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.

Agreed Bertrand. A friend of mine, who was a massive fan of the Grammar system when her academic son won a place, has done blatant U turn now that her less gifted daughter has come along. Daughter did not even sit the 11+ and is bussed out of county to a comp every day, rather than go to the Secondary Modern with the 11+ failures.

I don't think GCSEs are a good measure of academic ability.Any 'try hard' can be taught to jump through the easy hoops to get an A

"Any 'try hard' can be taught to jump through the easy hoops to get an A"
Yes, of course they can. No problem. Easy Peasy. So let's target education spending on making sure mumsnetter's children do their GCSEs 3 years early.........

snowy no, they can't.

You actually have to put the work in (e.g in English, read the books) and independently interpret the texts on the day.

You can't get anyone, of any academic ability, get an A, just because they are a 'try hard' and you have taught them to 'jump through hoops'- and by that I take it to mean, learn some exam tricks.

GCSEs are by no means the only way to measure academic success, but it is one we can use to compare schools as they are moderated at a national level.

Peachpudding; what do you define as a good comp? IMO Good comps are schools that do well relative to the ability of their students. A school may have a higher than average number of low attainers, but if a higher than average number of those low attainers meet their potential and make greater than average progress, then that is good teaching. If meanwhile the high attainers are also exceeding their targets, and so are the Middle attainers, then you have a good comp.

The average stats for that school may look low, but that reflects the intake, not the quality of the teaching, nor the potential for every child to be pushed and do well.

"Try hard" is right up there with "swot". Not great to belittle kids for wanting to do well at school.

*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.*

Given that coursework marked by teachers is going out of fashion for GCSE's it does seem as if there's a problem of parent's doing homework, teachers marking too highly, teachers letting work be re-done etc., so potentially not a great idea to bring teacher/school assessments into the mix.

Also, you have potentially damaging prejudices as highlighted here and risk of preference to children of staff and governors.

An exam isn't ideal, but nor are the alternatives.

I think Snowy has just summed up the problem. Just like the poster recently who said that a private school A was better than a state school A.

Comprehensive schools are not good enough because an A at GCSE is easy..........So even if every child got an A it would still be a rubbish school because it doesn't offer IGCSE Sanskrit.............

Oh yeah an A at GCSE is easy. You know it's easy because everyone at the grammar gets them. That's why they're a good school, and the comp where not everyone gets an A is crap.

Bert We obviously hang out too much on the same threads, I agree the one about the superior private school A* was priceless. But my own personal favourite was the pro-grammar poster who when told that almost all comps do have setting replied "But they'll still see the less intelligent kids in the lunch hour".

"Just like the poster recently who said that a private school A was better than a state school A."

Did somebody say that? - apologies if I have not read this FT properly or another FT. I fail to see why it would be. ( an aside , I know. )

Snowy You don't think GCSEs are a good measure of academic ability? So in your view, only the 11+ is? That's a very narrow view. The 11+ Is supposedly what determines whether you were academic enough to get through GCSEs with good enough results to get into Uni. Hence why if you failed the 11+ you are deemed not academic enough to go as far as GCSEs never mind uni and hence the Secondary Modern setup with the fewer facilities, resources and limited curriculum. (Like I said I'm not that knowledgable about the differences between Comps and sec mods so pls feel free to correct me).

Therefore in my view, if someone fails 11+ but then goes on to pass their GCSEs that can only mean the 11+ is falling short of whatever it's meant to be testing. Some will fail because they just have not reached that academic standard at 11 but will then make up for lost time 2 yrs into high school, some perhaps just having a bad day, the reasons are myriad and complex.

To arrive at a critical decision that will determine the course of life of a child and opportunities that will shape that life, based on a day's exam sounds potentially catastrophic to say the least.

lastly, you seem to suffer from a very rigid and superiority complex mindset, that shows in your remark about getting A's at GCSE. It seems unless the 11+ was initially passed, in your view even getting A's at GCSE from any school, doesn't sound worthy of recognition because as you say,, it's all based on a few tricks.

Just to add, we actually went private. But I'm aghast that anyone would think an A from a private is of more value than from a Comp. I am surrounded by friends and family who go to Comps and I know they work bloody hard for every single grade they get, as does DS at his school.

No one actually know that "almost all comps have setting", as far as I know. Not that long ago, there were newspaper articles saying that only around 50% of lessons were set, although I don't know where they got those figures.

The only firm information I could find when I looked was from 7 years ago, but it points to a significant amount of unset lessons:

"Of about 18,400 classroom observations conducted by Ofsted inspectors in secondary schools last year (2008/09), roughly only four in ten represented set lessons: ...
at secondary, this data suggests that around 53%, 70% and 60% of
lessons are set for English, mathematics and science respectively."

hence the Secondary Modern setup with the fewer facilities, resources and limited curriculum

I do think this is a fallacy. I went to a grammar school back in the days when a top 25% from a strict catchment went, rather than the tutored few from all around the county these days. But it was very clear that my school had the worst facilities of all the secondaries in the town. In fact it was only a couple of years ago that its original gym from 1939 was replaced, and I'm 44!

no, absolutly and totally not, a complete no go.

There is no way that teachers would be able to make such assessments and decisions on top of all the rest of the crippling work load they have. Not to mention the astronomical pressure they would be put under by parents, and managers, not to mention the sheer impossibility of standardising and moderating all teacher assessments across a region.

It is a complete non starter.

An exam is the fairest way of offering places, children are assessed in the same way, on the same day, and alone, without their parents coaxing them

What percentage of parents do you believe pay for tutoring? And to what extent do you believe tutoring helps? Children need to understand the format of the exam, so if schools don't show them that, parents need to, but in practice , most schools do, and it doesn't take long.

I don't think all that many children are tutored, or that it makes much difference

Did somebody say that? - apologies if I have not read this FT properly or another FT. I fail to see why it would be.

It wasn't on this thread ,it was maybe a few months ago? I think what they were trying to say was that a private school would "of course" be teaching to a much higher level than a comp and that therefore the private school A should really be an A**.. Comp kids just get stuffed with facts and taught to regurgitate them No actual evidence for this was provided, of course.

Funnily enough, a few years ago the local newspaper reported that a student at one of our local comps (which has a decent but not staggering reputation) got the second highest mark in the English GCSE.

The only survey I've seen found 72% had had tutoring

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23547666

I've noticed on Mumsnet some parents saying they didn't tutor when what they mean is they didn't pay for it. Personally I think having your child do Bond Books every night is tutoring. I think most people accept that the days of children walking into the exam "blind" are long gone.

On what difference tutoring makes who knows? I doubt if every child can be coached to pass. But if you have two kids of equal intelligence but one has practised NVR lots and one hasn't then that has to give an advantage surely?

HPFA the issue is not whether parents help prepare their children, the issue is whether rich children get an advantage. I don't think they do.

Children who's parents try to do their best for them certainly have an advantage over children who's parents can't be bothered. In all aspects of schooling, and every other aspect of life.

IT always irritates me that in grammar areas, other schools are deemed comprehensive when they are actually secondary moderns.

You get bullying anywhere. Even top sets.

"Head* you are quite right that you get bullying in grammar schools, of course you do. Kids are only human...but, I think there is probably much less chance of them being bullied for being bookish and academic at a grammar, because those attributes don't set them apart.

HPFA plenty of children have lots of tutoring, but still fail the 11+. Thousands of them.

Yes, if you took two equally clever children and only familiarised one of them with NVR, then, yes they will have an unfair advantage.

But, they could also have an unfair advantage if their parents were graduates. Or if their parents had always read a lot with them. Or if their parents discussed current affairs with them etc, etc.

And you just can't police those unfair advantages.

"the issue is whether rich children get an advantage"

Poverty is one of the best indicators of academic underachievement.
Along with the level of your mother's
education.