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.

"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"

How many children like your dc's and your dc's peers do the surrounding comps take?

In my area the super selectives and the private schools hoover up the vast majority of children who are achieving at the highest levels at the end of primary.

My dc's go to a very ordinary state primary. In my ds 2's class the top table consists of 5 children. Three of the children on this table are achieving at around 2 sub levels higher than the other two. One of these children is leaving to go to a highly academic private girl's school, one is being tutored for the 10+ (for a private boys school) and one is aiming for a place at the super selective in a neighbouring borough.

This is a pattern we see all the time at my dc's school - the two or three children in each year who are achieving at the highest levels don't go to the local comps. They go to the nearest private schools or super selectives.

And then people like you point at what amazing results they get and say - the grammars get MUCH better results for bright children. To which the answer is - of course they bloody do. Because they get the brightest children to start with. You'd be a bit worried if they weren't getting better results than the top sets in the 'comprehensives' nearby.

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

The cut off and competition for the 11+ is very high.

Where are the DC going who missed it by a whisker?

What about the DC who never even tried to take it but could have done.

Hak are you saying that G skim off all children, all of them who have the potential to do well?

the two or three children in each year who are achieving at the highest levels don't go to the local comps

so the two or three in your ordinary state primary are not increasing top table numbers.....there is a teeny amount of them, and that teeny amount you think should stay in ordinary school to go to then be in a teeny top table in the comp or secondary?

why. why do you think leaving them would benefit anyone else?

they would be in a stream or something in a bog school?

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?

Hak, you seem to be defending bog schools but at the same time, earlier on said 75% of parents who do not get into G do not like the alternative, but you say yourself, the difference is negligible.

"I think some people are remembering their own school experiences in a comp in a non-selective schools area."

I went to the shittest private school. Two shit private schools. Just because my experiences were poor - bad teaching, awful pastoral care - I don't assume that all private schools are the same, and that the way private schools are run hasn't changed in 30 years. Why can't people do the same with comprehensives?

And why can't they acknowledge that schools which take more than their fair share of difficult to teach children, and fewer than their fair share of children who are highly motivated are more difficult places to teach and to learn?

Why does the right of clever children not to have their education disrupted trump the right of others to have to learn in institutions where there aren't disproportionate numbers of difficult to teach children?

Maybe find out?

nit I mean whatever the posters alternative is, I couldn't possible find out each precise option each poster has

Mini

In my area the super selectives and the private schools hoover up the vast majority of children who are achieving at the highest levels at the end of primary*

Then you say the two or three children in each year who are achieving at the highest levels don't go to the local comps.

The vast majority are the ones who are average. Not the two or one in your top sets.

.

"so the two or three in your ordinary state primary are not increasing top table numbers.....there is a teeny amount of them, and that teeny amount you think should stay in ordinary school to go to then be in a teeny top table in the comp or secondary? "

Because in a class of 25 high achieving children in a top set in a comprehensive, having two or three very, very high flying children raises the achievement and the pace of learning for the rest - mixed ability teaching in circumstances like this, when it is done well, is better for the majority.

I know what a difference it made to my learning having one or two extremely clever and interesting individuals on my degree course, and on my A level course - it pushes the pace of learning. Children learn a lot from each other - they're not simply little vessels for the teacher to pour knowledge into. Teaching and learning is often a group conversation: it helps to have the full range of voices heard.

I think DS will thrive wherever he ends up. My memory of my comprehensive school is all good. I was in the top set for everything and didn't mix with the lower sets for anything, so I'm not sure how comprehensively inclusive one could say it was. Just because you;re in the same building doesn't mean there's going to be mixing between the sets. However, now we have chosen to live in an area, for various reasons, where the grammar school system operates. DS is v bright. He's sporty, he works hard and, if possible, I want to give him the opportunity to go to a school where he is more likely to come out with higher grades, enabling him to to to a good uni, therefore opening the door to better jobs. That school is the grammar school, not the Upper school. I am happy with that decision, whether it's a popular one or not.

Why does the right of clever children not to have their education disrupted trump the right of others to have to learn in institutions where there aren't disproportionate numbers of difficult to teach children?

So have comps changed or not. Are they disruptive hell holes or not.

Or are some schools, bad.

How many clever children are still going to bog schools.

How many parents couldn't care less about 11+ even though they do care about their child's education? How many children miss the exam by a whisker and go to their bog school after all?

How many disruptive pupils does it take to ruin a lesson?

If you think the alternative school is not good enough for your DC why is your ire not directed at that school, why is it directed at the Grammar?

Why are you not railing against the problems in your bog school.

TBH no matter how bad the catchment is, we do know of schools who have been turned around, and are doing well, it is possible.

A Lambeth school excelling against the odds

4 March 2013

A south London school that was once famous for all the wrong reasons has become the second school in the capital to be graded as outstanding in every area by OfSTED, since the new harder inspection process was introduced in September 2012.

Lambeth’s Lilian Baylis Technology School, part of the RSA’s family of schools, is the only secondary school in the borough to have been graded as outstanding for achievement, teaching, behaviour and leadership.

Once considered a sink school, Lilian Baylis has been transformed over the last 10 years and now joins the elite 5% of secondary schools nationally to be graded as outstanding in all areas.

The head teacher, Gary Phillips was commended by Ofsted for his relentless focus on improvement, underpinned by a belief that is shared by staff, students and governors at the school that all students, irrespective of their circumstances, are entitled to the best possible education.

having two or three very, very high flying children raises the achievement and the pace of learning for the rest

If only one or two are pushing up the grades then thats false something or other.

Its not a true reflection of the class,

How does it pace learning, when those one or two top achieving pupils are seperated onto top tables

I know what a difference it made to my learning having one or two extremely clever and interesting individuals on my degree course, and on my A level course - it pushes the pace of learning. Children learn a lot from each other - they're not simply little vessels for the teacher to pour knowledge into. Teaching and learning is often a group conversation: it helps to have the full range of voices heard.

I think this is the point. And it goes for the clever kids as well, the true outliers. They also need learning situations where their peers inspire and motivate them. It's not good for them to always be the clever one. Having other kids around who "give them run for their money," helps them to expand their horizons and keep a good pace too.

Correct Hak. The 10A type thing or even the 7A type thing only happens once in a blue moon. And the grammar doesn't have the capacity to remove all the bright kids, it gets kids from miles away. There's more to it than your obvious explanation.

Completely agree Holiday. Why on earth shouldn't these kids reach their potential if teaching them separately is what works best?

beyondrepair but the right of others to have to learn in institutions where there aren't disproportionate numbers of difficult to teach children? does not refer to comprehensives. It refers, in the context of the post in which it was made to secondary moderns in selective areas. Which are not the same as comprehensives.

When I said 'find out', I meant find out what a comprehensive school is.

I wouldn't personally equate 'difficult to teach' with 'didn't pass the 11+', but that is obviously the situation the poster is talking about: schools where the highest achieving pupils have been removed. Which can't be very pleasant for those left.

I can only refer again to the failing Lambeth school mentioned above, failing and now in top 5% in the country.

direct ire at the failing schools. I imagine pupils had been creamed away from the failing lambeth school and its success now wasnt due to stopping a handful of children from going elsewhere?

There are loads of kids who miss by a whisker for this school BeyondRepair. The overwhelming majority end up in the comps: we aren't well served by private schools, unless the parents are prepared to travel for miles. Also, we aren't a rich area, so private school is very much a minority thing.

Great, the lambeth school - yes of course that is a really encouraging story, and I hope people do take heart from the fact that dedication and a brilliant head and resources and much effort all round really can turn a school around. That's great.

I don't really see why it's an argument that separating children by test result at 11 is a good thing, though.

So when you were supervising a class in DT or whatever, where the classes weren't set, there'd be fights. And they'd all be between children of sets at the opposite ends of spectrum, and they'd all be because the children in lower sets were resenting (rather than lauding) the others?

'Domestic science double lesson' - I've not heard either of those terms since I was at school!

"Hak, you seem to be defending bog schools but at the same time, earlier on said 75% of parents who do not get into G do not like the alternative, but you say yourself, the difference is negligible."

Sorry- before I reply, what is a "bog" school? I get the feeling it's a usage I'm not going to like........

Bog - bog standard - nothing special. I assume?

So mini seems to be saying that the DC who could go to super selective school, shouldn't because it's better for the remaining children to have super clever people in the class?

Seriously?

And what about those kids themselves? Don't they get anyone to do that for them?

Interesting that LaQueen could always tell that the hassle was started by the lower set people.............

Is that just because top set people never start hassle?