"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?

See?

And yes,nif that was what happened all the time then it would be wrong. But I see no problem with it on occasion. Would you feel better if it was called "independent learning"? He enjoyed it and he learned a lot

But I don't actually expect the lesson to be always structured around the needs of my child. Unlike, it seems, the parents of some other clever children - who actually seem to want the whole education system to be structured around the needs of their child.

Actually bert I've never heard the parent of a highly able child object to that type of work. It's usually what they want. The objections are when the worksheet type extension is just a box ticking exercise, because it still offers no challenge. Or when the child is expected to just work at the speed and level of the majority. My memories of enjoyable lessons nearly all involve the few teachers who would just leave me alone with a book.

However while the worksheet theory is a fair compromise for the highly able, it's a bit of a cop out for the dc who are top in that particular cohort but aren't high enough to be able to achieve potential without suitable teaching.

But I don't actually expect the lesson to be always structured around the needs of my child. Unlike, it seems, the parents of some other clever children - who actually seem to want the whole education system to be structured around the needs of their child.

YY.

My local comp only sets for maths starting in yr8. My own Child goes to a selective, London day school. This school also only selects for maths starting in the 8. The top sets are nearly twice the size of the lower sets. My own child is in a lower maths set, and is grateful to be there.

When you know your own abilities and are motivated to learn, you appreciate being in the right set. You want the pace to suit you and give you a chance to master things while at the same time not wasting your time and boring you.

A big difference between the comp and my child's school, from talking to friends and neighbours, is that the teachers at the comp will adjust teaching to suit the bottom of the class if some students are struggling. If you are bored for a bit that's just tough. You are lucky to have caught on so quickly. Meanwhile at the private school we are using you will be left behind and expected to gear up to the pace of the lessons.

Mango, Why would you object to parents wanting suitable education for their children? I would never be do snide about a child with SN, so why be snide about a child in the other end of the spectrum?

Whois It's ideological. Supposedly it helps bring up the level of attainment of the less able, while not damaging the more able much. Although the studies which purport to show this are debatable. I suspect such schools only still exist in areas where there are no competitor schools, however.

Sorry, my post was addressed to whois

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

I wonder if the 'late bloomers' are just the kids that haven't been tutored since year 4?!
Obviously there are a very tiny minority of kids who are exceptionally clever & that becomes apparent from very early on - but for the vast majority of (non-tutored) kids, years 6 - 9 is where they find their level & start to blossom & start to realise their subject strengths.

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.

Primary school is much, much more than just being good at lessons.
It's for social & emotional development as well as giving kids a good grounding in maths, English & basic science as well as exploring different things if educational & developmental interest.

It's far too soon to separate off & make judgements & predictions on future ability etc.
Aged 14 after 3 years of secondary education & exposure to different and varied subjects is a much better age imo.

There's far more to school than exams.

Calling it "independent learning" would just cause confusion. That is the term educationalists use for group work. Bizarre, but true.

Carl I think you may be generalizing from your own quite niche course, because it definitely doesn't apply to group work elsewhere in the uni.

Bert how unusual has it been in recent years for students at your local high school/ secondary modern to get 10 A/A at GCSE? Or perhaps all A/A with a couple of Bs?

Mango, Why would you object to parents wanting suitable education for their children? I would never be do snide about a child with SN, so why be snide about a child in the other end of the spectrum?

Am not bring snide about clever children.
Not at all.
Why would I?

I agreed with a previous comment:

But I don't actually expect the lesson to be always structured around the needs of my child. Unlike, it seems, the parents of some other clever children - who actually seem to want the whole education system to be structured around the needs of their child.

I never failed to be amazed how some parents want the entire system to resolve around their one child is all.
What is snidey about that?

Mango in my experience it's really very obvious indeed which kids are bright, with or without tutoring, by the age of 11. I don't understand what you mean about social and emotional development and school about being more than lessons. These things aren't discrete! Children mature and acquire social experiences and explore things and ideas at the same time as developing academically. Life isn't compartmentalized like that. I think it was very clear which of my DCs' peers were likely to get a place at the grammar and I can't actually think of more than one or two surprises over all the cohorts I've known in the past fifteen years.

being about not about being.

Don't know why I never read my posts until after posting....

I don't think social & emotional development are confined to just school either, but school is a very large part of it - especially for kids who don't have the best home life.

For these kids, those aspects of primary school can actually be extremely important to who they become in the future.

These threads seem to follow a spiral:

Assertion: High ability kids need appropriate teaching and challenges to thrive as well as a similar cohort to share ideas with, and grammar schools are an effective and cost efficient way to do this.

Counter assertion: No they don't, they can be adequately served by a true comp. And besides, grammar schools are unfair to late bloomers, kids who had a bad day on exam day, and those just below the cutting.

Next crank in the spiral: Actually, comps aren't serving the most able well. (Followed by loads of Annecdote as well as stats, counter stats, lies, damned lies and yet more stats.)

Further spiralling: parents of very able children are just being selfish and precious in regards to their DC.

I feel like these conversations would improve if we could all agree on Kant's categorical imperative, which is that people must always be treated as ends, not means. the middle as well as both ends of the academic spectrum represent human beings with feelings, potential and the same human worth.

Further spiralling: parents of very able children are just being selfish and precious in regards to their DC.

Not at all.
My niece is one of those child prodigy types, just like I was.

It is some parents who are precious & selfish - this is regardless of how able their children are.

Goodbye- very unusual indeed. Because the "top' 25% are doing that in a different school. Why?

Actually, my main objection to selective education is, and always has been, more sociological than educational. If you have never seen a previously cohesive class of 10 year olds divide on results day you just can't understand how awful it is...

Trouble is, the system is broken and inconsistent. But try telling that to a ten year old whose best friend has been told "all the best kids go to the grammar". Friend knows to take it with a pinch of salt but wants to make parents happy. And then your own child goes to grammar open day and thinks, wow, I'd like to go there too.... And in order to do so, they have to jump the hoops and pass an exam. Ultimately, as a ten year old, they pick the school they like the look of, or that has cool lockers, or a snazzy canteen, or the clubs they want to do. And as parents we either decide to pay, decide to ignore their wants and go for the nearest school, decide to move with all the "fun" that entails for a different school, or shrug and try to make the best of that imperfect system.

(Sorry to rant. It's eleven-plus year...)

Imo a large part of the reason comps aren't doing so well in some areas is purely because of the existence of the alternate options.

Sometimes, too much choice is not the best thing.

In my experience of 2 comps (me & kids), and a grammar (me), the comps were/are great.
That is because the comps were the only school option in the area, apart from the private school in the next town.

They catered/cater for all abilities & have the teaching staff & facilities to offer a full range of subjects.
The kids comp is partnered with a local technical college that they can access from yr 10 onwards as required.

I do wonder if a similar system (as the tech college) would work for the academically exceptional too.
For eg. Good quality, catch all comps which also partner with an 'academic' college type thing for more specialised variety (could perhaps specialise in languages).

Who knows?
I just think comps can only truly work if everyone properly buys into them and they're properly resourced & funded.

mango I think there's some truth in that ( though in some areas you simply won't get critical mass without selection).

And whilst I find these discussions about selective education interesting and will give my views when asked in real life to those who might have some power to Do Something, in reality I do far more to try to improve comprehensives in respect of their provision for the most able students. Or simply to reach out to those students directly ( because many comps are frankly disinterested/obstructive/overwhelmed).

Carl there are bods out there who are very, very experienced in selective education at the highest level with a direct line to those with the power to do something and they've come up against a political brick wall which has been impenetrable for decades. Possibly, just possibly there might be a crack in the wall with this new government but I won't be holding my breath. If you think anyone has actually held out real hope for a reform of the system which includes new grammars in recent years then you're not talking to real people. No-one senior in the system has been nursing any illusion.

Bert I ask because if it's very unusual indeed to get A*/A and a couple of Bs then that suggests either that the 11+ in your town is a pretty accurate indicator of potential or that the teaching at the secondary modern is shit. It doesn't suggest much late flowering in any event, or late flowering which has the appropriate teaching to flourish.

Oh I have no illusions regarding selective education.

But if someone asks, I answer.

Imo a large part of the reason comps aren't doing so well in some areas is purely because of the existence of the alternate options."

^^ this

In London 15% of children attend private schools. If these children and their families were invested in local state schools - I think it would fundamentally change the character of education in the capital, and challenge expectations of state education for everyone.