’m not saying some don’t do very well though and some higher score DC don’t get distracted! It’s not an exact science. I do accept most of our grammars have very positive progress 8 scores though. Hopefully great teaching does that!

Yes. I do think there’s value in speeding up or slowing down the curriculum. Taking 3 years to do 9 GCSEs is common in secondary schools. Others do a wider breadth of GCSEs in 2 years. Yes, the brightest do get broader teaching.

I don’t know how many schools don’t set any more. To get best results a lot do. Makes it easier for teachers. However there’s plenty of evidence that DC can achieve well at secondary moderns with a slower approach. Others need pace.

I think people shouldn't say 'grammar schools are better' without knowing whether they are also better for the 70% who don't qualify.

Personally I think there should be a rule that if you apply for grammar and don't get in then you have to go to your secondary modern, you aren't allowed to go private.

There's a lot of focus on results, but I think it's about more than that. Two kids with a 9 are not necessarily of the same ability - it's just that a 9 is the highest you can score. A bright kid at a comp or secondary modern may well still be able to get good results, but their educational experience might not have been the same. In a selective grammar class (particularly in a super selective school or a top set), the pace of learning is fast, so the breadth of learning can be wider. I know that at DS's school, in some subjects, they'll finish the nuts and bolts of the GCSE curriculum by early Year 10, and they can then spend lots of time broadening, exploring, following the pupils' interests, getting them really inspired about the subject, which is all brilliant for their intellectual development and as preparation for higher level study. If you're a bright kid in a mixed ability class, then you'll probably still get your 9, but you're also quite likely to have spent a fair bit of time getting pretty bored going over the same thing. Of course, part of a teacher's job in that scenario is to differentiate, but however well they do that, it's still not the same as having the cut and thrust of being in a class full of similarly bright, enthusiastic, competitive kids. Arguably you can achieve that in a comprehensive with setting, with the advantage of wider mixing outside the classroom, but I suspect it's probably harder to achieve than than it is in a grammar. Not least from a teaching point of view. The teacher you want to put in front of your top set A level maths class is probably not the same person that you want in front of your bottom set Year 7s, and it's not easy to recruit and timetable that mix perfectly.

I think some people don’t like selection in y6 but are quite happy with it a bit later on. It’s the same child though!

That's an interesting point, and not one I've really considered let alone studied. Off the top of my head, I guess you could say that by university application time all DCs have done GCSEs and A levels (or BTECs) so the playing field is a bit more level than it was at 11+ where the amount of help (tutoring) is very variable.

Also the much wider range of courses, and institutions, at university age means there is more flexibility in catering for all interests and abilities, but yeah, interesting point.

There's plenty of evidence, all the grammar schools round here track them. A couple of grammar schools round me actually show you the graphs at a new parents evening, they put it up on a PowerPoint . Anonymised obviously but the raw data is available. Although I would probably phrase this the other way round – there is no evidence that grammar school DCs who score lower at 11+ don't catch up their peers by GCSE, I'm sure you're right that the ones 141 go on to do well. It's primarily a pull-up effect rather than a drop-down one iyswim.

I agree you'd think that DCs who had to be tutored and only just get in would struggle once there, but that really isn't what the data shows. Counter-intuitive maybe, but hey, I didn't produce the data, I've just studied it.

And you're right of course nothing in life is fair, but that shouldn't stop us advocating for greater fairness where possible.

@thing47

Where is the evidence to say the high achievers at 11 plus don’t do better? I’m not aware of anyone recording 11 plus scores and exam results later on. So who knows? Although my strong guess would be that most of the 141 score DC do very well. Most DC scoring 141 are pretty bright from what I’ve observed and most get high scores without extensive tuition. Where is the evidence that 121 or lower scores do just as well? From my knowledge of where I live and friends of DDs, tha suggestion that low scores do just as well is way off the mark (so to speak). They are the 10% who possibly should be elsewhere. Have more than likely been coached to oblivion and in many cases, still have to appeal to get in.

I certainly accept the tests are flawed but what selection test doesn’t favour one person over another? Tutoring might get a few more marks and into a grammar but after that, the cracks can show! Any grammar school teacher will see the effects of over tutoring and DC then struggling. No, they don’t get stellar results from these DC. More likely MH issues!!

I think some people don’t like selection in y6 but are quite happy with it a bit later on. It’s the same child though! There is, I would have thought, plenty of evidence that secondary mod DC may well benefit from being in those schools if the schools are good and the ethos suits them better. Some schools are not good though. This has long been an issue and doesn’t appear solvable! However as Bucks is a fairly high achieving LA in terms of exam results, there are enough brighter children in the best secondaries to form decent cohorts. So DC can do very well. Some subjects are absent and some DC take “easier” subjects. The best ones really do their best for the DC.

Nothing in life is completely fair is it? That also includes better off parents who move to very middle class areas in other LAs to get the places at the best comps! What’s to be done about that?