"I could never send my dcs to grammar school....

[winkywinkola]

...because I think it's unfair on all those children who can't get in because they couldn't afford tutoring for 11+. But I will send them to prep and boarding school."

I was a bit perplexed to hear this from a mum at the school gate. Aibu?

Confucious, you could be describing the pupils at my DCs' comp. DS plays county level music, many of his contemporaries play county level sport, and DD and several of her friends compete nationally in their area of interest.

(DS isn't alone in his music making, either - the orchestra for their school production is almost wholly county-level musicians from selective bands / orchestras, and a LOT of pupils attend e.g. county music centres)

And ds does another activity to quite a high level and the same school lets him have time off when necessary.

The ignorance about "ordinary schools" on here is often breathtaking!

No the ignorance you are showing is outstanding. I am referring to the local comps. As in local to me. Here. Not near you. Here.

" Yes, of course there are highly academic children at comprehensives...just not very many of them? "

that's so dismissive.

Oh, so you are making a specific comment about one local school. OK. Not sure how it contributes to the discussion, but that's fine.

But Confucious, as your school is a grammar school, they are not comps. they are secondary moderns, and thus not comparable to true comps elsewhere in the country (DCs' comp is technically a secondary modern, but the % removed by the few grammars is fairly small so it does have a largely comprehensive intake, but if i was being truly accurate I would describe it as a secondary modern in a partially selective county).

Any grammar / comprehensive debate is marred by this basic misunderstanding - by definition, nobody who has a child in a grammar school knows what a genuine comprehensive really looks like, because by definition there are none in the vicinity of a grammar school. Equally if those of us who have experience of true comprehensives say 'but our comprehensive is like this', we cannot communicate how this is different from your local secondary moderns.

And ALL attainment, in all spheres, has to be put into context. Our local grammar has at least 30% of children who came through private primary schools, and almost 0 Pupil premium children, so the opportunities available to its children compared to the local secondary modern in a large run down housing estate are as much about parental money for sports clubs, coaching, equipment, music lessons, transport to concerts etc as they are about the school itself.

anyway it really pisses me off that people talk about 'highly academic' children (ie ones who are good at IQ tests) as though they were the only ones who add value to a school.
Don't the other ones matter then?

I find it astonishing that supposedly intelligent and well educated people still need to have all this explained to them.

I don't live in a grammar area and so only take a passing interest in grammar schools really. But even I, with my comprehensive school education and fairly average degree, understands the difference between a super selective grammar, a bog standard grammar, a secondary modern and a comprehensive school. And perhaps its snotty of me but I cannot help but laugh when people hold up the great academic results achieved by grammar schools as proof that they are so marvellous. Given the academic profile of all of their pupils at age 11, it would be a national scandal if their results were not outstanding!

And why don't people understand the value added thing? It's not tricky is it?

"Given the academic profile of all of their pupils at age 11, it would be a national scandal if their results were not outstanding!"

This.

And people also compare grammar school results with comprehensive school results, citing them as proof that grammar schools are better. Forgetting that comprehensive schools are also educating the 75% who wouldn't get into the grammar school. And the children with special educational needs, some of whom will not get stellar GCSEs. And children from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom will need lots of extra support to achieve their potential.

"And people also compare grammar school results with comprehensive school results, citing them as proof that grammar schools are better. Forgetting that comprehensive schools are also educating the 75% who wouldn't get into the grammar school. And the children with special educational needs, some of whom will not get stellar GCSEs. And children from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom will need lots of extra support to achieve their potential."

Yes, and all of that is so bleedin' obvious and you wonder WHY it hasn't occurred to them without having to have it pointed out!

It's not true to say that a motivated pupil would get the same grades at any school, though, because in the super selective grammar they'd be entered for more subjects.

For example, my highly selective (private) senior school had everyone taking ten GCSEs minimum in a city where the state schools capped at eight. A pupil capable of 10 A* can't get them in a school that offers only eight.

Similarly, I took five A Levels plus General Studies and STEP papers. The local sixth form college, which regularly tops the list for non-grammar state schools, offered maximum four.

I would categorically not have got the same grades at a different school because I couldn't have sat the papers except as a private candidate and the difficulty of doing so untaught would have been beyond me.

We live in a comprehensive LA that borders a grammar LA. There is a lot of movement across the border at 8 am! Our pfb is now eight and so we are looking at our options. What we'd do ideologically and what the best choice would be for him may well be at odds. Glad I'm not an NO.

Fucking phone. MP.

Which of these is the better school?

School A: only high ability children, added value for this group 1039.2

School B: mix of abilities, historically low performing secondary modern in partially grammar area, over 30% below Level 4 on entry, 45% pupil premium. Value added for the low ability group: 1052.5

Yes, the ABSOLUTE GCSE results for School A and School B are poles apart - but a key measure of a school is the progress that its children make from their starting points, and despite their disadvantages.

But MrsH, do those extra GCSEs / A-levels actually make a difference? I sat 12 O-levels, my DBros 8 or 9. I took 4 A levels and 2 S-levels, they took 3 + 1. We all went to Oxbridge, we all have virtually identical degrees. It is the grades you get in those you take, and ensuring the right mix of qualifying subjects that is key - and where i would criticise some non-selective schools is in their lack of knowledge of key subject combinations for highly selective universities.

MrsHathaway, the 'edge effects' of grammars on the stistics for grammar vs non-grammar counties is interesting, so thanks for bringing it up.

As mentioned before, the results for the 'apparent population of children' are, overall, very similar in grammar and non-grammar areas with similar demographics.

However, grammar areas, as MrsHathaway has mentioned, do tend to have a 'magnet' effect for 11+-passing children from surrounding areas. This increases the apparent 'average ability' of children in that county (as the secondary moderns do not have the same pull, the inward movement is heavily biased to the able).

It is interesting that even with this increase in proportion of able children, the results are still not statistically different from a comprehensive county with no 'magnet' schools and thus much smaller 'edge effects'.

"For example, my highly selective (private) senior school had everyone taking ten GCSEs minimum in a city where the state schools capped at eight. A pupil capable of 10 A* can't get them in a school that offers only eight."

Why are 10 As are better than 8 As?

I didn't pass comment on the desirability of the extra grades. I was commenting on the false assertion that a given pupil can achieve the same results in any setting, with enough personal application.

It's definitely better to get 8A* than 10A, I'd say. But for a pupil who can excel at a lot of subjects (some of the league table-topping schools average 13 or more) there are advantages to having more, primarily in keeping options open for post-16.

I can see your point up to a point. If the number of GCSEs is restricted too far, then e.g. someone who has interests in both languages and humanities may not get the chance to do two languages and a humanity as well as the full set of 'basic' subjects.

But equally a very large number may not reflect much more than someone doing e.g. their native language, or a second Maths qualification, rather than genuine extra breadth. Certainly my set include 2xEnglish, 2x Maths, 2x French qualifications, so the number does not indicate genuinely extra subjects.

You've expressed what I meant far better than I did

Because of our system I could do triple science and three languages and double English and Maths (that was the core minimum IIRC) before my options. Those opportunities were really what gave me the leg-up, not the teaching.

Which institutions require 12 Gcses and 4 A levels these days? Surely you're only bothered about that if you have decided your child is going to do medicine at Cambridge (or whatever) when your child is only 11 (or indeed, 8) years old.

My dd will be sitting 10 Gcses at a comprehensive and I fear for what it's going to be like for her next year. Pretty grim, poor girl.

Well there is clearly a skills shortage in the UK as maths, engineering and science vacancies struggle to recruit UK graduates.
There is a reason we need to import so many skills into the country as our schools, state, comp and grammar, don't provide the graduates needed.

Surely that's a case of students not choosing science and engineering subjects? We have so many graduates now, as compared to the 60s, 70s and 80s.

There's hundreds of thousands of unemployed drama and media studies graduates, I would bet.

10A are better than 8A for one simple reason that people seem to forget ... the pupil will have had a broader education. Absolutely you don't need huge numbers of high grade gcses for most uni courses, but eg learning some german or geography is an end in itself not merely a means to an end.

TBH I wish that they could study more subjects not for exam, esp in the sixth form. Learning for the sake of learning, wouldn't that be a radical concept?

One thing that might help the STEM deficit is more single-sex schools because of the paradox that they seem far less prone to the ridiculous stereotype that STEM are for boys. But that's a whole other topic for discussion! As is the undervaluing of science and engineering as professions versus medicine, finance etc (in both monetary and social terms).