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.

Er it's quite normal actually to sit GCSEs early in the comp system. My DD did. Then continued to learn a broader curriculum.

I don't think it's a very good idea actually. School is about much more than academic learning. There is a lot Of social development that goes on too. Where do you put the academically bright but social young? There are lots of enrichment opportunities anyway - maths Olympiad for example. My DD did a distance learning Latin course.

Thing is bright children have to learn to live in a world where there are not so bright ones.

I thought you could change schools there and the system was a lot more flexible throughout. That's what someone told me who lives there. Oh dear sorry

Don't worry peachpudding having watched the process, most recent immigrants won't be going into grammar schools. Their parents don't understand the system so are less likely to register for the test on time, they won't realise that everyone else is cramming like crazy with tutors, there are no allowances in the test for children who have only learnt English as a second, third or maybe fourth language and only learnt it recently, the questions are fairly culturally biased so hopefully the child of a new immigrant won't understand our ways. I think that selective education is fairly safe for the moment from all the immigrants. Many of these points apply to low income families too so that's good eh?

just incase anyone isn't sure do I need to point out the sarcasm?

Have you thought about the fact that wealthy educated parents often were good at school themselves? That is why they get decent jobs as a result. Their children tend to be more able in the same areas.

Not sure it's all to do with tutoring as your suggest.

You suggest.

How about just not letting the children of wealthy parents sit the 11+ then? A means tested entrance.

Parents have to declare their household income, tax returns, council tax band etc. If they earn too much or own too much capital and are therefore capable of paying for tutoring or private school, then they don't get to apply.

That could make sure a big proportion of the rich, 'tutoring' classes don't get GS places.

Obviously there would be some dodgers who fiddled the system. And some parents who bought the Bond or CGE practice papers and gave their kids an advantage that way. Or who spent a lot of time reading with their children, again giving them an advantage over those children whose parents who don't have the time to do so.

Or would it be better to simply ensure that all primary schools actually provide decent 11+ preparation?

If we banned grammar schools and moved to a totally comprehensive system with streaming abilities in sets, would tutoring a child who was in top sets be acceptable then? The wealthier parent is still investing in their child over the poorer parent who cannot? Another advantage.

Why aren't comprehensive schools as appealing to parents as grammar schools then?

We don't have grammar schools here. I did read some academic research some years ago that looked at educational attainment at 16 and found the benefit was half a GCSE grade. In one subject.

I think parents like to think they are getting something better in case it turns out to matter.

There is a lot more to academic success than the school. Home for example. How disadvantaged might the child be whose parents both work full time and is spending lots of time with relatively uneducated nanny?
Or the single parent teacher who tutors her child for free?

peachpudding

Immigrants often do extremely well at school because they come from moviated families. The parents are ambitious for their children and make them work very hard. Often immigrants attend weak schools in deprived areas. I could be argued they are EXACTLY the children grammars were originally intended to help.

I didn't know that there was a queue for education. I thought that was very child had a right to a state education if they lived in the UK.

I don't think parental income should be used to penalise children. That income, particularly in the case of estranged parents is not always available to the child.

"Why aren't comprehensive schools as appealing to parents as grammar schools then?"

1. Because some comprehensive schools aren't as good as they should be 2)Because some people do not know what comprehensive schools are
2. Because some people are snobs

I think that just about covers it.

I can see where you're coming from, OP. Have to disagree though- here in Germany entrance to the Gymnasium is based on a teacher's reference and standard of work over the later years of primary school. Unfortunately there are rumours about teachers taking backhanders, parents doing homework etc. The system is really unequal compared to the UK. I've seen at first hand the damage it can do when a struggling child from a wealthy background is sent to a school beyond their capabilities, fails and is forced to repeat in some private school. Cruelty.

That said, I'm v pro-grammar: I grew up in NI back in the good old days when primary schools prepped you for the test. It wasn't dragging talent away from comps either, there was a good balanced system. Yes my school was only 7% FSM, but fuck it, that's still better than a private school. I honestly think if you want to improve WC attainment, early years lang skills are a good focus. IMO 11 is far too late for social engineering.

Also I witnessed a lot of alienation from FSM kids by sixth form- so many just dropped out and/or got pregnant (girls' school). People forget that education doesn't end after grammar entrance- keeping deprived kids engaged for the next 7 years is a job in itself.

All the same, even West Belfast (highest child poverty rate in the UK) has some excellent Catholic grammars. Our results are consistently above the national average. There are no private schools really as no demand. I don't think we should bring in some kind of quota as that would undermine the system. I enjoyed being able to move at a faster pace, argue points etc. without the teachers having to cater to slower types. Vive la grammar.

I hate to say this as I can see precisely where you're coming from, but this is actually how it used to work (head teachers having the final say) and there are really good reasons why it changed. Multiple members of my family were denied a grammar school place because (1) "we only send boys" - my grandma who came second in her year. (2) "your parents can't afford the uniform" - my aunt who was eventually the first attendee of that school to go to university. (3) "there are three teachers with children this year, we can't pass them all and the others are boys" - aunt on the other side of the family (although she did get to go in the end).

So you have to be really, really careful if you let someone else have the final say. I think the solution is actually better differentiation in state schools, or alternatively better mobility between schools and adult education options. There are many reasons why children don't achieve at primary school and effectively writing them off at eleven seems very harsh.

Schools need the rich kids as much as the poor kids. Comprensives often fail because selection by postcode results in schools for the rich and schools for the poor. Poor children generally get an inferior education to their rich counterparts.

For example many comprensive can't offer GCSE music because there aren't enough children of grade 4 standard. Schools in poor area have less trips and extra curricular activities.

I think a lot of parents who chose grammar schools do so in total ignorance of what comprehensives are like now.

I am delighted with my Y7 son's comp, where he is absolutely flying.

But the argument is that parental income or ability to find tutoring is penalising children already. Those who don't have parents rich enough to pay for tutoring.

What is the definition of tutoring btw? Past paper practise what? All of it?

If comprehensives aren't so attractive to parents because they aren't as good schools (or even perceived to be as good), then would it be better to focus energies in improving those comprehensive schools? To make them centres of excellence themselves?

Why isn't this happening?

Considering the majority of kids go to these schools, isn't that where the real educational injustice lies?

I don't think that a head teacher should have a final say. That would result in grammars being packed with the children of governors or PTA or staff. All schools have computer records of a child's progress and maybe these records could be used as information. Class size and position are important information as well.

Totally off topic but does anybody remember those bizarre practice questions from 70s/80s books?

"What might you find on a dresser?"
Well, mine featured photos, bills, and cat food... What do you mean, the answer's "crockery"?!

Another point- not all children are born equal. I grew up near an extremely deprived estate. Quite a few in my class were suffering from the effects of poor nutrition and prenatal exposure to alcohol. Like it or not, this takes a toll on their ability.

In our area the children sit 2 VR tests and 2 NVR tests and their best score on each is taken.
Grammar school assessment needs to totally objective.In the old days whe I was a child , teacher opinion was taken into account and this was open to abuse.Previouly children sat the 11+ in their own primaries but again there were question marks over whether papers were interfered with so now they go to a central testing venue.
Obviously some children will struggle when they start GS because they are testing for potential not current attainment so some children will be 'behind' others

I also find it fascinating that it's grammar school parents who seem to be so very knowledgable about other types of school!

To correct a factual error, academies (which means most English schools including most grammars) don't have to follow the National Curriculum, although they may choose to. I have been teaching in a super selective grammar. We did the National Curriculum but in an accelerated way and with a lot of extra stuff. As the students got older, the curriculum became more different.

It would make sense if all primaries in grammar areas prepared for 11+ plus, or at least gave parents the option, but I have been told (by senior staff) that they're not allowed to, which if true, seems bonkers.

My school may not have had many recent immigrants to the UK but it had large numbers whose parents had migrated. Ime it takes a generation to crack the code!

There's a brilliant comp round here which I'd be thrilled if DS got into. Unfortunately as I don't do organised religion, he's unlikely to get a place. So I have to hope he passes the stupid test. Oh the irony!

I'm always incredibly pleased when I read these threads that we're not in a grammar area. Some (very, very few) of the most academic children get taken on by private schools offering bursaries and scholarships, but nowhere near enough to touch the sides.

Honestly before I joined Mumsnet I had no idea such an anachronistic system still existed

"It would make sense if all primaries in grammar areas prepared for 11+ plus, or at least gave parents the option, but I have been told (by senior staff) that they're not allowed to, which if true, seems bonkers."

It is true. Because

1. the myth is that it is an untutorable test, so allowing schools to prepare children for it would give the lie to this.
2. where would the time and money come from to prepare children for the test in primary school- and what would happen to the children who are not going to take the test while the others are being prepared?
3. it won't make any difference,because the children being prepared at home still will be-and will get the extra from school as well.

In our area of Milton Keynes, children take the 11+ to go to grammar as it should be.