To ditch the idea of Grammar as DD isn't good at maths?

[ICameOnTheJitney]

despite the fact that she's extremely good at literacy? She's in year 5 and one of the youngest but just flew through a test paper for verbal reasoning in literacy but the maths made her go

I COULD get a tutor couldn't I....she's "ok" in maths but finds it a struggle...her grade is as expected for her age....but she'd need a BIG leap in the coming year.

Considering we have excellent state secondarys here shall I just forget Grammar or put her through a year's worth of hothousing?

In kent, which, I think is the largest fully selective LEA, primary schools are specifically forbidden to provide any preparation. for the 11+, apart from a couple of practice papers.

Why?

Exactly all schools have different things they excel in.

Reading this, I am so so glad there are no grammars around here. All this talk of 17 hours of tutoring a week and 6 hours in holidays is awful :(

Anyway....

"Oxbridge are trying to attract more kids from state comps,the top unis were vying for my friends comp educated son."

Presumably because he had good predicted A levels? I don't think universities are in competition for good applicants are they? "What sort of offer did you get from Exeter? AAB? oh, I'm sure we can do better than that- how about ABB?" "Oh, you're from an comprehensive? 3 Bs is the death- can't say fairer than that, can I?"

No but surely the point is these kids will get those grades wherever they go.Not sure how such kids missing out on a place at grammar are being wronged.

Bucks doesn't allow schools to prepare either, so Kent isn't unusual.

Anything less than top marks isn't good enough for my son(god only knows where he gets it from because it isn't me).He will go that extra mile wherever he goes.

You only have to listen to Desert Island Discs to hear how failing the 11+ affects people.

Why have a system that divides 10 year olds up into successes and failures when all the children could all be at the same school with the same opportunities, not separated off 25/75 at the end of primary.....

If a child can be tutored to pass an exam to a highly selective school he can also be taught to a high level and won't struggle. Tutored kids still have to apply their knowledge during the exam, they don't just learn the answers by heart, that's why some tutored kids still fail.

If a child can be tutored to pass an exam to a highly selective school he can also be taught to a high level and won't struggle.

I think there is a big difference between one to one tutoring and learning in a classroom environment with 29 others and struggling to get teacher time. That's why tutors make so much money out of tutoring pupils who are at 'highly selective' schools.

"Schools cannot successfully be all things to all children, regardless of ability."

So are you saying that children are only educated successfully in areas which have grammar schools?

And what happens to those children in those parts of the country that do not have grammar schools?

And what happens to those children in those parts of the country that do not have grammar schools?

I think what you actually mean is "that do not have decent schools". A good comprehensive can be just as good as a grammar or even an independent.

Plenty of children who don't get to go to grammar schools (or for that matter, have a private education) go on to do FE! While the proportion of pupils from independent and state selective schools attending top universities is greater than the proportion of pupils from comprehensives, students from comprehensive schools are likely to achieve higher class degrees at university than independent and grammar school students with similar A-levels and GCSE results.

Sutton Trust.

I honestly don't understand why you think a grammar school is better than the top set of a comprehensive. Apart from your specific point about maths. And I honestly don't think anyone would believe that the selective system is worth perpetuating, or even extending, just so that a few kids could do GCSE maths in year 7. In what other ways does the system benefit the minority who go to grammar, and the majority who don't?

DD goes to an excellent State Comp, Y8. Two boys in her year got their GCSE Maths last year. One of them plays two instruments and is an all-round prodigy! The other's dad plans for his son to become an actuary. A boy in the year ahead of her also did GCSE Maths in Y7.

No Grammar School required.

Absolutely, olgaga. And no doors closed to anyone based on a test taken when you're 10. Nobody saying "Of course you can't do X- that's for grammar school pupils"

I think people are biased towards the schools their DC attend. But I still think DSs grammar offers more opportunities than the excellent comp in our area. And the kids are much better behaved at DSs school...

The vast majority in our year 11 went on to do A Levels. Almost all of us went on to FE. That was a state comp.

Curlew you're going round in circles now

That's the point! However if you tell kids "That's it, you've failed, you have no hope, the door to learning is closed to you" then sadly they might believe you and blame it all on "THE SYSTEM".