to really regret the whole grammar school thing.

[newrecruit]

DS1 is in year 4 (DS2 in year 1).

I went to a girls grammar school and loved it. So when we moved out of London one of the reasons we chose this area was the schools. I don't think we are super selective (don't quite know what that means)

However, I was explaining the schools to him this morning as we drove past one and had an impending feeling of doom.

He's bright but can't be arsed. Resists pushing and I am against tutor on principal. I don't think he'd suit an all boys school.

What have I done! We should have just moved to a comprehensive area with a decent intake.

Some parents are already talking about tutors and its 2 years away. I want to hit them quite hard.

Please pile in and tell me to get a grip.

Hak they get better results than they do in a comp. And top results open the doors to top unis and jobs and the country needs highly qualified people to do a lot of those very skilled jobs.

On a micro level, and bearing in mind this is a super selective not a Kent type grammar, my DC would never in a million years have achieved the GCSE and A level results that they have in any of our nearest comps, because it's only once in a blue moon that a DC in those comps get similar results.

Absolutely nobody prefers the building 75% end up in!

'Absolutely nobody' is quite a bold statement. Many people might be happy with the building that they end up in. Not everybody wants to be in a grammar school building. Many people prefer other options. Some people really couldn't give a shit what building they are in and some people would rather be in no building that provides education at all.

The thing is that half to two thirds (depending on where you are) of what you need to pass the 11+ is completely useless for any purpose except passing the 11+

By your reckoning only a third, in my area - 3 papers: Maths, English, VR. However, even VR and NVR need skills which I don't think are completely useless in educational terms.

"Hak they get better results than they do in a comp. And top results open the doors to top unis and jobs and the country needs highly qualified people to do a lot of those very skilled jobs."

Only very very slightly better. But the difference is barely statistically significant. And those who aren't at the grammars do slightly worse. Doesn't it matter whether the people who do the slightly less skilled jobs get the qualifications they need?

" because it's only once in a blue moon that a DC in those comps get similar results."

If your son is at a superselective, then presumably it's only once in a blue moon that the local comprehensive gets a child like him...........

Can anyone tell me why the top set children need to be educated in a separate building to everyone else?

Here's my reason- at my comp, there was a lot of low level constant bad behaviour and disruption which made me feel very stressed and I only started to relax in school once in streams where the behaviour was better (not perfect, just not completely disruptive). Plus, at breaktimes and dinner times, there was a huge amount of bullying of the 'clever' children (often not that clever) who were perceived as 'posh' (even though again, not posh), coupled with a lot of minor violence pushing, shouting, poking people with compasses, coupled with a very anti-intellectual attitude, so people who tried to do well were called names/picked on. I didn't fare so badly, as my own tutor group was mixed and nice and the above was manageable. My best friend was bullied, very badly, her entire life at school by low achieving girls (no idea why they were low achieving nothing intrinsic that I could see) who were trying to raise their own social status by being 'better' (better in a physical and emotionally dominating way) than the children in the top streams. They made her life, and the life of her 'posh' friend a misery.

I am absolutely sure there are comps out there now which aren't like that, and also some with amazing results esp. in London which has had a lot of resources poured into it. Sadly, the recent experience in my own area of my friends' children at comps has confirmed my own experience that little has changed, that it isn't a supportive atmosphere for academic success, some of my friends children have come out with lower grades than seemed likely from their potential and that schemes and clubs like DoE or choir are poorly attended- it's seen as swotty to do so.

I also know at least two teachers who have left local comps recently to teach at grammars because of the behavioural issues. Perhaps they are also wrong, even though they are in those classrooms day in day out?

I am not at all against comps in principle, one of mine may well go to one, but if their experience starts to turn out like mine, they will be out of there. I'd rather home school than put a boffiny child through a rough comp (I don't live in a well-off area so the local schools are on the rougher side).

Absolutely nobody prefers the building 75% end up in!

Really

REally ?

Many posters disagree, whilst they may not like the GS system, there are arguments for normal Comps and so on, and most of them are brilliant schools.

The do tackle disruptive students and they are able to educate children of many abilities and talents.

"Many posters disagree, whilst they may not like the GS system, there are arguments for normal Comps and so on, and most of them are brilliant schools"

Where there is a grammar school there is no "normal comprehensive"

Can anyone tell me why the top set children need to be educated in a separate building to everyone else?

I would have bloody loved to be separated from those who don't want to be there and who call you a swot if you demonstrate effort and enthusiasm. Unfortunately some of those kids were also in the top set. Clever but over-confident and disruptive.

"hair you have described, almost verbatim at times, the attitudes and behaviours I witnessed working as a TA and Cover Supervisor in comprehensives about 7 years ago."

I am still unsure about how you witnessed this. Surely as a TA you would have been with one group or another- you would have seen very little interaction between the sets?

The thing is that half to two thirds (depending on where you are) of what you need to pass the 11+ is completely useless for any purpose except passing the 11+. So would be a complete waste of primary school time for any except the ones that pass. So 75% would have spent a significant chunk of time doing something which brings them no benefit at all

As far as I am aware, 11+ is about:

• reading good literature, esp older books with flowery language eg Treasure Island, Gerald Durrel, Frances Hodgson Burnett.

• wide and varied reading.

• knowing synonyms and the other one

• excellent spelling
• excellent grammar

• ability to skim read passages quickly and pick out relevant parts

• following sequences/ patterns

• knowing lots of Maths and having confident grasp of numbers

Hak, so you think NONE of the above could possibly benefit a child in anway?

oh and good exam technique too.

LaQueen I actually couldn't care two hoots about the school. What I dislike is you quoting "facts" and telling everyone how wonderful it is, when I know it not to be true.

FWIW you did post that one in two girls get all A*s and As in their GCSEs, on 05/09/14! That is completely untrue, it is not even a third!

"Hak, so you think NONE of the above could possibly benefit a child in anway? "

No, I didn't say "none" I said half to two thirds depending on where you live.

Where there is a grammar school there is no "normal comprehensive"

I mean the alternative whatever it is.

Are you just trying to write off all other schools, are you really such a grammar fan?

the majority of DC in this country go to bog standard schools and do very well.

sure they could do better, but thats true of everything.

I personally think at state level, more could be done to help students with no home encouragement.

The thing is that half to two thirds (depending on where you are) of what you need to pass the 11+ is completely useless for any purpose except passing the 11+. So would be a complete waste of primary school time for any except the ones that pass. So 75% would have spent a significant chunk of time doing something which brings them no benefit at all

No Hak ^ this is what you said, your implying that children who practice for the 11+ but dont get it have wasted their time.

I disagree, I think all of it would boost a childs knowledge and learning exam technique is also an excellent lesson.

Hak it's all my sons and all my daughters not a single son and the super selective barely impinges on the 'local' comps. Not a single comp in the county or surrounding counties throws up kids with the same sort of results as my DCs and their peers except in a blue moon. These kids do better at the grammar. That's why grammars are good, for that top few %.

LaQueen I actually couldn't care two hoots about the school

But Fairy, neither do we!

Using the Royal we there, presuming that no one elses about a school they know nothing about, somewhere in the UK that may have x % of A or perhaps X.5 %

Add sexual assault - anything from twanging bras to grabbing breasts/bum on the bus, and you have described my school environment exactly hairtoday. 1500 pupils, anonymous, very little individual attention, lack of pastoral care, some teachers who didn't even seem to like children however hard you worked in their lessons...it was a fucking zoo.

I think (hope) schools in general are a lot better but knowing some of the kids (moreover their parents) who go to the local academy, and the searing behaviour and discipline issues the failing boys' school had before it merged with the 'good' girls one, and that the little scrote from up the road who was already bullying DD1 in primary school last year is likely to go...needless to say we are favouring the single sex grammars at the moment.

So no comprehensive school in your county or the surrounding counties has any children getting spectacular results? How very odd.

Could it by any chance be that all the children who might get spectacular results are in the grammar school?

I just mean the alternative whatever it is

Maybe find out? Because this is a real problem with the whole discussion.

For as long as the pro-grammar brigade conflate the secondary modern where those who fail the test go, with a 'normal comprehensive', it's hopeless. This confusion means that expectations of sec mods are unfair, and it also means that people think that a comprehensive school, which you get in a comprehensive area, and which has a comprehensive intake, is the same thing as a secondary modern school in a grammar: full of children who didn't make a cut that actually isn't there in a comprehensive area.

For as long as the pro-grammar brigade conflate the secondary modern where those who fail the test go, with a 'normal comprehensive', it's hopeless. This confusion means that expectations of sec mods are unfair, and it also means that people think that a comprehensive school, which you get in a comprehensive area, and which has a comprehensive intake, is the same thing as a secondary modern school in a grammar: full of children who didn't make a cut that actually isn't there in a comprehensive area.

I think some people are remembering their own school experiences in a comp in a non-selective schools area. While you hope things have got considerably better, you can't blame people for wanting a better experience of school for their kids than they had themselves.