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.

I've been on both sides of the fence, I've had a child who did pretty poorly in the 11+ process who later gained entry to a super-selective by way of the 13+. As a matter of public policy, I support selective education so long as the process remains fluid throughout.

I think it might be more sensible to select at 14-ish, but that's just my parental musing.

"think it might be more sensible to select at 14-ish, but that's just my parental musing"

What, once they've started their GCSE? Why would that be a good idea?

All that's needed is a basic two hour IQ test rather then the grammar test.

span, all that would mean would be tutors would teach to the IQ test not the grammar test - so it would change nothing.

Bert
Of course it isn't better for anyone else's children, neither is any selection.
How is moving into good catchment any better for the kids on sink estate
There's a school for everybody, some have better options than others, it's the way of the world, and always has been in education.

BertrandRussell, I went to grammar school, my husband went to grammar school, my kids all went to grammar school, my GC starts grammar school in September. I hate the system but if you live in an 11 plus area it is difficult. The school my kids would have gone to and GC would go to in September is really poor. We could try for non selective school in neighbouring town but no guarantees and lots of travelling so we have gone with what is available.

"Of course it isn't better for anyone else's children, neither is any selection."

So you're quite happy to support a system that is good for your child, but not good for 75% of other children?

There is no system except a lottery which the middle classes cannot work, and a lottery makes no sense in the context of a selective school.

You cannot forbid tuition - I have visions of a sort of educational speakeasy where children are tutored behind closed doors and you have to know the password to get in - and nor can you stop middle class parents, and especially teachers, providing their children with an aspirational ambience where education is highly regarded, homework is done, children get enough sleep without distraction from screens, the house is full of books, etc., etc.

And I cannot blame parents who value education themselves and want their children to be among the children of parents who also value education.

This is a great idea. Grammar's shouldn't be for pushy middle class parents who can afford private tuition. They should be for the genuinely very academic children that cant be catered for in comps. So the question becomes how to select them.

As it would be say 2% of pop it would be silly to make everyone do the exam.

So best that the selective school does an easy-ish exam to weed out those definitely not suited. Then it runs classes on Saturday or weekday afternoon to teach & test advanced material that would be almost impossible to tutor an average 11yo for, because there is so much and its so advanced. Teachers would be able to assess who are the exceptionally bright with potential and can select those who could cope with advanced learning and who excel in one or more subjects.

These classes and exams for genuinely academic children would actually be enjoyable so if the children are stressed then it would show they are not suitable.

This could replace the existing Grammar schools, forcing a lot of privately tutored children into comps and so actually making the system better for everyone.

"And I cannot blame parents who value education themselves and want their children to be among the children of parents who also value education."

Which they will be in the top set of a comprehensive.

Alternatively, have more grammars, that take the top 10/15%, but charge for them, on a scheme like the old assisted places or bursary type scheme. Apart from the fact it would soon weed out all those parents who use them as free privates, it would put money back into education. If the fees were comparable to private, then quite a few would opt for the private, thus less children in the state system. And of course the fees paid wouldn't just go directly to the grammar, they'd be for the schools that need it most.

So make the top set even more inaccessible to poor children? Yep- that sounds like a good plan!

"Which they will be in the top set of a comprehensive"

Sadly in your bog standard comp the top set can still be pretty dire. A friend of mine said only 2 parents including herself attended parents evening last year., at her local comp. And teacher told her that was double the previous year. Its a good rated school with a christian ethos.

Starts to muddy the water for me when you charge money Lurkedforever1

Is that to me bert? If so why would it be disadvantaging the poor? They wouldn't have to pay, and infact there would be less competition than at present so it would make it far easier. And certainly easier than getting a comprehensive, with a poor postcode, where there is a genuine top set.

Sadly in your bog standard comp the top set can still be pretty dire. A friend of mine said only 2 parents including herself attended parents evening last year., at her local comp. And teacher told her that was double the previous year. Its a good rated school with a christian ethos.

I can't get my head around this.

Because it's yet another hoop for people to jump through.

Faith schools can exclude the disadvantaged just by expecting church attendance. Imagine what some sort of complex means testing arrangement would mean.

peach, my DS attended "a bog standard comp" and parents evenings were always packed out. God knows where your friend is referring to.

Two put of my three children went to grammar school. We are not a wealthy family and they didn't have any private tutors. They did do some test papers, and their state primary did do some lessons with them to help familiarise them with the papers layout. I think kids sitting the 11+ should do test papers and thats it. If they have a natural ability and pass, then grammar is for them, but if not, then it isn't.

Bert

Of course, if this was the case. We don't have grammar schools but I'm not bothered who goes to what school, the system is never likely to be fair.

Grammar or no grammar there are so many differences in quality of provision in the state system than and other. How far do you want to go to level the playing field? Ban private, H.ed, public, people moving to catchment for better schools?

Applesetsail - distinct, but similar enough to draw analogies. In both cases there will be some schools who are very keen to promote their pupils through recommendations and who are very good at it, while others are not. That makes it unfair to rely on recommendations too much in both cases.

And Oxbridge is more interested in raw talent and potential than you suggest. I'm not interested in how much a candidate knows now, but where they could be in 3-4 years time. Hence admitting some applicants with lower grades than those we turn down, using a reasoning/aptitude test not a million miles from the 11+ and using interviews to test the ability to think rather than recall.

Why would it need to be complex? The scale could be slightly more generous than the usual private one. Proof of housing benefit alone would be ample for no fees. As would it be for the absolute majority of parents receiving tax credits. Both of those could be verified without the parent needing to do anything, same as health costs are verified. It would only be those owning assets above a certain amount but on tc who would need to provide evidence. Maintenance would be easy, given inland revenue could just provide details of the nrp's income, which would easily identify those parents receiving tax credits but with hefty maintenance payments. And anyone earning above tax credit cut off should be more than capable of going through normal means testing.

YABU. Grammar schools are not superselective. They are selective.

Where we have grammar schools there will always be an inherent disadvantage to those on lower incomes, when it comes to entry. However, it seems the most objective way of allocating places. Interviews can be coached for just as much as tutors for exams. A skill in something non-academic (sport) will favour others, to take primary school attendance as a factor will be harming those with a disability or some family issues.

Have to agree with gillybean if you start down the banning route in favour of 'fair education for all' and get rid of grammars, private schools, independents, Home Ex etc, then where does it stop?

Ban parents from having lots of books in the family home...ban them from reading with their children...ban the Maths graduate father from helping their DC with algebra...ban parents from discussing current affairs with their DC...ban articulate parents from using sophisticated vocabulary in front of their DCs...

Some children are always going to have a very unfair educational advantage, whether you stick them under the same roof as all the other pupils, or whether you educate them under a different roof.