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.

IonaNE FYI the term super selective is used generally for grammars that have no catchment, admission is solely based on test score. It's assumed that they admit the top 5% (if not higher) of applicants.

Some counties are wholly selective and will admit the top 30% of kids across the county each year.

Some areas have grammar schools that select within a catchment area, these would also be termed just selective.

lemon is correct. Kent has (for example) 'normal' grammar schools and superselective grammar schools which have no catchment and take only the top scorers.

I have a DC in a grammar, superselective and a secondary modern in Kent.

It is odd that people use the "nothing can be completely fair"
argument to justify blatant, institutionalised unfairness paid for with tax money.

We have 7 grammars in my county. None of them have a catchment area and dc travel from 4 counties to attend them. These are super selective.

I find it bizarre that people who live in a large city in the county over are happy to put their dc onto two trains to get them to school. I'm pretty sure that the schools there can't all be so bad that a clever kid with less travelling wouldn't do well in a top set.

They might be, so it's worth a longer journey for a better school with a robust disciplinary policy and an emphasis on academic attainment.

It's not good enough to 'do well in the top set'. A school's ethos should be Top Set all the way through and many aren't.

A school's ethos should be Top Set all the way through and many aren't.

What does this even mean?

Bertrand - I think the UK education system is shit all round tbh. I despise the way that some skills are lauded above others and also the way that you're stuck on a single track. I think the German system is much better.

But the UK system has selection build in way before you get to grammar schools and outwith those counties that still practice it. It's called religion.

The German school system has been heavily criticised by the United Nations for perpetuating social inequity.

Basically, the middle class kids go to the grammars, the immigrants and poor get shunted off to the vocational stream.

Lynda "I think the German system is much better." How is the German system better?! It's an even more distinct separation of kids for secondary level according to ability - kids are filtered and funneled even more strictly than here in the UK.

The Germans had three different types of school and the child's teacher decides at around year 4 age whether they attend the Hauptschule, Realschule or Gymnasium. The children who are assigned to Hauptschule are written off at a very early age. In fact the Germans are moving away from their system. British schools have higher standards in PISA but the german ecomony is the strongest in Europe.

In the uk selection by postcode exists everywhere. Having seperate schools for the rich and poor makes social mobility hard.

I think you would end up with even more obvious unfairness. im not sure actually how much advantage independent / grammar gives.

i was interested to see at my DDs school that children followed their parents uni or otherwise destinations, even though they had all received an expensive education.

I don't know the German system but know they don't allow H.ed, so it sounds like the ones who are written off by the state, don't even have the opportunity for their parents to educate them, give them life skills for the academic they miss.
What about SN? Is there provision?

noblegiraffe... the immigrants and poor get shunted off to the vocational stream

Are you suggested immigrants should go to the front of the educational queue in this country, before people who have lived here all their lives? I despair.

Are you suggested immigrants should go to the front of the educational queue in this country

Er, are you suggesting that bright children of immigrants should not get access to grammar schools where grammar schools exist? Because that sounds a bit...racist?

I think it would be really great to have a flexible and responsive system, where a young, late developer could be identified by staff in Yr 7 or 8 and moved instantly to a fast moving group. Or where a child who was struggling to learn independently having been hot housed like mad could be tactfully shifted into a different group. The 'ultra bright ' of super selective schools, and the top 25% by ability that made up the old grammar system would receive an education that challenged their ability, but they could also get support and a slower pace for any subject they happen to struggle in.

What, I wonder, might we call such a school?

"Are you suggested immigrants should go to the front of the educational queue in this country, before people who have lived here all their lives? I despair. shock"

Sorry? Are you suggesting that immigrants should not be allowed to sit the 11+?

"What, I wonder, might we call such a school?"

I wonder..........

noblegiraffe, that is not what i am suggesting. I am NOT racist. I find your comment very offensive.

I am suggesting people in this county, who have paid taxes in this country and have declared their allegiance to this country (irrelevant of who they are) should be supported by this country before anyone else. Our education system is not an international education system. That is one reason why we have voted to leave the EU!

peach so what you're suggesting is that immigrants shouldn't have access to state schools at all? They should go private?

"I am suggesting people in this county, who have paid taxes in this country and have declared their allegiance to this country (irrelevant of who they are) should be supported by this country before anyone else."

So should the children of people who have not declared their alliegance to this country be allowed to sit the 11+ or not?

noblegiraffe that is NOT what I am suggesting at all.

I am saying that if anyone comes to this country they should join the back of the queue, just like everyone else. There shouldn't be special treatment putting them above everyone else.

"am saying that if anyone comes to this country they should join the back of the queue, just like everyone else. There shouldn't be special treatment putting them above everyone else."

So how does this work with the 11+?

It's really not clear peach. You appear to approve of the suggestion that immigrants be shunted to the vocational stream (the back of the queue) but are offended at the suggestion that this would be some sort of discrimination against those from not around here.

Immigrants should have an education appriopiate to their needs, ablity and inclination. Ten years old is too young to shut off the academic route like happens in Germany or Kent or Bucks. However it's possible to tell that a child is capable of doing GCSE in year 9 or able to get to the standard of a common entrance scholarship exam with 3 years of hard work.

A superselective for the top 2% could have an accelerated curriculum. The other 98% of children could sit their GCSEs at a normal time and go on to a-level and university.

There maybe lots of reasons why a gifted teen might not be able to sit GCSEs two years early. Lack of English at ten years old would make it had to sit GCSEs In year 8/9.

Why deny a more challenging curriculum to those who could benefit? At the moment grammar schools don't provide anything different to a comprehensive as they all follow the national curriculum.

A top set at a comprehensive or even bucks or Kent grammar school will not have enough children to run a class for children capable of sitting GCSE two or three years early. Ultra gifted children are rare.

I dont have a fully worked out policy. If immigrants fully commit to this country and contribute then they can join the queue like everyone else. If they are parachuted in and haven't contributed to our society then they do need to put up with what we can offer then and grammar education is not one of the perks.

Just like everyone else in the country.