"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?

Our secondary modern has 7 sets in most subjects from year 9.

But I really don't get this need to isolate children It's very odd. And it only seems to be clever children that need the isolation- as if their cleverness is somehow fragile and will rub off.

"Our secondary modern has 7 sets in most subjects from year 9"

But that is mainly for the benefit of the lower ability cohort. They are the ones that need the most help, obviously.

They might have 7 sets BR but the actual top set isn't there, is it? It's at the grammar school...

As for angsting about the societal unfairness of isolating the cleverest children in a separate school...

...if a comp is going to hope to replicate effectively meeting every pupils academic needs, they will need to have upwards of 7 sets in every academic subject.

You can't tell me that the pupils stuck in the bottom sets for their entire school careers aren't going to be aware that they are the very lowest, academically? Keeping the top set, or top two sets under the same roof isn't going to magically make the pupils in the bottom sets feel more academic, is it?

Ma, It obviously depends on the subject. Maths is set initially into a 5-layer structure. (A top set, 3 middle sets of decreasing ability, all doubled, and an SEN set, which is very much smaller). This structure then elongates on progression through the school, with 2 more sets being added in later years, and the 'doubles', initially parallel, separating slightly.

GCSE music, on the other hand, just has 2 parallel classes, because of the number of people taking the subject, and up to GCSE is taught in mixed ability form groups, as is drama. All other subjects start as form groups and are then progressively set, with almost all subjects set in Y9, usually into either 8 sets (4 sets of parallel pairs) or a diamond structure like Maths (1 top, 1 SEN, 3 parallel pairs of decreasing ability). English may have a couple of extra sets - I'm not quite sure.

It's a 7-8 form entry.

Ma, cross post.

The point in a comprehensive is the flexibility. DD has in her top English set a child who is in the SEN Maths set. Her top PE set has county athletes who are in lower academic sets. You can be top set Art and bottom set History - it will depend on your ability in that subject, not restricted because your peers IN THAT SUBJECT, AT THAT AGE are in another institution.

Sorry, MaQueen, I've just realized who you are. I'm not prepared to engage with someone whose views I find so reprehensible. The dinner queue thing still makes me shudder.

Well, that all sounds marvellous teacher but it is a model that I never witnessed in my time of working in comprehensives.

I am just very happy/relieved that our DDs are at a school which is essentially one, big 1200 strong, top set

Actually I never used the 'dinner queue' paradigm... you erroneously extrapolated that from my saying I didn't want my DDs having to share the same school space with kids who were disengaged and disruptive.

I am perfectly happy for them to share a dinner queue with any pupil who isn't disengaged or disruptive

teacher your examples apart, it's generally rare to get someone who is top set for maths to not be pretty academic across the board.

Generally if you're strong academically, the actual subject doesn't matter, unless it's a subject like music, art or PE.

Plenty of children are very strong academically in the vast majority of subjects. Grammar schools are full of them.

MaQueen,

I have never yet taught a primary class in which at least one of my very top mathematicians does not struggle with other subjects, often but not always English. Not because they are EAL pupils, but just because they are good at maths but poor at English - like others are great at Art and not good at PE, or not good at reading.

MaQueen, just another thought - if you have worked where you live, and your DDs attend a grammar, there are no comprehensives, by definition. As have said before, the comprehensive I describe is actually a secondary modern because it is in a partially grammar area, but actually has a good comprehensive intake.

No, you're wrong teacher. The secondary schools I worked in were in our nearest city, which is over 20 miles away and actually in a different county, so they were full comprehensives.

The (admittedly very big) catchment area for our grammar, still stops far short of our nearest city.

I think she was being very fair. A shame more people who can afford it don't just pay, rather than pay to get a free place.

The 11+ is certainly not an infallible method of identifying at 10 those who might be high-flying scientists or linguists at 14 when they choose their options

This is certainly true as far as my 18yo DS1 is concerned. He didn't pass the 11+ and went to one of the not so academically great local comps. He achieved 10 GCSEs all grade A. Because his school didn't offer Futher Maths A level, he transferred to 6th form at the local grammar. All being well with his A level results he will go to Manchester Uni to study Chemical Engineering. As he has AS we are beyond proud.

He speaks highly of both school experiences but believes that the pupils in the grammar 6th form who had attended grammar main school achieved better GCSE results not because of their ability or work ethic (in fact, he said many of these pupils were lazy and not prepared to put in the work) but that the teaching is better and the expectations are higher at grammar.

Many of his peers who didn't achieve the requisite AS grades to be able stay in the 6th form had already achieved 13/14 A/A* GCSEs.

I've found his thread very interesting as our 2 younger DCs will be sitting the 11+ in the next few years but should they not pass we know that all is not lost! Unlike a lot of other parents we don't see it as the be all end all to our childrens' educations.

"it's generally rare to get someone who is top set for maths to not be pretty academic across the board"

It depends what you mean by 'rare'. My experience is that it is around 1 in 10 or a little higher - as in, around 3 able mathematicians in a class of 30 are not able in other subjects, often to the point of having specific difficulty in them (my best mathematician this year is identified as SEN for their English, and 2 others of similar ability in Maths are low ability in English)

It also works the other way - 2 of my best writers are low ability in Maths.

So that would be 5 children in a class of 30 whose needs would not be met in a selective system, and this year's class is very typical: is that an acceptable level of 'failure of the system'?

I think there's a fantasy going on here.

the expectations are higher at grammar.

I think this is key. I'm sure it's easier to be academic in an environment where it's taken for granted that you'll do A Levels, and people say "when you go to university" not "if you go to university".

" people say "when you go to university" not "if you go to university"."

I would much rather people said "if" to mine regardless of school. The mindless "must go to university" railway track is incredibly limiting.

I definitely agree MrsHathaway re the expectations at grammar.

I also think the formulaic approach that AS lends him, i.e I need to do A to get to B has also been a massive part of his achievements. There's got to be one good thing about it!

You do realise that you can have high expectations that do not involve University, don't you?

My children went to a comp. The expectations were very high. They wanted all children to do their best. So much so that over 80% of children got A-C in Maths and English GCSE, over 70% got 5 GCSEs A-Cs (that doesn't mean they only took 5 I know a certain poster has suggested that in the past).

DS1 was the highest performing boy at GCSE, he got all A*s and As, he got 3 grade A A levels. He chose not to go to university.

As politely as I can, because I can feel your frustration dripping off the page.

If a given child is academic and university would be a good fit, then that path is easier to follow within an environment where it is the expected path. Just as it's easier to follow a musical path in a conservatoire or a construction path in an apprenticeship.

I was also careful to say "easier" and not "better".

Fwiw I used to be very pro grammar/SM systems until I learned more about the realities of them. Although a highly academic environment gave me more papery qualifications, it also left me with an unhealthy world view (which we call "a B is a fail") and many personal insecurities. You can certainly foster an atmosphere of high expectations without being specific or narrow about what success looks like.

Yy to higher expectations. But not just in "which university are you going to" but in all areas and all pursuits. At our school they're encouraged to fail from y7 too. They deliberately set the bar too high a) so the kids push themselves and b) so kids who've always found school work a doddle know what it's like to not know the answer.

The school tells the kids nothing is unachievable and they also tailor the curriculum to the child - so if they have a health crisis they drop some non essential subjects, it's not unheard of children doing just the core subjects in y10 (they sit them a year early) and then if they're well they can top up in y11.

Its also smaller class sizes. The school has a very private school feel to it. Respect and manners are as important in the curriculum as maths and English. Uniform is strictly monitored. PSHE is an essential lesson.

It really is hard to explain just how different the education recieved is to a comprehensive school unless you go see for yourself

confoucious- some of that is called "being a good school"

The setting the bar too high for year 7s is.......controversial.....at best and could lead to significant mental harm.

The private school feel? Yep- that happens when a school doesn't have any poor, disadvantaged or challenging children and 90% committed parents. Small classes? Sometimes. Not necessarily.