To think that grammar school places should not be allocated just on the basis of an exam

[ReallyTired]

A super selective school should be a specialist school for the ultra bright. At the moment wealthy parents are able to give their children an unfair advantage over working class children by paying for tutoring. Grammar schools are no longer a leg up for bright working class kids. Many children who attend grammar schools are not super gifted.

If we are going to have super selective schools then we need to make sure that places go to the right children. I do think that an eleven plus exam is useful to weed out those who do not stand a chance with coping with a faster pace of learning. However such a major decision should not be solely based on an exam

Maybe the work that a child produces in class, previous test results or school recommendation should be considered. Maybe as a final stage a child should be assessed by an educational psychologist to be sure that the child is ultra bright rather than hot housed. Some universities take into account the secondary school a student has attended. I feel that grammar schools should look at the background of the applicant and their school.

A superselective school should have a curriculum which is tougher than the national curriculum. Children who cannot keep pace should be transferred to a mainstream school.

You have a greater chance of winning the running race at sports day if your parents won theirs.
Can parents give you an advantage when it comes to sports day? Absolutely. Mother has long legs, usually so does child. Is it an unfair advantage?

The advantage comes not because parents are graduates, but because of things that led themselves to become graduates.

If you were in a top set at a comp, you would be with the same children in class as if there was a grammar system so you wouldn't stand out more to be bullied. Moreover a lot of schools do vertical tutoring. Not sure how you would acually know how the rest of the group performs in tests as you aren't in their lessons.

There'll always be unfair advantage, obviously. Did Stella McCartney's comprehensive classmates have an equal chance of making it in the cutthroat fashion industry? Very much doubt it.
On the whole, though, we know that those poorest children do worse in selective systems.
blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths

On a comparison between selective Bucks and comprehensive Windsor and Maidenhead 250 more children would have attained 5+ GCSEs if they'd been in a comprehensive in W and M rather than a secondary modern in Bucks . I just get the impression that some people feel that's less important than someone getting an A rather than an A*?

www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/14439333.MP_slammed_for__ill_informed_and_misleading__support_of_grammar_school_expansion/

head yes, the bookish, academic child is protected whilst physically in the comprehensive top set lessons ...but IME a lot of bullying takes place between lessons, during lunch and whilst travelling to and from school.

Lots of bullies are in the top set. Often it's the less able kids who need protection against bullies. Grammar schools are not bully free zones.

MaQueen - whilst I am sure that there are many experiences of bullying of bright kids, why are you (and so many people) convinced that it is always 'top set' kids who are bullied ('eaten alive') by the rest? To the extend that top set kids have to be removed to a separate building (and go forbid a shared bus route)?

And are you sure that bullying doesn't happen in grammar schools?

I am very sure that academic kids sometimes make derogatory comments about less academic kids, I know that grammars and private schools can be crucibles of bullying and one-upmanship, and that on a bus local to us used by many schools, private school students have been known to call comp / state kids 'peasants'.

I have a weedy, bookish, musical kid in a state comp and there has been no hint of it being anything other than quite cool to be clever.. No bullying around it. But then it is a good comp that expects the best, demands the best and delivers the best to all abilities of kids, as far as the strictures of targets, the NC etc allow.

Really if you read my post upthread you will see I have said that, of course, you get bullying at grammars, as kids are kids anywhere.

But, I think you're much less likely to be bullied for being bookish/academic when the entire school is, essentially, one huge top set.

That's not to say a child might not get bullied for a host of other reasons...but being clever probably won't be one of them.

Same with disruptive behaviour...you might still get a bit of it at a grammar, but chances are not as much of it as you would find in many comps.

Do you think top set kids behave worse within their lessons in comps than the same kids would behave in a grammar? Or that if grammar pupils were teleported into the same lessons in a comp a hell would be let loose?

In an area with no grammars the top sets are exactly the kids who would otherwise have been there.

I went to a super selective. There was a wide range of behaviour that was criminal and unlawful, (mostly we were clever enough not to get caught though).

When I was at a comp the bullies were all in second or third set (we had 8 sets). So might well have passed 11+ in a grammar area. They were the cool and on the surface confident kids. Bottom sets kids were well behaved but lacked confidence. Generalising of course but this gives a different picture to the assumption.

By creating a situation whereby children only interact with others that are similar to themselves you do not facilitate growth of skills such as tolerance and understanding of others. Softer skills, those which are valued by employers - being able to get on with many different types of people are more likely to be facilitated in a more diverse environment.

The bookish child is going to have to work with others in the workplace. It is unlikely they will exist in a bubble throughout their life.

I was a bookish, quiet, studious, unfashionable teenager at a state comprehensive. It was considered a good school and was in what you could describe as a "leafy area" and mainly middle class. I was bullied relentlessly by (mostly) girls in the same set as me.

By creating a situation whereby children only interact with others that are similar to themselves

Grammar school children do not only interact with others that are similar to themselves. Quite the contrary. The children in a grammar school have nothing in common other than academic potential, and the children those schools are partnered with are often special schools for children with learning difficulties anyway.

"and the children those schools are partnered with are often special schools for children with learning difficulties anyway."
Really? And even if this is so-why is it relevant?

Really? yes really, many grammar schools and MLD school collaborate on all sorts of projects, concert, presentations, mixed sports, etc

And even if this is so-why is it relevant? It is relevant because a pp complained that grammar school children do not mix with a range of people. I my experience they are extremely diverse amongst themselves anyway, having been selected on academic potential, nothing else. And they also mix regularly and very well with students of a diametrically opposite academic level.

"my experience they are extremely diverse amongst themselves anyway"
Ethnically perhaps, but not socio-economically. And helping out in a special school hardly counts as mixing with a wide range of people......

But I would love to read about the sort of collaboration grammar schools do. It sounds a fantastic idea and none of the ones round me do it. Could you suggest a school to look at?

I think it is very good for children to mix and learn with people who aren't as academically able. The academically able are not always the same in each subject either. One if my DDs was very ill as a baby which impaired her maths cognitive ability. But English is unaffected. So at her comp she was in a top set for English but bottom for maths.

Bullying takes many forms. There is an awful amount if one upmanship in very selective schools too.

kes not all the lessons in ds's school are set. English, Maths, Science and some of his GCSE choices are, but not all - they don't need to be. There was no setting at all in Y7, which I was surprised by, but it worked out.

I'd say only a proportion of lessons within a school being set is fairly typical and not really a problem. A school not setting at all would be unusual.

Certainly ds's school's exam results are pretty good; it has a very mixed intake geographically, educationally (dozens of primaries feed into its 8 form entry) and economically.

YABU

You don't need tutoring to get a place at a grammar school. You need to be well prepared for the exam and practice doing similar type questions. That can be done very cheaply at home.

Your suggestions are too time consuming and costly.

One thing these threads always highlight- the need to take with a pinch of salt anyone who says their child was not tutored. There are many ways of tutoring- including being well prepared and doing lots of past papers at home....

Dancegirl It depends on your definition of tutoring.
Your 'being well prepared and practising doing similar type questions' equals my tutoring, paid or unpaid.

The point is, it doesn't always have to involve paying for expensive tutors so self tutoring if you like is a option for everyone including those on low incomes.

Right. Every parent has the ability and time to tutor their dc regardless of income.

How ridiculous.

Some people have absolutely no idea, do they?

Dancegirl You don't need tutoring to get a place at a grammar school

You didn't say 'expensive tutoring'.

You're incredibly naive in thinking self-tutoring is an option for everyone.

Forgot to add...

Expensive/cheap tutoring - No one goes out looking for an 'expensive tutor'. People look for 'good tutors' - Good tutors, (the kind that make sure you are well prepared and practise similar questions) beforehand are expensive.