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?

Mum - var doesn't want her son to do this. She thinks he should be told exactly what to do by the teacher, else it will lead to "anarchy".

My sons have been self-auditing for gaps in their maths knowledge (and then working to plug those gaps), using the KS3 curriculum and GCSE foundation papers, since the start of Y6. Direct instruction is vital, too, of course.

notanetter Mon 19-Sep-16 14:06:53 My sons have been self-auditing for gaps in their maths knowledge (and then working to plug those gaps), using the KS3 curriculum and GCSE foundation papers, since the start of Y6. Direct instruction is vital, too, of course.

I imagine this will help them build valuable skills for when they study A levels and Degree(s) etc. in the future :-)

DS1 is in year 10. That's a GCSE year, and tbh its only just started so I've no idea what will happen / how the classes will be run. My comments all relate to KS3, which DS1 has just completed by Ds2 is still in (year 8).

Yes but it was impossible to get to for us.

That's the plan, Mum

self-auditing for gaps in their maths knowledge
Actually, now you mention it, Ds1 did have this last year too. I forgot about because there weren't any gaps. It was a problem because they all did a baseline test and the teacher said they all had to improve by x%, except Ds1's mark on the baseline test was either 100% or 99% (or something like that - I think it was 100%).

the school also did it for a spelling test, but again he had a near perfect score.

I'd forgotton about this.

Subjects depend on the size of the school and the emphasis of the school. Around here one of the (large) secondary moderns offers Latin but not the (smaller) grammar.

That doesn't sound exactly the same, var - the audit is supposed to identify gaps, not tick boxes; and it really does need to be personalised.

I do think unfortunately that the success of a comp relies rather heavily on parents being able to help their child self audit their knowledge plug gaps - perhaps expecting us to gave it resources and books and having the means to drive children to extra curricula experiences elsewhere.

I found this all had to be done after school, when I was trying to balance the needs of my other children too.

I was that girl expected to audit my own learning in a mixed ability comp. unfortunately my parents couldn't help, no books on the subject to bring home, no internet. How on earth could I work out easily what I was missing?

var12 Mon 19-Sep-16 14:14:07 DS1 is in year 10.

How old was he when he was assessed as being in the top 1% for maths and in the top 5%-10%-15% for everything else?

I've had nothing to do with it, I assure you! This has all happened at school, thanks to their primary school working with the secondary to identify how best to support them. The internet, it's true, has been invaluable.

Yes should it does depend on the size, but also perhaps make up of the school.

MumTryingHerBest - he was 10 and now he is 14. I know they only last 3 years, but he's done stuff since that you couldn't do unless at the outer edges.
At primary school, there was constant resistance - smallfox isn't original -, but nowadays ds1's teachers acknowledge his ability and volunteer that he won't be challenged for at least the next two years.

var, would you really rather your son were taught by professionals who 'acknowledge that he won't be challenged for at least the next two years' than by, say, smallfox. Who sounds to me like she wouldn't be satisfied with that?

var12 Mon 19-Sep-16 14:54:12 MumTryingHerBest - he was 10 and now he is 14. I know they only last 3 years

It was suggested to me that the test should be redone every 2 years.

Actually, one of the things I object to about grammar schools directly contradicts one of the points often made by grammar school supporters- that secondary moderns allow non academic children to excel in sport, and music and other non academic subjects. In my experience, grammar schools not only take the high academic achievers, but the bulk of the "cultural capital" as well- the children who have been playing instruments and going to sports clubs since they were tiny. Practically all the children ds played music and sport with at primary school went to the grammar. And the grammar school amost always top the school's sports leagues, music competitions and so on. It's nothing-or very little- to do with talent. Everything- or nearly everything- to do with opportunity, awareness and money.

I think that the music and sport opportunities at grammars are part of what many parents really want when they say they support grammars. They are after a nice middle class school full of nice, uncomplicated middle class children. These schools are supposed to teach university relevant subjects, giving the kids a leg up in the race for the all-important Russell group places.

Middle class parents support all that in a comp, too. But at grammar schools no teachers are diverted to dealing with complex needs, no hairdressing courses need to be accommodated. Music lessons are easily accessible, students don't have to travel after school to the orchestra. Crucially, only 20% go there, so meaningful competition for the coveted college places is smaller this way.

Yes I agree that cultural capital tends to drift towards grammar school. But the alternative did not improve the provision really. Is it right for her to have missed out on those experiences? Did she not matter? I didn't think it raised up the capital of the comp at all, yet led to a poorer experience for some.

Funnily enough I found the comp didn't suit my academically lower ability DD either. She preferred mixing with those of her ability, not demographics and found being with those of a higher academic ability stressful.

Although I was brought up to regard comprehensive education as being superior to selective education, I can only say I have been disappointed with my experiences so far.

I am not so sure about the sport, but I believe that having a successful school orchestra is dependent on how many pupils play instruments, and those instrumental lessons will have been largely been paid for privately by parents before the children even entered the school. So while the school gets the benefit/credit, and they have facilitated the orchestra and practice sessions, they have not really contributed at the more basic level that made it possible in the first place. I would imagine that large comprehensives in affluent areas could produce the same. And a small GS not so much.

Headofthehive55, wouldn't your less able DD still have had to mix with those of higher academic ability even with the top 20% removed (unless she was on the 21st centile)?

smallfox could answer this for herself, and I can't. But I read smallfox's description of how she's never had a child who couldn't be taught in her class as a series of reasons why she would never have to provide challenge as she already does enough - the "there is always something more to be learned" comments.

For a start, I don't agree with the idea of encouraging perfectionism - which is a metal health issue -, where 99% once in a series of 100%s is used to "prove" that there is more that can and should be learned and is treated as a justification for not allowing progress to fresh material. (This happened a lot at primary school).

The idea that there is more to each topic, than just the limitations taught by the class teacher is obviously true. However, the practice tends to be that the teacher stops thinking at that point and walks away leaving no scope for the child to do anything other than re-do everything again for the umpteenth time. I don't think either of my children have ever had a teacher who'd be happy for them to sit in class doing something different from the work she is setting at that moment.

cecily yes she would, but I think the distinction would be less sharp - and therefore kinder. It's been what she talks of when talking about school. Funnily enough she has now gone to college, where the more academic will have gone to join 6th form and for the first time, seems a lot happier.

I'd never seen that side of it before as I was academic myself but has made me question whether comprehensive is a good idea.

And yes that was my point originally that large comps will fare better in terms of provision.

var, I think you are utterly misreading what smallfox wrote. Quite possibly because you don't want to understand it.

notanetter - there were no gaps. It was maths and it was the whole of the curriculum for KS3. DS1 had learned it all backwards, forwards and inside out.
So, yes his homework was find the gaps and fill them but there were no gaps in what they were expected to know / be able to do to that point in the curriculum. The reason that there were no gaps was because DS had been filling any gaps in class by doing regular classwork. And, then he'd had time to do the busy work (aka Mastery) that I mentioned upthread - so he'd looked at the ideas and techniques from every conceivable angle over a long time.

I personally would never have passed my 11+ but if my kids had the academic ability at that age I'd send them. DD(14)was a late bloomer and only really started flourishing at 12 (she's now studying her A Level maths/further maths early, so not passing 11+ hasn't affected her). While DS (10) is more into sports than studying right now. They both attend a non-selective private school which is close to home and offers the option of breakfast/dinner which is why I chose to send them there.