to ask would you send your eldest Dc to a grammar school?

[var12]

Hypothetical question... if there were grammar schools in your area and your DC1 was offered a place, would you accept it?

Not that political expediency makes it correct.

No I wouldn't and didn't send my oldest to a grammar school. Not because she was unable to pass the 11+ but because it would be the completely wrong environment for her. We chose a school she has thrived in and is currently in 6th form in.

I DID send DS (who is number 3) to a grammar school as it was by far the best fit for him. He is thriving in year 10 and adores school.

Humidseptember Tue 13-Sep-16 20:28:14 The education watchdog says almost two-thirds of the most able pupils in state comprehensives fail to fulfil their potential

Does anyone know if there are any stats. identifying how many DCs fail to fulfil their potential in Grammar Schools?

I'd send my kids to grammar if they are academically able- eldest has just done his 11+ and should get in (despite being from single parent family, free school meals etc).

I was very bright as a child, and went to a comprehensive. I was bullied into feeling ashamed of my intelligence, and so didn't openly work in school, although I achieved excellent results in exams as I was seen as difficult/diffident. Bad reports, but consistently getting the highest marks in tests/exams. I actually loved learning…I just had to do it whilst appearing not to! I was bored for the last year of primary school and for quite a bit of the first 2 years of secondary as I had already done most of the work I was set e.g. maths. I had to leave school due to MH problems before A levels, and never reached my potential career wise.

I think if I had gone to a selective school I wouldn't have been embarrassed of my achievements, that I might have been happier, that I might actually have a career instead of a history of mental health problems. I might have been stretched rather than stifled. Careers were never discussed with me at school when really I could have done anything I wanted to. I don't want that for my academically able children. I want them to succeed and be happy in whatever they do. I can't afford for my kids to go to private school, or afford to buy/rent a house in the catchment area for a good school. The 11+ is the best chance my eldest, and probably the younger kids too, have of going to school which will suit their academic ability.

Its all very well citing OFSTED, but they don't support grammar schools either.

There is some good research out there demonstrating that KS2 results are not great indicators of performance at GCSE, and of course OFSTEDs own overall results ( not the result of a selection of inspections with the data extrapolated) that show that the finding of the quoted information is incorrect.

Sorry about your experience danger mouse and I understand your aspirations for your children.

I don't believe in selection at 10, primarily because of the necessity to label the majority of young children as failures.However if forced with a binary system and a belief that my children had a fighting chance of passing I probably would get them to sit the 11+. It's not a choice I would like and would much prefer to see great comprehensives everywhere.

OP - I've been thinking about this thread further, and I think the issue of worrying that DC2 won't get in so DC1 can't go is unfair on older DCs. I believe in giving my children the same opportunities, but not limiting one to ensure the outcomes of both DCs are the same. So both getting to sit the 11+ is the same opportunity, but not sending one to because the other one wouldn't get in is unfair. (It does help that I have a boy and girl and the grammars are all single sex round here, so if the eldest got in, the youngest wouldn't be going to the same school anyway)

DinosaursRoar - you are right, of course. In my case, DC2 would have got in, but it would take careful handling at home.
You couldn't assume that Dc2 would get in so you'd have to be really careful not to enthuse in front of DC2 about DC1 getting in until DC2 had also been offered a place. Because you would have to make sure that if DC2 didn't get in, then he / she would not have cause to use words like "failure", but rather feel optimistic about being able to achieve anything if they work hard enough.

So rather than think of 'failure', they would need to tell themselves that they 'didn't work hard enough', var? Or are you suggesting that 'working hard' is just as good in terms of optimising outcomes as a grammar education? In which case... why grammars at all?

Unless it's to segregate outcomes, of course. Which was the case when Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn were at school... meaning that the former's jibe about the latter wanting to 'pull the ladder up behind him' is as nonsensical as it is nasty.

DinosaursRoar Thu 15-Sep-16 14:44:01 I believe in giving my children the same opportunities

How would you go about achieving that if DC2 doesn't get allocated a place (bear in mind they can pass the test and still not get a place at their chosen school).

Couple of points to consider (unless your DCs sit the same test on the same day).

The exam content changes from year to year. The content may play to DC1s strengths but the content of the test the following year may not.

The catchements, distance cut offs & score (in some cases) change from year to year. If the distance cut off is smaller for DC2 then even with the same score as DC1 they may not get a place at their preferred school. In this instance do you really think that DC2 is less deserving of the same educational environment as DC1?

The examined co-hort changes from year to year. If there are a particularly high number of OOC DCs sitting or just a higher ability co-hort sitting the exam on one particular year, DC2 may still not get in even if they get the same score as DC1. In this instance do you really think that DC2 is less deserving of the same educational environment as DC1?

DC1 may sit the exam in a year where the school takes in an extra X number of children. This may not happen in the year DC2 sits, in which case, even with the same score as DC1, DC2 may not get in. In this instance do you really think that DC2 is less deserving of the same educational environment as DC1?

do you you look at the screen with a puce coloured filter, notaletter? Its the only explanation I can think of such a sour post that did not reflect anything I wrote.

Let me try again... I think calling someone a failure is a nasty thing to say that can only ever be meant to be dispiriting. However, calling a child a failure is much worse because, frankly, you can do so much more damage with it.

I haven't looked back over this thread to see how many used the word "failure", but I have a feeling that its heavily correlated with those who are against grammars.

Speaking hypothetically, as both my Dc already attend a comprehensive (which i now regret as it is not the right place for them), if DC1 had gone to grammar and DC2 had not got a place, then I would have encouraged DC2 in the exactly the same way I currently do viz "always try to do your best, and never tell yourself that anything is impossible". The only difference would have been that I would have been sure to be circumspect at home when talking to DC1 about his grammar place so as not to set DC2 up for a fall if he didn't get one too.

var12 Fri 16-Sep-16 13:25:22 I have a feeling that its heavily correlated with those who are against grammars.

You can't possibly be surprised by that. After all, to claim the Grammar system is the right way forward you are hardly going to label those who don't gain Grammar places as failures.

Those who are championing Grammars are trying to build a picture of a 'win-win' scenario (with the exception of those who think that the top 25% of top academic performing 10/11 year olds hold the entire future of this country in their hands). Using the word failure is hardly going to assist them in doing that.

I don't think its win-win. Its win- no change

No, I'm trying to find a way of interpreting this:

Because you would have to make sure that if DC2 didn't get in, then he / she would not have cause to use words like "failure", but rather feel optimistic about being able to achieve anything if they work hard enough

that makes sense. Because how on earth can you look a child square in the face and say 'you can achieve anything if you work hard enough', when they are holding a piece of paper saying, 'no matter how hard you worked, you didn't achieve this'? I'm not trying to be awkward or unpleasant; but I think it's important to be realistic about what cost is associated with a two-tier system - and remember, too, that TM has made no pledges at all regarding improvement of education provision for children who don't get offered a grammar place.

It's inevitable, by the way, that 'failure' will be a word more frequently used by those arguing against a grammar system. Those in favour tend to use phrases like 'allowed to succeed'; 'achieve their full potential'; and, less often, 'not have to associate with the children of uncouth parents' in their arguments - for obvious reasons.

There are positives associated with selection, of course there are. For those selected.

var It's not win-no-change; you're fooling yourself if you think that.

Look at the difference between schools and outcomes in areas with grammars, compared with those without, at the moment. Please don't kid yourself there is no impact on the children who aren't selected, when a narrow percentage is.

(and also, don't think I have no sympathy for your current situation, var, because I promise you, I really do. I don't think it's ok)

Because how on earth can you look a child square in the face and say 'you can achieve anything if you work hard enough', when they are holding a piece of paper saying, 'no matter how hard you worked, you didn't achieve this'?

it depends how narrowly you view the exam though and your childs skills.

they could work hard at anything, piano, gymnastics and not achieve a great deal.

I have one academic child, I want her in a school that will nurture that.
My other DC not sure yet but if she proves to be less academic, I would not want her in an academic school! I would not push her or tutor her like mad to get the 11+. I would want a school that matched her needs, I would not view her as a failure or present things in this way to her because I do not believe in them.

Surely we all want to send our dc to schools that most suit their needs?

they could work hard at anything, piano, gymnastics and not achieve a great deal

Exactly so; making 'you can achieve anything if you work hard enough' a patently ridiculous statement at any time, but particularly upon receiving the results of a test that determines whether or not you are worth a particular kind of education (the sort that, according to Theresa May, means you could become a prime minister).

I simply want all children to be able to access a great school. The myth of parental choice in this is a pernicious one.

if DC1 had gone to grammar and DC2 had not got a place, then I would have encouraged DC2 in the exactly the same way I currently do viz "always try to do your best, and never tell yourself that anything is impossible".

As getting the grammar school (presumably despite trying their best) had already proved impossible, that would be a rather pointless thing to say.

I'd like to think that getting into grammar wasn't a life goal. Its not an end in itself IMO. You wouldn't think you'd made it just because you'd got in to grammar school, would you? There's more than one way to achieve your goals, especially if you're only 11. (The limited life options was a big problem with the 1950s grammar system, but, as far as I understand it, no one is suggesting that the new grammar system should be structured in the same way.)

TBH I really do not understand why its imperative that my Dc attend a comprehensive, which does not meet their needs, for the benefit of others. I don't even see how it can benefit others, whether my Dc are their classroom, across the hall or across town.

But it's not because it's a comprehensive that your school does not meet your child's needs. It's either not a very good comprehensive,nor your children are so far to the right of the bell curve that a grammar school woildn't meet their needs either. Grammar schools are not some sort of magic bullet you know.

Bertrand is right, the data shows that high achieving kids perform only very marginally better in a grammar.

No, I know it would have its limitations and nothing is ever a magic bullet for anything. However, in cases like those of my family, I believe it would easily be the best available option.
I say "would" because by my estimates, it will be perhaps 2 years before this becomes law, and maybe another year or two before the first grammars open, but at least 10 before they become widespread - that's if they get through the House of Commons and the Lords first, and the policy to have them isn't overturned by a new PM before they can become established.

Or in other words, I do not think all the people who are so bothered by the thought of grammars need worry because there are so many hurdles to overcome, it will probably never happen.

smallfox2002 - dare I say it, but exams have got easier, so its a lot harder for the highly able to differentiate themselves these days.

I like the system here- where you can go for the 11+ if you want to- but you don't have to. It's a choice and I think that is what is crucial in not labelling kids as 'failures'. I don't think you can 'fail' the 11+ these days- kids know that it depends on the marks of the other children and if you're not in the top x number then you are not in. It is not a mark of intelligence, it is simply where you are ranked in that particular test, in that particular year. Also, you've not failed a test if you choose not to sit it in the first place! Around here (grammar school area) many kids who are able enough to sit the test/get offered place at grammar school choose comprehensives. The comprehensives around here are good, and kids can still achieve high grades if they are able, or they can excel in other things, if that is where their abilities lie. It is nice to have a choice.