Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

[quote TizerorFizz]@thing47
Some 11 plus absolutely are curriculum based. Verbal, non verbal and maths here. However you would expect an enhanced level of reasoning to be required and quick thinking. As the exams are taken in September it’s difficult to test on an incomplete KS2 curriculum. I have long advocated 11 plus tutoring in school for all higher achieving DC to level the playing field.

I would bet a lot of money that the grammars here get better results than the secondary schools. Although there’s undoubtedly as cross over at the lower end of grammars and top end of secondaries.

I cannot think why you think the 11 plus is not picking out the brightest overall. There’s a big difference in top end at the grammars and the few that achieve well at the secondary Moderns. Clearly demonstrated in government published stats.

Where there is a single grammar serving a massive area, and it’s super selective, of course you find DC in other schools who achieve very highly. In a grammar LA, that’s far less likely and stats definitely bear that out.[/quote]
But the types of questions the 11+ asks are not covered in the Y5 curriculum so if your DC's primary school doesn't do CATS, children will be going into the exam in the autumn term having never seen those types of questions before… The solution is probably, as you say, to give some instruction (tutoring) to all DCs in order to level the playing field.

I'm sorry, I obviously wasn't clear on my point about results. Of course the grammar schools tend to get better results, but that's not comparing like for like. At grammar schools there is no evidence that a child who scored 141 on the 11+ will go on to do better than the child who scored 121 (or even 119 and got in on appeal).

Like all tests, the 11+ picks out the best people at that test. That may, but does not necessarily, equate to the brightest overall, the test can be tutored for, as you yourself admit. But even if it does pick out the brightest overall, that doesn't mean the brightest at the age of 10 will be the brightest at the age of 16, or 18. It's the making the decision at such a young age which I disagree with, there needs to be more flexibility.

James Corden went to The Misbourne.

Some trivia that some people do very well after attending Bucks secondary moderns
James Corden went to a Bucks secondary modern, as did the BBC breakfast TV doctor Nighat (3rd paragraph from the end).....heartofbucks.org/inspiring-buckinghamshire-dr-nighat-arif/.
I can think of friend's children who went to Bucks secondary modern, two are at the University of Birmingham doing popular subjects...Someone else a degree from Cambridge Univeristy.

Well the system is never going to change here and people want the grammars - they move to get them. Starting from scratch isn’t an option. Some leave to avoid them! Plenty pay for private 11 plus crammer schools.

The firsts gained by the secondary modern DC are rarely at elite RGs. The destinations of the DC from these schools don’t support that view here. Hardly any go to these unis. Or many RGs for that matter. Although some do. I don’t think anyone keeps tabs on uni results and school attended overall. Just state: grammar or other. Other is usually a comp. So who really knows what secondary moderns produce at uni but firsts from elite unis would be rare.

I see no issue with taking the curriculum a bit slower and recognising some DC mature later. Some need consolidation in key areas and then move forward swiftly. Although many grammars here have better progress 8 figures.

In fact more DC should transfer into grammar 6th forms in my view but they are perceived as scary!!They offer a wider spectrum of subjects and DC in general are aiming higher, but not all! The pushed and over tutored DC in my village haven’t done well at the grammars! So I’m very aware of the pitfalls. The behaviour of some parents who live near me has been appalling! But they didn’t need to do it. The ones who accepted the sec mod route have all had happy children who did very well. (even if a couple had lessons at the grammars whilst on roll at the sec mod!) As I said, around 10 % at each type of school could go either way.

[quote TizerorFizz]@TeenPlusCat
Because the majority are in the correct schools for them. The cross over will be around 10% either way. Some are tutored like mad to get the 11 plus here and do. Some don’t get as much help and go to a secondary but could have been ok at a grammar. They are highly unlikely to be Oxbridge type students though. Mostly they are a little bit slower in getting through the 11 plus papers and just fall short of the marks. When they get to A level and can concentrate on what they like snd have ditched subjects in y9, they can shine. That doesn’t mean the 90% in the grammars are in the wrong schools.

Plus, around here, they won’t change. This LA is wedded to grammars. However parents snd schools that are secondaries work hard to be good schools. Sadly some are in snd out of RI or Inadequate. So I fully understand why some parents will want to avoid them. They won’t be great at MFL or have cohorts of talented mathematicians, by and large. Parents whose DC go to the grammars are happy but all my friends who have DC who didn’t go (and missed the cut by nearly 20 marks) still find DCs can get firsts from universities. They have found what they are good at. At a grammar they would have struggled. So taking it a big slower, getting the subjects you want, taking 3 years to do GCSEs etc is advantageous to them - and that’s ok![/quote]
All of which goes to show that Grammars are not actually necessary!

Unless there is a cohort of intelligent young people who nevertheless simply cannot function to full potential unless physically separated from the slightly slower learners?

While those very same slightly slower learners do well in ‘high schools’ and get firsts at Uni despite being with a much wider group of abilities!

@thing47
Some 11 plus absolutely are curriculum based. Verbal, non verbal and maths here. However you would expect an enhanced level of reasoning to be required and quick thinking. As the exams are taken in September it’s difficult to test on an incomplete KS2 curriculum. I have long advocated 11 plus tutoring in school for all higher achieving DC to level the playing field.

I would bet a lot of money that the grammars here get better results than the secondary schools. Although there’s undoubtedly as cross over at the lower end of grammars and top end of secondaries.

I cannot think why you think the 11 plus is not picking out the brightest overall. There’s a big difference in top end at the grammars and the few that achieve well at the secondary Moderns. Clearly demonstrated in government published stats.

Where there is a single grammar serving a massive area, and it’s super selective, of course you find DC in other schools who achieve very highly. In a grammar LA, that’s far less likely and stats definitely bear that out.

Mostly they are a little bit slower in getting through the 11 plus papers and just fall short of the marks. When they get to A level and can concentrate on what they like snd have ditched subjects in y9, they can shine

Well it might be that, or it might be that they simply aren't suited to 11+ style exams which are not curriculum-based. Or it might be that they aren't good at exams full stop but thrive in performing or demonstrating their skill. Or it might be that they mature later – there's plenty of pedagogic studies which indicate that educational achievement is not linear (for example 11+ scores show no correlation whatsoever to GCSE results 5 years later). Or it might be that degrees and beyond require original thought rather than the regurgitation of learnt material which suits some people better and others less well… A myriad of reasons in fact, often inter-connected.

The crossover may well be 10% as you say @TizerorFizz, but that could still equate to a lot of children. Particularly as many of these issue could be addressed by setting for different subjects within a comprehensive school rather than siphoning children off into different types of school.

I do agree with you, though, that there is no harm in sometimes going a bit slower.

@dizzydizzydizzy
Yes but they have both achieved in their fields. One of our friends has a PhD and went to a secondary mod and took CSEs. It doesn’t matter if you have a very high skill and can capitalise on it later. My DH employs engineers who went to the sec mods. It might take longer to get qualified over and above the MEng grads but it’s no big problem. As I said, it is sometimes very worthwhile going a bit slower! The final outcome might well be the same.

@TeenPlusCat
Because the majority are in the correct schools for them. The cross over will be around 10% either way. Some are tutored like mad to get the 11 plus here and do. Some don’t get as much help and go to a secondary but could have been ok at a grammar. They are highly unlikely to be Oxbridge type students though. Mostly they are a little bit slower in getting through the 11 plus papers and just fall short of the marks. When they get to A level and can concentrate on what they like snd have ditched subjects in y9, they can shine. That doesn’t mean the 90% in the grammars are in the wrong schools.

Plus, around here, they won’t change. This LA is wedded to grammars. However parents snd schools that are secondaries work hard to be good schools. Sadly some are in snd out of RI or Inadequate. So I fully understand why some parents will want to avoid them. They won’t be great at MFL or have cohorts of talented mathematicians, by and large. Parents whose DC go to the grammars are happy but all my friends who have DC who didn’t go (and missed the cut by nearly 20 marks) still find DCs can get firsts from universities. They have found what they are good at. At a grammar they would have struggled. So taking it a big slower, getting the subjects you want, taking 3 years to do GCSEs etc is advantageous to them - and that’s ok!

Tizer So why have grammars then?

@interferingma
Where did I say they would not achieve elsewhere? In fact I quoted young people who had!

I dislike complaints about grammars and then quite happy to boast about success at Oxbridge! These young people are judged by exams and it makes little difference if they are 10 or 17. Parents in many cases are over invested snd get tutors! I’ve seen it all my adult life for GCSEs and A levels.

@thing47
Who on earth tells a child they won’t succeed at a non grammar these days? Who even believes such rubbish! That’s a story out of the 60s! It bears no relation to the facts. Plenty of DC get masters these days. Luckily at university they concentrate what they are good at. I’m not sure it conveys huge all round intelligence but does mean DC is an expert in her field. Why did it matter about the 11 plus? She was good enough to get where she wanted to be and for you to be proud. My DD2 never sat the 11 plus. I’m not a lemming and it wasn’t right for her. She has artistic skills.

Mostly DC are in the right schools but everyone knows there is a huge cross over between top of sec modern and lower sets at the grammars (in Bucks). So why parents seek to boast about success at a sec modern isa mystery. Their DC were snd are high performers. You only need to look at the government stats on some sec modern a hols to see that! It’s never going to mean a child cannot achieve academically!

DD had a tutor for GCSE maths because she had a useless maths teacher. No tutors for A level or any other GCSE subjects.

At my DC's comprehensive very few kids were tutored at A level; most couldn't dream affording it. And we certainly didn't because it would have been a waste of money. I'm sure that picture is different in more affluent areas - particularly where parents perceive their children to be 'up against' candidates in grammar schools.

That must be where we went wrong then, I had no idea that people tutor for A level! Perhaps that's why DD has got stronger and stronger academically as she has got older – she is now actually competing against her peers rather than their parents .

just because you don't go to a grammar it doesn't mean someone can't succeed academically.
Indeed, we were told DD would never achieve anything academically because she failed her 11+ and had to go to a fairly poor secondary modern. As she recently got an absolutely stellar Masters from a world-leading post-graduate school, I don't think it is just me being a proud parent to suggest that judgment was incorrect.

@TizerorFizz come on. At 11 some kids really are still children (most in fact!). At 18 they're adults. Quite different. What a silly assertion
And it's not really boasting. it's just stating facts - that just because you don't go to a grammar (which lets face it are only available in a tiny proportion of the country) it doesn't mean someone can't succeed academically.

I’m not sure there is a huge difference! Lots of parents tutor for A levels. I just cannot abide the self righteous pomposity of saying we chose the local Comp over a grammar but were absolutely not prepared to do the equivalent at 18. So the less good option is ok for others at 18? Of course these children would have been fine in most schools. I just don’t agree with running down grammars when you then rock up at Cambridge with your holier then thou credentials intact!

I didn’t tutor my DD1 for grammar. She did do a few timed tests with me as her state primary did nothing like that. Bucks primaries are not allowed to tutor but private preps do. I object wholeheartedly to tutoring. In my view all the primary schools should do it. Where hardly any DC pass, there should be 11 plus clubs after school for anyone with a squeak of passing. I’ve seen fairly bright DC not get a place when I was a governor but the tutored elsewhere do. They are often the ones who would actually have done better at a sec. In fact many parents I know have accepted that. Their DC didn’t pass but it made little odds regarding final uni. Although I’m mystified as to how one neighbours DC did Chemistry at Uni when the sec mod doesn’t do Chemistry A level and another did Maths, having got FM Maths which isn’t taught at the sec mod either. I have a sneaking suspicion they got had these lessons at the grammars!!!! Parents definitely could not teach these subjects at home! Well done them though!

Just because you aren't in a selective area doesn't mean there isn't selection, and explains why some places with fewer amenities then you expect have high house prices.

True. DD's comprehensive school with its average of 80% grade 4 and above GCSE grades including maths and English had a lot to do with the demographic of the local population.

One of my friends was one of the first to refuse a grammar school place where she lived and went to a comprehensive in a neighbouring borough.

The joke is that both the area she lived in and the area where she went to school are both wealthy areas with small amounts of social deprivation. So the exam results and university prospects in both areas were the same and decades later it is even more entrenched.

Just because you aren't in a selective area doesn't mean there isn't selection, and explains why some places with fewer amenities then you expect have high house prices.

IME a GS has a set of parents with fat wallets, often happy to contribute to the school by monthly direct debit or otherwise

Yes, this was our experience also @Ahenandherchicks. In fact, we had a direct comparison because DS's grammar school and DD's secondary modern were fund-raising the same target amount at the same time for very similar new buildings. The grammar school raised the funds in about 6 months, while the secondary modern took over 3 years – parental contributions were just of a totally different order because parents at the grammar school wanted their own children to benefit from the new building rather than the next generation…

I love all the boasting about firsts and Cambridge and RG universities which are selective. Yet the parents haven’t wanted tutoring or selection when DC are younger. Yet getting ahead and above others is perfectly acceptable at 18 or later. Double standards! Why not go to the local college along with everyone else if you don’t believe in selection?

(a) is made based on a single test when the child is aged, on average, 10 and a half, a test that kids from lower social classes in most cases do zero prep for, as opposed to continous assessment over entire years and in-house exams;
(b) can't be done on a piecemeal basis, e.g. 'you'll go to the GS for maths but not for PE' in the way that setting decisions are;
(c) can't, without huge disruption, reflect the many cases where kids' progress picks up, or stalls, in their early/mid teens.

Not ever setting would be pretty much a nonsense. An all-or-nothing one off cut based on a single test taken at aged 10 and a half

I found this article interesting
www.theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/28/john-bercow-ive-changed-my-mind-grammar-schools-must-go

2 of mine are at grammar and two in comp.
The 2 at grammar are differently bright, not just flat out brighter. Our (grammar area, not superselective) 11+ selects for high speed problem solving and calculation and has a decidedly mathematical bias.

Grammars don't cream off the top 35 percent in a grammar area. They cream off mathematicians and all-rounders. They definitely miss highly creative types or linguists who don't also excel at maths. My two "11+ failures" are creative, sociable types doing very well at the comp. My two 11+ passes are good at maths/physics/computing and much less socially competent.

The 11+ emphatically does not accurately videntify all the "brightest" and cream them off. It ignores artists, creatives, actors, linguists, musicians and favours fast thinkers, decent spatial awareness and those good at maths.

If they really wanted the top 30 percent they would be taking the 5 percent best at maths, the 5 percent best at languages, the 5 percent best sportspeople, etc.