"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?

In practice though it's very rarely the mc, well supported, top 10% or even 1% that are sidelined for the less privileged. Because that group still get the good comprehensives. What actually happens is that the less privileged but able dc bear that burden because they are the ones at schools with them.

I have been told by reliable source that DC in excellent private schools in London, can still be tutored, because competition is that fierce primary and secondary

My DCs' superselective does not cater for just the top 2% and is certainly not full of 'geeks' in the same way that Oxbridge is not full of 'geeks'. There are some, as you'd expect in any community, but overwhelmingly these are completely normal but able teenagers. While the percentage of pupils on Pupil Premium mirrors the percentage of Pupil Premium Y6's attaining good L5s in the 'catchment' that number doesn't, I'm sure, reflect the numbers of Pupil Premium DC capable of attaining good L5s which was why I asked teacher about that general- and central - issue. It's all very well Bertrand banging on about the numbers of PP DC at grammars being woefully low, but the problem is at primary level, not a problem inherent in the grammar system itself. That's where the effort needs to be put in then these DC could, if encouraged and willing to apply, benefit from all that that type of education has to offer. I would hope that if a significant number of new superselectives were scattered around the country under the new government, for the top 10% or so, then primary schools might not regard them as so elitist and not be so vehemently opposed to them and might actually encourage able but less well of DC to apply. There is a lot of opposition to any form of grammar in primary schools and that holds able but less well off DC in areas with superselectives back. The view I've encountered in my area is that the alternatives are fine. They are, but they don't provide anything like the same pace of work or the same aspiration as the grammar, and for that reason I believe they're a less good fit for the truly able.

I assume that by "grammar", you mean superselective, MintJulep? I don't have any strong objections to grammar schools which take the top 2% of pupils from a large area, and you refer to the other schools as "comps" rather than secondary moderns.

But live in an area where the comprehensive system works very well, and I would fight tooth and nail to keep it. The schools with the lowest overall results do very well in terms of added value to the levels the pupils arrived at. The schools with the highest levels of socially deprived pupils in their intake offer 11-16 education only, and the pupils then move on to an outstanding sixth form college where the highest achievers are very well supported (as are the rest of the students).

I would be saddened to see three quarters of my local schools redesignated as secondary moderns and for the children who attend them to lose the range of opportunities offered, and I would feel sad that there would be a similar curtailment in the vocational opportunities offered to the pupils at grammar schools. I would be sad that my highly academic DD wouldn't be able to go to school with her friend, and that families end up with the inconvenience of children at several different schools.

I don't want my children to have the education I got at my grammar school. I definitely don't want them to get the education offered at the secondary moderns the majority of children in my city went to. I want them to get the opportunities offered to the vast majority of my very clever friends at their comprehensive schools.

"That's where the effort needs to be put in then these DC could, if encouraged and willing to apply, benefit from all that that type of education has to offer

well yes! thats what is what USED to happen! some posters narrow down help to only offering two papers.
I see "help" in a far more rounded comprehensive way. Its been recognized by the sutton trust and hopefully primary schools can start to help their pupils rather than look on them as pawns in a political ideology game.

and you refer to the other schools as "comps" rather than secondary moderns

yes we are not grammar country. We have - comps.

Your very lucky but sadly too many comps are failing the children and society as a whole, the gaps are growing not shortening which is supposed to be the end game here.

We have tried the comp experiment long enough.

BTW A DC can be strong and competent all rounder, and be a given for the 11+.
Another may be outstanding and gifted in Maths OR English but not both and may fail the 11+.

Not every single child with potential is creamed off by the selective schools because not every single child who has potential is an all rounder.

Its not the grammars fault that secondary moderns are rubbish either.

I think its time to draw a line under it all. It was a great idea but in practise its not working.

The thing that makes me most against grammar schools is that in the school I went to, children who failed the 11+, could still attend the school if they went as fee-paying boarders. Several of the brightest pupils in my year were 11+ failures whose parents had enough money to send them to board. And there plenty of people there who weren't all that bright. It certainly wasn't a haven of intellectual brilliance. It was a very naice middle class enclave.

Interestingly, the grammar schools in my county are massively more culturally and ethnically diverse than the local secondaries.
In our immediate area the schools are overwhelmingly white, British. The grammars have children from a complete mix of backgrounds.

No one wants to see a narrowing of the attainment gap, if it is done through curtailing their own children's attainment.

Yes, which is a general privilege thing: eg men [NAMALT] don't really want gender equality if that means they have to drop down to average outcomes; white people don't want to have to undergo increased "random" profiling; etc.

Several of the brightest pupils in my year were 11+ failures whose parents had enough money to send them to board

and those dc would probably be in the secondary modern if no option or money to board there.

It irritates me to talk of creaming off the top.

Then in same breath say we need to be more open minded.

How about grasping that some pupils could be far more brilliant than any of their counter parts in ONE area but simply not all round? They will end up in the other school, where their needs are catered for! They can be top set in what they are top at, and other sets to match their other skills.

PerspicaciaTick

you will find that with private schools too, often dc from local, as well as all over the world.

goodbye stranger, do you know why your school isn't flooded with out of area children?

"n our immediate area the schools are overwhelmingly white, British. The grammars have children from a complete mix of backgrounds."

Really? Including PP children? Or do you mean a complete mix ethnic and religious, but not socio-economic backgrounds?

How about grasping that some pupils could be far more brilliant than any of their counter parts in ONE area but simply not all round? They will end up in the other school, where their needs are catered for! They can be top set in what they are top at, and other sets to match their other skills.

But it's not going to be much of a top set if most of the other top set pupils are being educated elsewhere by virtue of being good all-rounders.

What percentage of pupils do you envisage being selected out in your selective system? If it is a small percentage, the remaining schools still have to cater for the full abilty range, so why bother? If a large percentage you definitely don't have any real 'top sets' in the other schools.

Yes, a number of reasons Bert:

1. Sheer distance
2. For those prepared to travel, cost of transport (the main disincentive although half the cost is covered for low income pupils regardless of where they live).
3. A culture (bred I think quite deliberately by anxious/ competitive middle class parents with not especially bright kids) that a) this is a school for posh kids and b) you have to be in the top 2% and attain L6 by the end of Y5/ start of Y6.
4. A wholly false reputation (which I've heard peddled mostly by parents whose DC failed to get in) that the school is pressurized.
5. A desire by some DC to go to the community school near there home, for social reasons.

their!

Bert you just don't get the issue about PP kids needing to attain at primary level do you? You're certainly not addressing it. It's the crunch point. Grammars are doing everything they can to attract these kids but the kids need to be able to show that they can keep up - the issue is overwhelmingly at primary level and that's where the real push needs to come.

"Bert you just don't get the issue about PP kids needing to attain at primary level do you? You're certainly not addressing it. It's the crunch point. Grammars are doing everything they can to attract these kids but the kids need to be able to show that they can keep up - the issue is overwhelmingly at primary level and that's where the real push needs to come."

Yes I do grasp this. But selection at 11 compounds the problem. It creates a school which is seen as for the posh kids and another for everyone else. It give no opportunity for late developers. it just means the social divide beacons even more entrenched.

But it's not going to be much of a top set if most of the other top set pupils are being educated elsewhere by virtue of being good all-rounders

How many pupils does a top set make?

Surely the fewer the better? I mean its only for what, one subject, then for history its all change and so on?

That's fascinating, goodbye- every other super selective I have heard of is positively besieged by parents from miles away..............

It creates a school which is seen as for the posh kids and another for everyone else

YY esp if the posh schools, are prepping their students for 11+ and other entrance exams and the state schools which will include poor DC as well as better off do exactly nothing to support their dc.

I wonder how many times we can go round in circles on this issue.

Its primacy schools that need to step up, some do, and some dont. They all need to be made too. The Sutton trust has highlighted this issue and made recommendations. We need grammars back properly then start to educate dc again.

Bert there is no particular reason why able kids from low income families should be late developers. I think that logic is flawed, in relation to low income kids. Posh kids can blossom later too and I think that logic takes away the urgency from making sure low income kids get every possible encouragement by everyone involved in their education to shine at primary level.

Also, by the time of the test in Y6 these kids have been at school for nearly half their school lives. That's easily late enough to make a reasonably safe allocation to grammar/ non grammar. There is already the possibility of late entry too, or entry into the sixth form as a last resort.

"Its primacy schools that need to step up, some do, and some dont. They all need to be made too"

You will have to change the LEA rules then. Because primary schools, certainly in Kent and I think in other places too, are expressly forbidden from offering more than a couple of practice papers.

I was asked why I don't think comprehensives cater appropriately for all children.

Apologies for the delay and necessary brevity. I'm in a different time zone to you guys and have shockingly patchy internet connection.

My experience has taught me ( and it is experience rather than ideology, and reasonably extensive experience at that) that comprehensives rarely have a critical mass of high ability peers.

Common sense when you look at the ability curve at a national level.

And lack of critical mass matters for a number of reasons; resource allocation, policy decision making, collegiate aspect of education, recruitment ( not an exhaustive list, nor in any order of importance).

Now that's not to say that no high ability kids can thrive in comprehensives. They can. I suspect my two would have been fine.

But that's not the same as saying that the education is the right one for high ability pupils across the board. IME (taking into account day to day provision, results and attainment after school) it isn't working sufficiently well.

Bertrand we have three or four applicants for every place which is less than elsewhere but overwhelmingly to do with geography, nothing else. Not sure what you're trying to imply!

It's about much more than test papers Bert....