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?

Humidseptember>
If I have a bright academic dc why should I risk it? Why?
Completely agree. You would be crazy to risk it. (Or naive - like I was).

If my other dc are not as academic as the first why would I want to squeeze them into such a school???? I agree here too, but plenty of parents try exactly that, hence the huge tutoring industry. Maybe people are just a bit blind when it comes to their children, and if they aren't doing well at school, they blame the teachers or decide that they'll be late-developers?

Humidseptember Ofsted's Chief Inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, comments on the most able pupils, saying that there is still too much talent going to waste

Should we conclude, therefore, that there is less tallent going to waste with regard to the middle or low attainers?

Both these surveys found that thousands of pupils who achieved well at primary school, especially those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, were failing to reach their full potential after the age of 11.

Can I just ask what definitiion the reports gave for "full potential" and how the "full potential" was measured?

Are there any reports that identify how many pupils are failing to reach their full potential in grammar schools?

poor transition arrangements with feeder primary schools that left many academically gifted pupils treading water in their first few years of secondary school, rather than building on the gains made at key stage 2

Did the report state that this was not the case with grammar schools?

few checks being made on whether the teaching of mixed ability groups was challenging the brightest children sufficiently

Did the report state that this was not the case with grammar schools?

disproportionate effort being spent in many schools on getting pupils over the GCSE D/C borderline rather than supporting the most able to secure the top A/A grades*

I heavily suspect this is down to the way schools are being judged in terms of performance. I also suspect many Gramnmar schools invest a lot of support in those pupils on the D/C and B/A boundaries.

If my other dc are not as academic as the first why would I want to squeeze them into such a school?

Of course you wouldn't. Which is why I think people are quite right in asking what the alternative to Grammar schools will be and how they will be affected by the proposed changes.

var12 Sat 17-Sep-16 10:35:24 Maybe people are just a bit blind when it comes to their children, and if they aren't doing well at school, they blame the teachers or decide that they'll be late-developers?

Or perhaps people think the shite comps. everyone keeps referring to are not going to enable their DC to reach their full potential.

well they are probably right there, if the emphasis is on "full". But then, nothing ever will except an education with a succession of specialist teachers and psychologists all focused on that one child. Everything else is just a compromise.

Should we conclude, therefore, that there is less talent going to waste with regard to the middle or low attainers?

Yes, you should, if you are talking average per child.

If my other dc are not as academic as the first why would I want to squeeze them into such a school?

"Of course you wouldn't. "

Then explain the tutoring industry.

I don't understand, var. Not reaching one's potential is the same, whether that "potential" is seen as a clutch of top grades, or meeting the floor level.

Oh, unless you're suggesting that the former potential is more important/valuable/significant than the latter?

no, what I am saying is that if you reach 95% of your potential (whatever that actually is) is a lot better than reaching 60% of it. I am saying that if your potential is to reach the floor level of 5cs at GCSE, then you are more likely to scrape there than if you are top 1% because the education system is tailored to get as many people as possible over the 5 GCSE level but there's a vacuum when it comes to the most able (so they find themselves in a sort of hamster wheel doing what schools call "mastery" - which is demonstrating in 100 different ways that you've completely understood some concept or other).

There is no way to measure potential, that I know of, but you can be sure its not being met when you regularly spend a lot of time killing time waiting for half of the class to catch up.

sorry I've just reread that and I haven'[t said it well:-
people who would struggle to get 5 GCSEs at c or above are more likely to be helped to reach that threshold that is high for them, than people who are in the top 5% are to reach what would be a challenging target for them. In fact, the people who are in the top 5% (say) are just left to get on with it, and mostly what they can expect is a higher % than average of cover lessons, and a lot more time doing busy work.

If your 'potential' (and you're right - that's a stupid and unhelpful, not to mention unmeasurable, term) is to reach the minimum standard in maths and English, then I can assure you that reaching 95% of it is really no advantage over reaching 60% of it in the current climate.

I'm sorry your children are having a rubbish time at school. I'm sorry that the system is currently letting them down, by placing such ridiculous pressures and expectations on schools generally. But I will never agree that the solution is to helicopter them out, with additional funding, leaving others who are being equally let down, but might score a few fewer points in an arbitrary academic test, to continue in that position. There is no reason why high achievers cannot access a suitable education within a comprehensive environment - and as I say, I will let you know in a few years' time whether I can back up this assertion with person experience.

personal

Why should it cost more (additional funding)? Let's say there is 1 teacher per 20 pupils at secondary (I've no idea what the real number is), then why can't the funding for those teachers transfer with the pupils?

Or are you saying that the government pays £3500 per pupil (again, a made up number), then schools reduce spending on the more able pupils in order to increase it for the less able. So, if the top 25% got helicoptered out, taking their 25% funding with them, the remaining 75% would be left with less money per pupil than previously?

(Anyone else having trouble pressing "Post Message" today?)

No, the 'additional funding' was an aside, and referred specifically to the money that TM wants to earmark for her 'operation grammar' project.

So, she's planning to spend more per head on grammar school pupils than those at comprehensives?? Wow! (but that would not be fair).

Or is the extra money just to disappear on civil servants and lawyers at the DoE for the work in creating the laws, policies and monitoring procedures?

Yes, my eldest DC attended a grammar school.
My younger DC goes to a comp.

Then explain the tutoring industry.

^^ I have explained a large reason of why parents who want their dc to go to grammar have to engage a tutor, I have explained countless times and posted the Sutton Trust Review on this - that PS are not consistent with helping potential students.

These pupils are up against privately educated dc whose whole school time has been teaching to these and other tests or at least to make sure they have covered everything necessary to pass.

Or should interested parents just stand back and forget grammars altogether and leave them to privately educated dc to go into?

The Sutton Trust has highlighted the gap between PS helping their potential 11+ candidates pass the test.

If I had a dc with potential to take the test, I could and would support her at home over the years with help, ie the usual, reading, vocab, comprehension, and maths.

However even for a few sessions I would engage a tutor to tell me, if there were any gaps in her knowledge purely because a tutor would know, I would not. This should not be necessary in good prep schools.

We didn't have a tutor for DS, but then we're not in an area with lots of private prep schools.

The same applies at A levels and GCSE. Many kids will have tutors because they are competing against private school students for university places.

The latter, I think, var. Plus the premium associated with setting up free schools (it's perfectly possible that free grammar schools will be given priority over non-selective free schools.... not that we'll hear about that, as the process for approving free schools is insanely opaque).

Humidseptember - either parents want their not-quite-able-enough-but-nearly-there children to go to grammars, or they don't.

If they do, then they hire private tutors. If they don't want them to pass an entry exam, then they don't hire the private tutors. Empirical evidence is that the private tutoring industry is worth around £6.5 billion per year- and that's not including the black market - which suggests that there are a lot of parents who feel the need to pay to have their kids coached whether for entry exams, or just to keep up with the rest of their class.

Var-, as I said earlier, your child is either in a not very good school, or is so far to the right hand side of the bell curve that the same would happen to him in a grammar school.

My Dc are in a very good comprehensive - at least the parents, OFSTED, LEA, league tables etc., etc all seem to think so.
He is towards the far end of the bell curve - I said upthread that he's top 1% for maths- but he's quite high for the other stuiff too. So, yes, grammar would not fit like a glove.
However, the bell curve ranges from bottom 1% to top 1% at a comprehensive (hence the name), so when the students are set - and that isn't always - he can find himself in a class with students who range from top 1% to top 25% (plus the few extra that are there for the confidence boost of being able to say that they are in the top set). It means a very wide spread of abilitis even in the top set.

However, grammar schools take the top 25% (say) and then they set. So, the spread of abilities in the top set at grammar is much smaller than at a comprehensive, which I would hope, means that they spend less time on mastery and more time on exploring the subject fully.

Grammar schools don't always set.

DS wasn't set for the vast majority of subjects.

DD is in a comp and is not set for most subjects.

At least with the eleven plus it is a one off test and then the stress and pressure are over. Setting and the threat of being moved from one set to another is a constant pressure and worry that goes on for years. I can see how it is great if you are at the top, but it's awful if you are in the middle like DD and have this threat hanging over you.

These grammar school debates always seem to be dominated by the parents of very academic children. I don't feel it is in DD's interests for her to be educated alongside very academic kids because their parents will constantly demand extra resources, setting arrangements and the best teachers to benefit their kids. Very academic kids are often not actually suited to the kind of educational experiences average kids need.

Sorry, var, but what you describe as your son's experience is not good practice. Full stop. I couldn't give a toss what OFSTED says. Ever.

I also think you have a very rosy image in your head about grammar schools. They live and die by their results. Spoonfeeding is widespread - and trust me, as long as your kid is on track for an A*, then that's the job done.

then that's the job done. That's my fear.

Its not just Ofsted, its everyone who says that Dc's school is great, fantastic, wonderful (and all the other superlatives). It probably deserves that praise for the majority of children - apparently it has a fantastic record with EAL, SEN and FSM - but nothing is all things to all men, and it has let DS down IMO.

The issue seems to be that the school is so busy taking care of those who are more deserving, that DS, and those like him, don't really figure at all.