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?

smallfox2002 - how do the children in your class stretch themselves because we are talking about what happens in school, not outside of it? Do they just decide for themselves what they should do once they've learned whatever it is you are trying to teach?

ChelleU - what would having lots of money have to do with your kids going to grammar? Its state provided i.e. free at the point of use.

So basically, you want a personalized curriculum for your child...........

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I think of grammar and private schools in the same way. I know that grammar schools are state funded but if they weren't and I had one in my area, I still wouldn't chose to send my kids there.

var That's pretty much what my kids, do, yes

My response to my bright child if he said he was bored at school would be "Well, what are you going to do about it?"

If you had a 40,50 and 10% model , the three types of schools would relate to the grades a pupil would be expected to achieve.

The Grammar school would take the top 40% or those likely to attain levels 6-9 in their GCSEs .
The High School would take pupils who are likely to achieve average GCSE grades of 3-6 .

The third type of school would take the 10% of students who struggle to achieve literacy and numeracy. The school would concentrate on making sure no pupil leaves the school without reading writing and numeracy levels equivalent to at least that of an 'average' 14 year old. That is possible the minimum level of attainment needed to function in England/Wales today.

The lowest attaining 10% of pupils are the 'real' winners in such a system. This is because finally their needs would be met in a school soley designed for 'struggling' and emotionally affected students.

Unlike every other poster on here , i was in the bottom 10% of the ability range ,so i can talk about being there with more authority than most posters here.

I've held back from saying this because it upsets people, but in my experience of teaching, its very rare that a child is actually so able that they need to have extra work set for them. There is almost always something even the top students can be improving upon, its one of the reason I worked hard to bring in redrafting and demonstrating improvements on work. There can even be improvements made on work that receives full marks. Its a very rare thing to come across a student who is flawless in every way in any topic so they can always be going back and developing areas. I also pose questions through my marking that tries to get them to think about another angle/approach to the problem.

On top of this I point them in the direction of further reading so that they can increase their understanding of the topic, on top of having books and periodicals you get them to look up documentaries etc.

All too often though I find that the "not being stretched" is often used by parents whose kids are either a bit disruptive or not hitting the top grades. I'm all too often asked by parents why their kid isn't performing to their best, and the response is ALWAYS because they aren't working hard enough.

sandyholme Sat 17-Sep-16 16:44:05 i was in the bottom 10% of the ability range

I'm guessing that's not still the case?

sandyholme Sat 17-Sep-16 16:44:05 i was in the bottom 10% of the ability range

I'm guessing that's not still the case?

Yes, I agree Smallfox.

My ds would by no means be an outlier in a comprehensive- but he is in his school. He, and a handful of others will, if they knuckle down get some As. If he wants A*s he's got to get on with getting them- the school quite frankly does not have the resources to do more than show him the right direction to go. They quite rightly have other priorities.

It would be entirely wrong to target huge amounts of scarce resources on getting the As to A*s when there are a raft of kids whose life chances will be radically curtailed if they don't get their Cs, or whatever the C equivalent will be. And getting that C equivalent will be wildly more difficult in the years to come...........Obviously in an ideal world, ecpveryone would have a targeted, personalized curriculum. Pragmatically, that's not going to happen.

Thank you Mum !

The point made up thread (or on another one) that children/adults develop emotionally or academically at different times . One child might be ahead at 11, 16 but by 21 or even 30 they have been overtaken by the other child.

The number of people i have a met who were going nowhere at '25' and who by 40 have become hugely successful is amazing. On the flip side they are people who had everything at 25 and are 'washed' up at 40.

This can therefore be linked to mean a child might be academically able at 11 . This does not mean because the child passed the 11+ they will have a more productive life than the child who failed.

What it is about is giving the child an education that is correct at that time.

Sandy- you keep making an excellent case for comprehensive education......

It isn't an argument for comprehensive or grammar schools.

It's an argument that achieving anything at any point in life, whether that be being in the top set in year ten, getting in to grammar school, going to Oxford or getting a research position does not mean that you are always going to be a person who is among the most competent, talented or skilled in the future.

No its about where a child is at 11 not where they will be at 25 or 30.
Therefore when i hear people aged '45 , saying they are still suffering from the 'rejection' letter, i know they are using something that is not worth tuppence to determine their life. Failing the 11+ does not define you despite people using it as a crutch to defend their failings in life !

The only problem with the system or a 22/25% grammar system is the percentage is to low. This means a number of children who are grammar standard lose out due to the small number of places or the luck of the draw on the day !

A 40% grammar system would alleviate the problems of the child who scores 118/119 and are denied the desired education by single point.

Grammar schools do not solve the problem.

Your suggestion would be a disaster, the children would certainly see themselves as written off, no matter how you frame it, there would be more disenfranchised kids, behaviour would be a problem, attracting and retaining staff would be difficult.

Alternatively, sandy, you could make high quality education available to all; teach children resilience, independent learning skills and a growth mindset from the start; refuse to restrict the courses of study open to them on the grounds of flawed summative assessment...
... and focus on specialist provision post-16. Where it actually starts to make some kind of sense.

I agree with Multivac.

How do you stop schools from restricting courses? In non grammar areas, different schools offer different GCSEs.

"...on the grounds of flawed summative assessment". Of course not every school can offer every course - but the courses that are offered, should be open to all.

If your mark in the 11+ doesn't define anything, sandy, then what's the point of it?

(Even if the results might interfere with the school's league table status; because actually, the sooner those bloody league tables are abolished, the better.)

But they're not open to all. Not everyone can go to their first choice school.