To think that condemming the grammar school system , because it cannot give 100% of pupils a brilliant education is wrong.

[sunshield]

I was watching the 'Secret life of the Grammar School' on BBC four last night and it occurred to me that the majority were successful because of a grammar school education. The debate on grammar schools is centred around the 75% or so who don't pass. The ideology expressed from many, is that if 100% of children can't get a highly academic education either though ability or resources than no one should have the chance. This is surely wrong and ultimately does not do the less academic any favours yet it significantly reduces the chances for bright children, who may need a structured and highly 'disciplined' environment to achieve.

I know many people on this site will disagree with this post and will cite the excellent 'comprehensives' their children attend. The truth is the best comprehensive schools are 'covert' grammar schools operating a more 'acceptable' form of selection .

The grammar school system needs to be applauded for its contribution to the United kingdom from politics , commerce to science and engineering . There is no part of life in the UK that has not been influenced or improved by grammar school educated people.

However, if you read the constant 'diatribes' of people on the left you would believe that grammar schools are worse than 'public schools' in their effect on society. Grammar schools have provided the backbone to society for over 70 years. I believe that it is morally wrong to prevent academic children from all sectors of society a 'grammar ' education just on the basis of it not being available to all.

I think that tests for admission to the best schools are fairer than selection by postcode.

In my area the only way to reliablely get a child into a good state school is to break a window!

whoregasm I think too it can also work the other way, in that some people use intelligence to bolster a very average memory recall. Eg a child never learning the times tables but mentally calculating them at a speed which implies they've remembered them. Or forming a mental pattern ( mathematical/ linguistic/ rhythmical/ whatever else) to remember a different set of facts. Plus none direct practice, eg the child that reads a lot not learning that weeks spelling words but nevertheless getting full marks because they've seen them enough before to know what they should look like spelt correctly. And of course the huge one for memory is interest in the subject itself.
I agree too regarding selection by postcode, that allows even less chance of a fair system

I seriously doubt whether pp's score of 68 is valid. 80 used to be the cut-off for mainstream ed. Later reduced, so I taught someone with an IQ of 70. It wasn't just literacy skills. She found it v difficult to think straight and retain anything.

Either pp needs a retest or she has a v spiky profile. One of my dgcs is in the top 2% for VR and the bottom 2% for NVR. Taught himself to read before he went to school, miles ahead in literacy and intellectual curiosity. Can remember whole sentences of text without trying. The low NVR only seems to show up in odd things like not being able to turn his collar down and asking for a list of instructions on how to do it! But the Ed Psych said she couldn't give an IQ score, because it would be so misleading.

When I did my PGCE, we were told that after 3 goes at an IQ test, scores would not rise, which seems to make a mockery of years spent having extra tuition. Has something changed? I know one of the local super-selectives has altered its entrance exam because they were unhappy with the selection process.

not read T.

whatever system is in place is going to be wrong for people, we cant provide schooling for every need, I do not care a jot what anyone says, its just not possible and certainly not in a comp school either.

some dc are academic and its right there should be a soley academic option open to them.

I wish there were state funded arts schools too, for dc who like acting and drama to go too etc.

also need good tech colleges.

all needs need covering but to stop grammars is ridiculous as its a need that needs covering and it is being - covered.

sunshield can you tell me what condition you have please beacuse I have same issues as you.

Thymeout I don't suppose you believe everything taught on a pgce course.

The brain is organic and lots of things can affect performance on a temporary basis. People can improve their performance on an IQ test with simple things like a good night sleep, diet and intelluctual simulation. For example learning a musical instrument improves working memory and concentration skills. Keeping the mind active in old age can reduce the risk of dementia.

"all needs need covering but to stop grammars is ridiculous as its a need that needs covering and it is being - covered."

You do realise that there are only 160-odd grammar schools, don't you? Educating 5% of the secondary school population. What do you think happens to all the others?

Wanna there is the Brit School, state funded school for those into singing dancing and drama

Wanna there is the Brit School, state funded school for those into singing dancing and drama

And the Ormiston Academy in Birmingham. And the funding schemes for Chethams, Purcell School and so on.

There is not enough of these specialist schools and the average working class child's family has no idea of how to apply to such a school.

I don't think there can be any doubt that iq test results don't always fairly represent intelligence, there's too many outside factors. The most intelligent person I ever met would have showed up as being well below the minimum for mainstream schooling despite the fact they were so far within the genius bracket they were beyond any mainstream school. Purely because of dyslexia, and I'm sure there are hundreds of other reasons why doing a bog standard iq test might not always give the true result

Wannashed. My conditions meet the criteria of DSM-5 ICD 10

Due to difficulties in:

1. Social communication (LOL)

1. Social interaction

3.Flexibility of thought

1. Unusual Sensory Experience

1. Difficulties with Reading

1. Visual Disturbance

1. Fine and Gross Motor Coordination Difficulties.

I recently had a needs assessment for my Open University Degree and was awarded Dragon software Text Help and A learning Mentor.

It came out with my Dyslexia test Diagnostic Assessment Report that I had significant differences in different areas,. This for example found that my my silent reading was 187 words a minute which is 75% of the speed expected for 1st or second year undergraduates.

The assessment also found my verbal ability was very high at 120+ and this has helped me develop cognitive skills enabling coping strategies to get through. The test found i was very poor at blending words 55 and phonological awareness of 52 is very low.

The conclusion is it is impossible to give a conclusive IQ score as the tests do not correspond with each other and discredit each other. This is typical in tests for High function Autism .

The verbal ability score is what caused my mother to think it was just "laziness" rather than disabilities that impinged on my learning and academic achievement.

A healthy child with a stable background is obviously going to have an advantage. But what difference does 2 yrs of doing IQ tests with a tutor actually achieve? Speed? Concentration? Has anyone measured it? Parents obviously think it works, but is that just because they get caught up the lemming-like rush to tutor?

Btw there was a Penguin by Eysenck on IQ. Said the same thing as my PGCE tutors. But there's sure to have been more recent research.

Op's cuttings from NSW are interesting, with varying views on whether tutoring influences results.

I think the test itself is a v blunt instrument. Just on personal experience I'd guess there's a 10% overlap between bottom grammar and top modern.

I don't think that doing lots of IQ tests on their own helps a child to get better, but there are ways of improving working memory, spatical awareness, language skills which are tested by IQ tests. For example if your child does lots of mechano then their spatical awareness will improve. If verbal ablity cannot be improved with hard work then schools and the NHS would not employ speech and language therapists.

I suspect that going to a tutor will give a child an extra 10%. It is not enough to make a less able child pass, but would make a difference on a test where you need 90% to achieve a place. Practice and familarity with the format helps children get that extra few marks.

Btw there was a Penguin by Eysenck on IQ

In an argument about IQ testing, "Eysenck says..." is rarely a profitable line to pursue. I don't think there's any serious doubt that even if the man himself was not a racist, much of his work was. I would be surprised if your PGCE tutors would make some of his arguments such as, for example, African Americans being intellectually deficient because slavery had the effect of selecting evolutionarily against intellect.

We had a tutor for Y 5 for DS. 45 minutes per week, plus homework. At the beginning, this was a few pages of Bond books, towards the end it was GL Assessment and Letts practice papers.

In terms of what value the tutor added - for me, loads, because DS doesn't behave well for me but did for the tutor, because I wanted someone else to do the legwork of knowing where DS was at, what he needed more work on, what papers to source etc.

Everything the tutor did however, an involved and patient parent could do. It's not a necessity but a luxury, IMO.

But then DS should have passed anyway, he's bright, top table for everything since Reception etc. But there's no second chance in Kent. He's also very stressy so the tutor helped calm him by giving him loads of relevant practice so there were no surprises on the day. And this, the much vaunted Kent "tutor proof test" of 2014.

It's easy to poke fun at the "lemming like rush to tutor" but it's a very strong pull, if you have an able child, not much time yourself, some spare cash (but not enough for private education ) and crap secondary moderns as alternatives. The bar is raised by people using tutors, or tutoring themselves so not to do it, when there is one chance, is a big risk that many aren't prepared to take.

It was worth every single penny to us, and I'd definitely do the same again in the same circumstances.

Ah now you see I have a problem with music being a selection. It's mainly wealthy families where music lessons take place and kids have instruments to practise. I think that is discriminatory.

Camel

I know the academies that select 10 or 15% on musical aptitude use a test that supposedly measures raw musical potential and doesn't advantage the previously musically trained. I have wondered myself how true that is.

Similarly, tests for linguistic ability apparently use a nonsense language so as to favour no-one. I read somewhere (possibly MN, in fact) that in past times tests in Swedish were often used on the assumption that no child would have any familiarity with that. Not an assumption that works in the modern UK, of course.

It would be fascinating to know more about the testing and how rigorously "anti-cultural-bias" the various tests could be.

The three people I know personally who have (measured and known to me) IQs of 160-185 have no particular strengths in Art or Music, for example.

Correlation does not mean that every sample will show the same tendency

I wasn't saying that is a standard pattern Gemauve I was just pointing out that it was possibe to be very strong academically and NOT creatively gifted. (In refutation of the assertion that the 'elephant in the room' is that a child strong in one area will be strong in the others).

All rounders also exist as well, of course. And everything in between.

Although I've consistently said I disagree with tutoring, it's the fact that many don't feel they have a choice, not that I judge everyone who does. As a parent I'd do it too without a second thought if I felt it evened things up for my child. I just believe it would be fairer all round if all kids could be sat down on entrance day and judged on ability and not exam preparation.

Gemauve. It is clear from "Eysenck's " personality index , that he was linking Extraversion ETC. to sensation seeking and genes . It could also be said he linked conditioning and "culture" identity to behaviour, which could mean he was saying different cultures are more inteligent or more likely to commit crimes or be involved in anti social disorder.

This was questioned by the Cambridge Study in Delinquent behaviour. This found behaviour was not due to genes or culture and identity but mostly due to life chances or the part the parents paid in the upbringing of the child.

he was saying different cultures are more inteligent or more likely to commit crimes or be involved in anti social disorder.

Which is straightforward racism dressed up in longer words.

This found behaviour was not due to genes or culture and identity but mostly due to life chances or the part the parents paid in the upbringing of the child.

Quite.

Maggie

My dd is going to attend a specialist music school and it is true what is said.
they don't audition on grades passed but potential to be a musician, although some do go onto do other things.
We aren't rich and fees are paid according to income.
You can be the poorest family having never taken any formal music lessons or exams and be offered a place.
They really are looking for potential and the level they expect is approx gr5 distinction, but that is just the level. they have separate tests for those who haven't gone down the exam route and obviously no scales either.
The school is great and dd is really looking forward to having such a great opportunity that certainly would be denied her in the local state schools here, which are really not very good at all.

I went to a local grammar school because I passed the 11+. There was no such thing as tutoring and the primary school didn't actually encourage children to go to the Grammar school because it was out of catchment. Overall the parents of only 11 children in our year group asked about their children doing the 11+, my parents among them and we were given practice test papers over two Saturdays prior to the main test. That was it.

You didn't have to have money to get in and it was really hard work once you were there.

These days the same school has a very small percentage of children who are don't have 'wealthy' parents. All children are tutored and it is just completely wrong. Every child should be given the opportunity to go to a grammar school if they want to and have the ability, without being tutored.

The Headmaster of the local Boys Grammar school recently said that they can tell in the first few weeks of school which children were tutored. He said that he hoped the parents were happy to continue paying for tutors throughout their time at the school because they wouldn't cope otherwise because they don't have the natural ability.

As for the Girls grammar, the exam results are no higher than that of the local comprehensive so I've already made the decision not to send my DD there, even if she does end up having the ability.

Congratulations to your DD morethan

If only there were those opportunities for many more DC.

Maggie

I know, it would be so good to see more.
I'd like schools like this for all subjects, the kids could specialise in their talent and have other classes just the same.
The schools could attract famous people and organisations in that particular field to donate. There could be bequests and sponsorship for those who couldn't normally afford fees.
It has been proven to work with Music, Dance and Sport, so why not Maths, Computers, Science, History etc.