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?

This is interesting, though obviously not conclusive given the small number of selective areas in the country now. The final graph really sums up the effect. Good for a very small number at the top of the income distribution. Bad for a much larger number at the bottom.

blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/

(incidentally, relating the the last discussion, the primary reason I chose to send my DS to a super-selective grammar school rather was in order to learn sooner that he wasn't automatically the best, but he could achieve through hard work)

But, like maths says, even if they don't have the 11+, the much less able kids will know they're not one of the clever ones, anyway.

They'll go to the comp and will know they won't be getting into the top sets. They will know they won't be getting as good GCSEs as others.

So, how is that better than them knowing they won't be going to the grammar?

"Bertrand grammar school kids will also learn about failure. They might not hit their tracking targets, they might not make maths top set when they fully expected to (looks at DD1), they might not make the orchestra, or make House Captain when they campaigned hard and dearly wanted it (yes, DD1 again...)."

Yes, but they then don't have to wear a special blazer to let the world know about these 'failures' for the next 5 years. A failure that also lets the world know that they are mixing with the children of uncouth parents, no less!

Surely kids who aren't Mary in the nativity play or House Captain can be pretty magnanimous about it because they know that only one child gets to succeed in this case.

How do grammar school selection procedures deal with children like my DS who is very able in maths (easily best in his year) but less able in literacy, partly due to being taught in his second language?

How do you level the playing field for bright kids who are recent immigrants? Or for bright kids with a learning disability? Much easier to move kids between sets than between schools.

Why do children who fail the 11+ have to have a special lesson in failure as well as the usual childhood lessons of not getting picked for teams and not meeting their targets or not being Mary........?

Can anyone think of any "failure" quite as final as failing the 11+? There are very few things in life that you can't have another go at.

Sadly, the the much less able kids will know they're not one of the clever ones, whether they are in a comprehensive or a secondary modern. However, I don't think the bright average ones know this. And it really isn't fixed. In many exams, including GCSE's, you can make up for lack of natural brilliance by application and hard work. How do you think girls do so much better than boys - are boys less intelligent?

In a heartbeat: very sad I didn't get the chance. Next question.

Mistigri- they deal with people like your son by sending them to comprehensive school. It's a blunt took- fail the exam and you go to comprensive. They're not actually looking for talent in certain areas but all round excellent academic ability (musical talent can be an exception)

Cecily - a very good argument against GCSEs is that girls mature earlier than boys and that comparing boys and girls at that age puts boys at a disadvantage.

But that has always been the case, Bobo, yet in the days of O levels, till about 1970 boys did slightly better than girls, after which it was the other way round. But when I say slightly, it was just that - not wider difference that exists with GCSEs. I think GCSE's actually favour the consciencious pupil, and greater proportion happen to be girls. I would add that plenty of boys are consciencious too, but at a population level there is this difference.

There is one grammar school in our area, my daughter got in on her own merits without tutoring (neither through school, private tutor nor us tutoring - just a looked a few VR papers in the three weeks prior just so she knew what to expect) and we sent her. It was the worst mistake we made, we are currently moving her to a comprehensive school (faith but not strict in that sense) and in a week of being back I have a happy, thriving teen who isn't feeling suicidal and that is the first time in two years I have been able to say that.

The teaching and expectations of girls have improved dramatically.

In my girls' grammar school, needlework and cooking were still on the curriculum in the late 1970s.

Today 13:34 toconclude

In a heartbeat: very sad I didn't get the chance. Next question.

I don't think OP has another question for you toconclude

I went to a grammar and didn't know any different and expected all my DC to also go.

However now one dc is in yr 6, my opinion has changed. I'm not against grammars but in my day you looked at a few tests in the month before and rocked up on the day. Now my DC goes to private school and everyone is pushing for the 11+. In addition to private primary they die tuitions for years. My DC is really smart (I'm not biased - I have another who's very daft) but doesn't like to sit for studying much so I didn't make him . If he took it when I took it, he would have easily passed. Now it seems whoever has been coached the most will pass which means the dynamics of the cohort has changed. I don't think he will pass, I've already selected 3 comprehensives for him and told him not to worry. Sadly we don't have that many non grammars with a good reputation around here because there is so many grammars in the area. I have lived in the surrounding areas all my life and I didn't even know of any before researching. That's because anyone who was able went to one of these grammars. In this way I'm glad they are so competitive because then some very bright students still are not in the grammars which means there isn't such a divide anymore.
I think actually having "sets" is more productive , with the ability to move up and down accordingly. I have been so stressed that my dcs future is based on a few hours on one Saturday morning at age 10.

Selectiveness is a good thing. It allows top achievers to do their best, academically, whereas other children get an early indication that they should develop their other, non-academic talents. Being naturally academic is convenient, career-wise, but it does not make people happy. (Often quite the opposite). Being non-academic narrows your options a little, but if you start focusing on your chosen path early, you can achieve great things in life too.

But spotofweather it's only a tiny proportion of children who are considered academic using 11+ criteria.

I am a professional (I'm an auditor). I didn't go to grammar school as they didn't exist where I lived. I wouldn't have got into one anyway and I was not considered to be clever at school- simply average and forgotten about. I went to uni (average/ poor) and started working and got sponsored for ACA (accounting qual) which I passed. I have a good, professional job, I earn a lot of money.

I objectively, probably at the higher end of average intelligence wise.

You don't need to be academically outstanding to be like me. You need to be a hard worker, dedicated, flexible, ambitious, maybe a bit lucky. But you don't need to be the top 15% creamed off by grammar schools and that is the case for many "good" jobs.

Do we want to go back to the 70s where teachers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, architects and surveyors all came from grammar schools and everyone else came from a comp? Why can't an average person become an (average) solicitor? A teacher? A dentist?

One thing that isn't ever addressed in this debate is that talented academics aren't needed for most things. You don't need to be a talented mathematician or linguist to have a brilliant career. Why isolate that tiny percentage to do these things when you don't need them to?

Bobochic never mind the 70s: in my sons' comprehensive, cooking is on the curriculum this year, except they call it "Food Tech". Personally, I am not keen on all the extras that get chucked into the 6 hours a day of school time- like PSHE - , but when it comes to cooking, I thinks its an invaluable life skill.

SpotofWeather- tell me about the schools that these 10 year olds identified as "non-academic" should go to.

talking of "tiny prcentages" - how tiny is the % who would go to grammars? Top 15%? Top 20%?

I had read 15% but I imagine its very area dependant at the moment

Why on earth are you not keen on PHSE?

In theory I'm opposed to selective education.

In practice I would send my kids to whichever school I thought was best for them, regardless of whether I think it's "fair" or not. MY kids are my priority like pretty much every single other parent in the world. It's dog eat dog out there!! Sad but true!

I draw the line at pretending to be religious though...! (although I wouldn't want them at a faith school anyway)

PHSE - maybe its the way its done at my DCs schools. It doesn't exactly break new ground for anyone who does not live in a bubble, protected from the world. e.g. smoking is bad for you, obesity is bad for you, drinking does this to your body (and is bad for you), sexual development looks like this, this is how your body works etc., etc. Its all repetition of what everyone knows already. Maybe other schools teach the kids something that they don't already know, but my dc's school does not.
Obviously whether they apply the lessons in real life is another story, but repeating the same messages ad nauseum won't change that.

EllsTeeth - but that's the point isn't it? You should decide for yourself what is best for your kids, and not impose your values on other people's children.