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 see what you mean Bertrand and no doubt you're right. However, it leads to an awful 'you need to be able to decode the unspoken information' situation which must exclude some DC who would benefit.

I am neither pro nor anti grammar schools but I grew up in Kent. The grammar schools now have a large contingent of bright kids from Commonwealth and Polish families. This may partly reflect the UK becoming more diverse but I suspect it also reflects that it takes a while to understand deliberately opaque ways of allocating scarce resources.

However, I think it would easy to mess up a functioning system and end up with something even less fair. The best is the enemy of the good?

Blu's post at 23:45 last night is excellent btw. I can't be the only one whose mind boggles at the very concept of grammar schools.

I can possibly understand superselectives, but as little says, I find it hard to imagine that most children's school years could be improved by travelling silly distances rather than attending a half decent school closer to home.

So often on grammar school threads you read things like "my child had to go to a grammar because he/she WOULD HAVE BEEN bullied at the comp". How exactly do they know that they would have been bullied? Did they visit an open morning at the comp and talk to the children there? Did they contact the school to get some idea of how bullying is dealt with? Did they seek out parents at their primary with older children at the school and ask them about bullying?
And my all-time favourite is "children will be happier in a top set in a secondary modern than being in the middle at a comp" So, in a comp the top set are all being bullied and living in fear of the ruffians in the lower sets. But change that comp to a secondary modern and suddenly the top set are glowing in the respect and admiration of the lower sets?

And the idea that at grammar schools there is a)no bullying and b) no "you're a swot/you're thick "interaction" and c) a universal love for learning for learning's sake makes me grin too.........

I find it hard to imagine that most children's school years could be improved by travelling silly distances rather than attending a half decent school closer to home.

Or you could be in my position, grammar school and comp the same distance from home, but in opposite direction, both an easy walk. Comp no where near half decent, that would involve a long bus journey to another town.

Bertrand indeed! And- that the teaching is somehow far superior in grammar schools.

Some of the worst lessons I observed took place in one of the best grammar schools in my county- the students almost without exception all had tutors as the teaching was so poor in one A Level class; and yet the school get the glory of the results.

True comprehensive education for all would be the fairest way- I would be pleased to see the 11+ scrapped completely.

I would be happy to see it scrapped but only if all comprehensives were good schools. If we had good comprehensives it would be a relief as I hate the whole process but don't feel we have much choice where we live.

granny absolutely. If they increased the spending per student and we could cap class sizes, we would get a lot closer to that aim. It makes me sad that at the end of the labour government we were at such a better point in schools- and now all I hear about is the threat of schools closing due to financial instability.

I honestly think it has been the increase of 32/33 students in secondary school class sizes across all subjects, but particularly NC lessons. The marking workload isn't balanced by the removal of PPAs and non-contact periods to provide 'emergency cover' as there are no cover teachers and no money to hire supply for short term cover.

Whilst education remains starved of the cash injection it desperately needs comps are just going to get worse and worse.

More on the social mobility thing:

1979 Thatcher cabinet 91% privately educated. The remaining 9% presumably from grammars as must have been educated before comps

1992 Major cabinet 71 % privately educated. Remaining 28% presumably mostly educated in grammars as average age of Cabinet members is about 50 so very few young enough to have been at comps

2010 Cameron cabinet 24% comp, 16% grammar. Finally, coming to an era when potential cabinet members are old enough to have gone to comps.

2016 May Cabinet 44% of cabinet is educated at comprehensives. So even if ALL the grammar school cabinet members had gone private instead, that would still only be 56% privately educated.

So, how have comps failed exactly?

"Why aren't comps more attractive to parents?"

Because, an awful lot of them aren't nearly good enough. Hence, why as a country (where the vast majority of kids attend comps) we massively lag behind so many other countries in literacy and numeracy.

I recall from a recent BBC report that the average UK child lags 3 years behind in Maths, compared to children in developed Asian countries.

And, despite being a 'grammar school parent' I am still familiar with comps as I have nephews and nieces in the comp system. I also have friends with children in the comp system. I have friends who teach in the comp system. And I worked in many comps as a TA and Cover Supervisor.

No doubt there are some ecellent comps, but not enough of them, not nearly enough...if there were, the UK would be far, far higher up the educational, international league tables.

The last time I checked, according to The Telegraph, the UK ranks 20th in the world...yes, that's right 20th.

Not an especially glowing indictment of our educational system which is predominately comprehensive.

Of course Finland has one of the best education systems in the world and is not only entirely comprehensive but also does not use setting and streaming. Ireland is also high-up in PISA tests, it too has comprehensive admissions but does use setting. Japan (even higher) appears to be comprehensive up to the age of 15 (Wikipedia was not entirely clear on that one!!) France and Germany, with their grammar school systems are much lower down, in fact very close to the UK.

Within the UK Scotland (fully comp) tends to score higher that England and Wales (mixed bag) and Northern Ireland (secondary modern)

So, obviously, grammar schools are the answer. Give me strength!!

HPFA class size doesn't go above 20 in Finland either. Wouldn't need to stream if there were 20 in a class and no tiered papers. This is the first year we're teaching without tiers and it makes exam classes SO much easier, when up until now we've been preparing students in the same classes for different papers.

I would love a maximum of 20 in a class.

Aren't the PISA measurements (like anything related to education, to be fair) controversial?

20th in the world is utterly shite. It's embarrassing.

I wonder if the 'good' comps have selection by other less obvious means. It just might not be possible to get good comprehensives everywhere in the country, hence why there is a desperate plea for more grammars.

Yes, no educational data is perfect. Problems of teaching to the test and Shanghai has been accused of only putting forward the brightest students for PISA, which obviously would up its score. I think its pretty certain, though that selective systems don't have an advantage over non-selective. So it would seem more efficient and cheaper to improve our existing non-selective system surely?

"I wonder if the 'good' comps have selection by other less obvious means. It just might not be possible to get good comprehensives everywhere in the country, hence why there is a desperate plea for more grammars"

Is there a desperate plea for more secondary moderns as well?

If comes were able to propley challage bright children grammar schools would not be

When my sister is having to correct spelling and grammar in the English teachers notes

It's time to move your child to a grammar most teachers are only able to teach to a child who is at a avarge level and many would even struggle to get a job in a private school as there own academic ability and degree is not good enough

I am no scholar but I have not raised my head to teach anyone

My son attends a oustanding school with really good academic outcomes and we still felt the need to top it up with private tutors

Also remember that in counties where there is a full grammar school system 'comprehensive' isn't really comprehensive, so we don't have the choice to send them to a comprehensive school nearby.

So you don't think your son will get good GCSEs at an outstanding school with really good academic outcomes? Why not?

Which other economically developed country would you prefer to come 20th in the world, MaQueen?

If you take a look at the actual PISA stats, rather than the telegraph headlines, we don't massively lag behind many other countries. The top 7, which includes asian countries, seem to be significantly ahead; then the results after that are much of a muchness with a few points in it either way between about number 8 and number 23.

OP just my twopence worth on this thread.

First, i don't like the sentence, 'useful to weed out those who do not stand a chance with coping with a faster pace of learning

Weed out suggests the children who can't pass the exam are of little worth, like weeds trying to choke the good crops. You may not have meant it that way but that's how it comes across.

In rl, I find people who use this word tend to be those who are confident that their own child would pass the exam.

Secondly, what do you think should happen to the children who don't pass 11+? Would it be the dreaded secondary modern?

I didn't school in the U.K so not quite up to scratch with the differences between Comps and Sec moderns in terms of provision BUT have read enough to know no one wants to go there if there is a better choice.

Please also remember that many children who fail 11+ go on to achieve excellently at GCSE. I doubt ds1 would have passed 11+ but on track to achieving straight A's at GCSE.

My kids went to a comp that was originally pretty good, but was in special measures by the time DC3 left. She still managed all As and A*s with no tutoring. So I suspect that even a really rubbish school is not that rubbish for the brightest kids.

I think the best system would be one of properly funded comprehensives, with teaching to get the best out of every different set and the ability to move up and down the sets for late developers or strugglers. I also think super sixth form colleges, with sets for A levels are a good idea.

Nobody ever wants to talk about the children who don't pass the 11+ in selective areas. They were memorably referred to as "the dregs" on a thread a couple of years ago.