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.

Teacher assessment would inevitably be influenced by the parents - 'Oh, their dad's a lecturer - they must be bright.' 'For god's sake support Mrs Smith's son's grammar place - otherwise we'll never hear the last of it.'

I live in Kent, and teacher assessment is used up to a point. If a child fails the test (whether narrowly, or by the width of the Atlantic Ocean), we have something called the Head Teacher's Appeal - which happens before the results are given out. The child's head teacher can produce evidence that the child should have passed... and the test does not reflect the true ability of the child. This seems a reasonable compromise to me.

Getting the ultra bright children to meet their full potential and be happy will have long term savings

Totally agree, best all round for us for them, as a society.

The numbers of children who would be so expectionally gifted to get in would be so small that it would not turn nearby schools into secondary moderns

I think its wise to remember you may have a DC who is the next shakespear but atrocious at Maths. Technically they are not getting into your so called super selective top brains school however in reality they may be more clever than anyone else in the UK.

Why do numbers matter to run a top set? In private schools numbers can be very low ie, 4/5 pupils to a set

Teacher assessment would inevitably be influenced by the parents - 'Oh, their dad's a lecturer - they must be bright.' 'For god's sake support Mrs Smith's son's grammar place - otherwise we'll never hear the last of it

any system is open to corruption, but I dont know how many schools know what parents professions are.

In that case you would need to show back up of the childs work.

all numbers matter to run a school in the state sector. They have to have numbers to keep the school financially viable. You can't have 5 kids in a top set in the state sector. It isn't affordable unless parents pay for the education.

It's no better for 6 form..
My dc wants to much to attend the grammar 6 form. At least 9 a* or no chance. They take the highest achievers in order.

Grammar schools where I live (east Kent) are most definitely not filled just with middle class kids. They go private. Our grammar schools are not super-selective though - well I don't think so. How do you know?

"Grammar schools where I live (east Kent) are most definitely not filled just with middle class kids"

really?

An interview with pop questions on maths/ world affairs/ their opinions etc might help but would be a lot of admin

But would it? Surely that would just be another way of privileging middle class kids where there's likely to be a broadsheet newspaper lying around, access to computers, discussions of global events over the dinner table. Or parents who have the time and resources to coach them on these topics.

The whole grammar school system and the 11plus system is so skewed in favour of the resource rich middle classes, it would be more transparent and simpler if they just shoved the places on eBay.

They have to have numbers to keep the school financially viable. You can't have 5 kids in a top set in the state sector#

why is that?> whether there are 20 in a class or 2 you are still allocating a teacher? and less resources for the smaller group

Teachers may not have precise details of parental profession, but they do know which parents are likely to be... well, pushy. I certainly know of more than one parent who became a parent governor to increase the likelihood of the Head supporting their child in a Head Teacher's appeal.

Betrand, if you go down as far as Thanet, the grammar schools are a long way from being exclusively middle class - although they certainly have a much lower percentage of Pupil Premium children than their high school neighbours.

We have a bright kid. We are not 'low income' but we are not mc either. We are muddling through working, so no benefits but with no extra for luxuries like tutoring. We're concerned that DS may not pass the 11+ as would have to get a high mark where we are to be offered a place and likely to be competing with kids who can be tutored up to the same level.

School work assessed is fair enough, but they hardly push DS at all at school so it doesn't show what he is capable of, though I guess would show he's doing well.

I used to live in an area that did 13+. You went to a comp for 2 years of secondary, had tests at the end of each year that counted (which meant had to be good on both years, not just tutored at the end) and your general approach to work was also taken into consideration. It also meant the children were 2 yrs older, so had a clue about what all this school stuff meant (rather than at age 10 yrs for 11+). I assume it didn't work well somewhere along the line as it was abandoned.

With home help - I think someone said up thread that children with parents who are well educated/academic/bright are more likely to discuss current affairs and be interested in their children. That doesn't and shouldn't be anything to do with class. IQ may be inherited (I personally don't know as not looked it up) but it also figures that parents who are brighter are more likely to pass on the interest in learning to their kids.

Honestly Bertrand :) About 10% of kids at my local grammar are in receipt of pupil premium. It's about 30% at the 'good' secondary and 50% at the less good one.

The wealthy parents don't send their kids there - they go private.

My dc went to an East Kent grammar. My eldest got the top score possible and was refused a place because our bitch of a Hat stood in the way.
At that time (late 90s) the HTs recommendation was the main criteria so with a high school mark it was an automatic fail.
So for that reason I would say no no no to your suggestion. A test is fairer than if your face fits.
Said child, found unsuitable for grammar, did very well at independent on an assisted place, awarded on the strength of those same 11+ results. No tutoring, except the papers from WHSmith done at home. Father as WC as they come.

Hmm, yes and no. Can you imagine all the 'glowing reports' from the preps? Also some state schools where teachers may be anti grammar would 'sell' their children less well. The state system has a lot of unfairness in it. Opportunities based on how well someone performs in a single test that can be prepared for certainly is unfair.

I'm about to go through this with DD sitting in September. I wasn't brought up in a grammar area and until 3 years ago didn't live in one. There is one grammar school in town (3 in whole county) and it has a catchment so not superselective. I only know this terminology due to mumsnet.

What seems bizarre to me is they are tested on the the whole of the yr 6 curriculum 2 weeks into yr 6. So unless they have had a tutor/parental tutoring they wont have covered the syllabus required. Seems bizarre to me. No matter how bright you are if you haven't been shown how to do x or y you have no chance in a 1 minute a question scenario.

Children sit a 3 hour exam age 10, only a handful will have turned 11 before the test. So it is actually a 10+ The private school tests are 4 months later in late January. I first sat a 3 hour exam age 18 for my A levels.

I can't see forcing all to sit would be fair as there was enough outcry over SATS and they are for children 9 months older and only an hour or so long.

There is one past paper on the grammar school website and a link to buy past papers. I was surprised that posters on the other thread called buying the books cheap. The recommended mock papers were £70 off amazon. The Bond/Letts books if they want to do any practice and you need VR/maths/english are £10 each.

Verbal Reasoning isn't covered in state schools. I know some do a VR afterschool club in yr 5. I know of someone who sent their child in last year with no prep. He cried/lost it when he saw the VR paper and was removed from the exam. I find some of the VR hard! It gets easier with practice.

I wouldn't sit any exam without preparation. Sending a 10 year old in to a 3 hour exam with no prep is unthinkable. Ensuring you have covered all the topics needed and basic exam technique like timing/answering every multiple choice question/checking if you have time left needs to be taught and practised.

all because to afford to have X number of students on role, you get to have X number of teachers. That means you need to have a minimum of say, 18 in a class (and you save that for your bottom set due to management of the bottom set's behaviour) and then 30/31 in your top set. If each student generated more money, you could afford more teachers.

You do know there is a massive cash shortage in education at the moment? In the county where I work they are increasing class sizes, employing non-specialist tewchets to avoid schools being closed.

Money is so tight we are it a million years from having five in a top set in state schools.

I think I that questionnaires to head teachers would have to ask for precise information that can be backed up by data. For example asking what a child's class position, size and the class average would be interesting information. State schools can easily provide data of how child progress over the years.

I agree there is a danger of subjective bias. I am not sure how you get round this.

YABVVU and ridiculous.
Do you think children in very poor schools would have any chance, regardless of how clever they were?
Do you not think that HTs of pre-preps, where parents are paying up to £20k per year, would not produce the most wonderful sparkly outstanding portfolios for all their pupils, regardless of ability?

By abolishing selection. and having proper comprehensive schools........

I wouldn't want an interview to be part of the process. Some children are very bright but not talkative or confident. There's a danger that the more outgoing children who "came across well" would be preferred, as with some private schools. I think it should be possible for a suitable test to be designed for the present day.

We have selection by postcode and religion. A child on free school meals is more likely to attend a failing school than child from a better off family. Selection by academic ablity is much fairer than selection by Daddy's wallet.

I feel there should be a cap on the number of places that selective schools should award private school kids. Let private school kids compete among themselves for roughly 5% of the places.

After school tutoring is impossible to monitor. The answer is to improve access to after school tutoring for all high achieving state school children.

Bertrand I honestly think that is the only answer. Shame the new education secretary doesn't share that view.

Maybe the work that a child produces in class

That is used

Headteacher's appeal anyone?? Around 12 each year from our school use it & they've not had a child not get in yet.

They use the books & previous tests

As your comparisons to Oxbridge suggest, this system would end up devoting an awful lot of time and resources to very bright children (however we end up measuring that, and it's not easy - someone mentioned a tutor-proof IQ test, and no such test currently exists). Is that really what we want? At age 11?

I know bright children deserve appropriate education just as much as any other child, and that it's frustrating for them when they're bored by a lesson going well under their level. But shouldn't the priority be for all children to get equal amounts of time and energy, not for us to find better ways to select the top 5 or 10 %?