Grammar schools - which dc to prioritise?

[sylviavana]

We have a dd aged 9 in Year 5 and a ds aged 8 in Year 4.

Dd is extremely clever, and has always been top of her class. Ds is a lovely, kind boy but he’s never been a high achiever at school, even though he tries very hard.

We currently live in a grammar school area. As things stand, dd will be sitting the 11+ next year and is pretty much guaranteed to get into a great girls’ grammar school where I know she’ll thrive. She often gets frustrated at school when the teacher has to slow down to help other children - I think a selective environment would suit her perfectly, and I think she’d love being at a girls’ school, as she frequently gets annoyed by the boys in her class who mess around.

However, ds will almost certainly not get into the local boys’ grammar school, and the non-grammar options in our catchment area are not good. They have a reputation for very bad behaviour and low attendance, don’t get good results, and all have pretty crap facilities and buildings compared to the girls’ grammar that dd will be going to.

I’m so worried that this will cause ds to resent dd - that she has so much better a school experience. I’m also worried that it will crush him to see some of his friends joining dd at the girls’ school or going to the boys’ grammar school, when he has next to no chance of getting in no matter how hard he works.

All this is leading Dh and I to wonder if we need to bite the bullet and move as quickly as possible to a comprehensive area, to be ready to apply for secondary schools for dd this time next year. On the one hand it would be lovely for dd and ds to go to the same school and have a shared school experience, and for ds not to feel ‘less than’ but I worry that I would be robbing dd of an amazing grammar school experience. She has never quite fitted in at primary school, and I think she’d do well in an environment where being clever wasn’t seen as ‘uncool’. On the other hand, I’ve heard that comprehensive schools stream in almost all subjects now, so maybe her classes wouldn’t be that different to a grammar school?

Sorry for rambling! Can I ask what you would do in this situation? Which dc’s education would you prioritise?

Why do people feel the good comp will be sacrificing your daughter's education? I dont live in a grammar school area so maybe it alters my perceptions but the bright academic children here go to comps and seem to fo realky well academically.

Jillscarlet both head teachers at Kingsdale and Norwood called it both a 'bursery' and 'scholarship' - using the names inter-changable. That's why I called it Bursery. I could have called it scholarship and what I said still is the same. The fact that Kingsdale has a lottery system makes me more angry.

Mind you Ta1kin I heard 'your' EHT talking about a 'grammar school curriculum' or some such nonsense at open evening. That school offered no different a subject mix to the one we chose for my DC. She was, in my view, purely trying to attract academic parents and actively put off those parents of less able (or SEN) children.
(For other readers - a fully comp area).

Bookmum: I don’t think complicated and strict uniform rules are a London thing, they happen everywhere. As do Academies.

And, then again, there is the Kingsdale Lottery. Many places outside London do not have that range of options to list their preferences from.

I agree with you, the best option is a good comp that serves all children well and doesn’t rely on mad zero tolerance discipline regimes or flash uniforms.

Blame the gvt for Academies and Free schools and LAs no longer able to plan and resource their own community school programme. And blame parents for believing the hype around the importance of uniform.

Anyway gotta go. Lunch time. It's an interesting conversation though.

I am not advocating streaming.

I'm pointing out that people's perceptions of genuine mixed ability and social mixing in comps is often not reality and that comps do often section off the brighter pupils to try to give them a more academic education. This then naturally precludes a lot of social mixing. It really isn't like a mixed primary school at all.

TeentimesTwo
Yup. Allowing schools to become Academies is doing great harm.
Heads are getting a "god complex"
thinking that the great results are somehow down to them rather than the catchment.

Its very nice to not have to deal with her any more.
The money being wasted on SLT salaries and monogrammed chairs in the last couple of years is awful.

Hopefully in a couple of years the whole Academy scandal will blow up
and transparent accountable school governance
with sensible admission arrangements
and proper oversight
will return

orchidding
comps do often section off the brighter pupils to try to give them a more academic education.
Often?
Links please

@TeenTimesTwo @JacquesHammer

I see, thanks for explaining. 11+ seems so far away, that I haven't started considering any need for specific tutoring for the exam

I think many people are failing to understand that many secondary moderns are better described as drug fuelled gang recruiting grounds rather than schools and should therefore be avoided at virtually any cost unless you'd like your child turning to a life of gang violence and drugs. Unfortunately children like the OPs DS are some of the easiest to be recruited into gangs as they are likely to be over trusting of others and want to be seen as helpful.

User I can't work out if you are being serious or sarcastic? (I hope sarcastic.)

Are you sure the comps are that bad. Why didn't you visit and check offsted
Schools can dramatically improve in a short time with right head etc. I would put too much store on having kids at same school once they get older. It embarrasses them.

rose69
Its a Grammar area
the other schools are NOT COMPS they are secondary moderns
because the top 25% of their pupils are at a different school

Orchiddingme

My dd is in a streamed school with two main streams: academic and not quite as academic (they are called different names, I can't remember what).

That’s called banding. It’s quite popular because

• you can adapt the curriculum so, for example, you can increase the amount of English and Maths for the “weaker” band and eliminate subjects that aren’t as critical (languages often goes). You can adapt your curriculum as necessary.
• it’s a lot cheaper than having, for example, the whole year group being taught Maths at once and needing 6 / 8 / 10 Maths teachers at once.

But...

• It does of course consign a section of the year group / school to the “thick half”.
• it means that those who do really well in the bottom part move out because they would have to pick up subject they hadn’t done

Moving sets according to how well you’re doing sounds on paper a good idea and I’m quite in favour of it.
But - if your child is bright but not working hard and ends up slipping down the sets (I’ve seen this happen a lot) then they can end up in a set where the teacher is aiming for the majority to “pass” rather than pushing them to get the top grade. The slipping student ends up usually messing around more because they easily get the content but aren’t being challenged. Then of course their actual grades slip. And the teacher is penalised because Wally Wilfred should have got an 8 but ends up with a 4. Wilfred can also end up pulling down quite a few others.

On balance I think it should be the case that they move down to benefit those who are busting a gut but it’s not quite as black and white as it might appear.

user139 that is exactly why I am pleased that my ds 6 has been accepted into a SS, due to his developmental delays and learning difficulties. On his EHCP he was described as being Vulnerable, I was a bit miffed about that as he is quite with it, but he is a people pleaser, and likes to be kind and helpful, due to his SN makes him a target. He is only 6 so really most 6 year old's are vulnerable, but pleased that ds will be going to a protective environment.

Somehow set 4 in your half of the year sounds so much better than set 8 in the whole year.

The other thing to do is a diamond model - a single top set (or a small number, depending on school size), a lot of parallel middle sets, and a single lowest set (or a small number) with high teacher:pupil ratio and lots of support.

That better reflects the normal distribution of ability (large hump in the middle, long tails of smaller numbers) and reduces the stigma / negative impact of 'oh, I've moved down from set 3 to set 4', when in actual fact the true difference in ability spread in each set is very small.

Bear in mind that in a decent comp with good setting,
the kits in set 1 for physics may be in set 5 for sport
and vice versa
most kids are not all rounders

How can you possibly know that your DD is 'guaranteed to pass' & go to the grammar school of your choice??

She doesn’t. I have some people approach me for 11 plus tuition who assure me that their little darlings are massive overachievers, fantastic at everything and just need a bit of exam practice. Cue shock and incomprehension when informed that their child has large gaps in their basic knowledge and has a lot of work to do to achieve the expected standard, never mind ‘working at greater depth’ 4 months earlier than their peers who will only sit SATs. This often comes with an overinflated opinion of themselves, resentment at been given homework to catch up and a lack of understanding of what the process entails, ie., do they understand that they will be getting vast amounts of homework every night if they get in and will expected to keep up?

You also don’t know if the school you’ve chosen with your ideal setting arrangements doesn’t change their curriculum model once your child has started.

Busymum,

The OP is in a fully selective county, where top c. 25% is sufficient to get into a grammar school.

It is easier to be 'fairly sure' that a child will get into a grammar school in that scenario than in a superselective area (especially if the selective area has a method by which heads can 'appeal' for children who fall below the pass mark unexpectedly, which I seem to remember happens in at least 1 area).

However, I agree that such things are never guaranteed.

Regarding streaming and setting at comprehensives, a lot of children and parents fail to realise that if they start off in the bottom set in maths in year 7 and are still there in year 9 they will be doing foundation maths at GCSE which automatically cuts out any options of a career in science-based subjects, including computer science, as they will not be accepted for maths A level, a necessity in many careers. Many children don’t even realise that they must get at least a level 4 in both English and maths at GCSE or their options at post-16 are severely limited and they will have to resit, even if doing a vocational course or apprenticeship.

Bright young people can and do thrive at comprehensives and go on to Russell Group universities; my son is one them. However, it needs to be a good / outstanding comprehensive where the culture supports aspiration and achievement.

MsJudgemental - it doesn't need to be a good / outstanding comp to get a child into a Russell Group Uni. It just makes it harder for a bright child to do well, it is still totally possible though. They just have to be willing to motivate themselves.

MsJudgemental I'm not sure I get your point? Of course if you are only achieving at bottom set level in a comp you will end up taking foundation paper for maths which tops out at a 5. If you could do more, you would be in a higher set.
If a career 'needs' A level maths, then bottom set comp maths people broadly speaking won't be up for it. With the best will in the world neither of my DCs would ever be able to be computer scientists for example.

However, I don't think you will get disagreement from anyone that they want their child to go to a good school which supports aspirations and achievements. This is possible in any type of model of school, grammar, secondary modern, comp, free, academy, private.