What I don't understand about selective grammar schools

[Hullygully]

is why, if all children follow the national curriculum and take GCSEs, you need to be "cleverer" than other children to go to one. Equally, why does it matter therefore, if children have been coached to get in? What am I missing?

The national curriculum isn't as prescriptive/limiting as your post would suggest. If you have a class of bright children they can delve much deeper and learn more thoroughly in a class of their peers than in a mixed ability group, even when the curriculum is the same.

You can study the same work of literature or the same points of French grammar etc at many different levels.

Because all children are different, so more intelligent ones "get" the work more quickly and easily, less intelligent, or academic ones, struggle.

You can tell the difference just by overhearing conversations between the ones who get into grammars and the ones who don't.

I don't think they all need coaching, btw, ds managed to scrape through without a tutor, but he did a few practice papers first at home.

Yes, I suppose so (ds got in without coaching too), I shall just wait and see what kind and level of work they do then. But they all take the same exam at the end, though, don't they? Is it just a more enriched (because deeper) learning process along the way?

mumblechum it's interesting you say:

You can tell the difference just by overhearing conversations between the ones who get into grammars and the ones who don't.

I've known incredibly articulate children who appear very bright that wouldn't pass an 11 plus paper.
I was probably one of them :)

I aced my spoken english at O'level and I remember a very surly examiner saying 'well it's always ok for people of your intelligence' or something like that in a disgruntled way afterwards.

I'd failed exams to all of my chosen secondary schools and I remember pondering that for a while. But then I was a late developer who can horribly fall through the net and under achieve going forward.

Going through the Bucks 11+ system at the moment (and hating it!!!). From what I've seen so far it's nigh on impossible to get the score required without some form of prior 'access' to the question types - be that looking at old papers or more formal tutoring.

The VR question formats are very particular and can only be answered in a certain way - a child who only gets the minimal practice state schools offer is at a fundamental disadvantage, no matter how clever they are.

The Bucks exam is one you can be tutored to pass, it's certainly not a true measure of a child's intelligence.

Looking at the GCSE results, the difference is very marked - both single sex grammars here consistently get around 100% A to C, majority getting B or above. While the upper school does get great results, they're certainly nowhere near that level.

Also there are different levels to some GCSEs,e.g. foundation level (where I think the highest grade that can be obtained is a C)and higher level. All the DCs at my son's grammar school take the higher level papers, and they only take academic subjects, no Childcare/Tourism, that sort of thing.

Yes they all take the same exam at the end but the learning environment is very different in a grammar and children are often taught beyond the NC in their subjects. I went to grammar and I remember being taught french to a standard far beyond the GCSE syllabus. I still took GCSE, same as the kids in the comps, but it made A-level so much easier when I did it.

I don't like the tutoring aspect as I believe it stops bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds from gaining places which are taken by better off children who may not be as intelligent. But, that's the system and as a tutor I can't be hypocritical (although I don't tend to do 11+ tuition)

if you are bright you will thrive in this environment and no not all children are tutored my 3 were not and neither are they child prodigies

my sons are flying in g school ( 1 just left) but my dd who is easily as bright as them did not like not being cock of the school -as she had been in primary- and took the attitude 'not top can't be bothered' so not best for all

I bet you couldn't tell the difference in conversation between the ones who just got in and the ones who just didn't. That's what coaching's for.

I went to Grammar School and am from a deprived area. What I got from it was a secondary education free from bullying (because I was smart and liked reading, I was targetted as a "snob" in primary school) and a chance to mix with friends from more priviledged backgrounds. This showed me what I could achieve if I kept my head in the books and gave me the freedom to do that.

I had no tutoring.

the experience of my friend who teaches at the local uni is that the coached ones fall apart once they become self supporting and independent learners- at her level.

As for grammars- I have a few isues; they have their own ways of limiting entiries- the system my dad experienced in the 1950's when he passed his 11+ but couldn't go as he couldn't afford his uniform (very poor family, child 15/16) still seems to occur. Also, i think there are better ways: we talk about integration and mainstreaming all kids who can be mainstreamed yet then syphon the most academic elsewhere. Personally i'd ratehr see efficient, decent streamed education on one campus: so that all children can be integrated, mixed, part of a community yet also receive the education that suits them best. noreason gifted children and those with SN who can cope can't be taught in specialist classes on a large uni-campus setting is there? And as other children can be gifted or delayed in certain areas, other could pop in and out as needed.

'I've known incredibly articulate children who appear very bright that wouldn't pass an 11 plus paper.
'

ds1 is one; he had a verbal age score of 16-21 at 6 yet has learning processing difficulties. he's not got LD (ASD) and seems ot have areas of outstanding ability but certainly wouldn;t even cope with the process of the 11+. not that we have them here anyway, thankfully.

The thing about Grammar Schools is that they are not about the brightest, just the most academic. The give academic kids to room to be what they are.

Saying that, the rest of my family went to Secondary and that was best for them. It doesn't mean that they were stupid, far from it. It just means that Grammar is the best choice for some.

There aren't two discrete groups of children: academic and unacademic.

True TFM

There are those who are academica in pesonality though i;d argue: I am one. however I probably gained immensely from being in a mixed class, even if all I learned in art was how to hide a book in between the papers!

I don't like anything that labels a child's abilities so young (as someone who did their degree at 30 and is doing an MA, after being written off as thick as a child. Actually thick would ahve been polite for somethings teachers called me).

It's quite possible to mix a streamed provision that stimulates gifted children and pushes them in a wider inclusive system.

But they don't all take the same exams. Secondary moderns round here have very different courses and options than the grammar - things like single sciences versus balanced science.

I went to a grammar school and loved it - although was not tutored or pressured at all.

DS is only 4 and already parents are talking about whether we will be getting a tutor

I'm not saying some children aren't more academic than others. I'm saying I am unconvinced that the 11/13+ is a sensitive enough tool to decide on a child's educational provision, based on this academic - unacademic idea. At the two extremes, of course. But around the boundary? Nope.

The problem with coaching is that it disguises lack of ability. This becomes even more apparent when coached kids go to university.

I totally agree Madonna, and that's what frightens me about the system.

When I took the exam MANY years ago, there was no pressure from anyone, that's just how they decided your school.

But now, you know that tutoring is pointless but you can't help thinking that a less bright child who has been tutored might get a place above a bright boy who hasn't been tutored, and then it just becomes inflationary.

At that point it becomes a way of differentiating who has pushy parents and who doesn't - which is hardly the aim!

Even if no-one is tutored, you still have the problem with the cut off point.

You might find it of interest to read IQ: A brilliant experiment that failed by Steven Murdoch. I has a chapter devoted to the 11+ and how rubbish it is at separating children by "intelligence". As we cannot define "intelligence", how can we expect to measure it. All these tests are measuring whatever it is they measure and are not necessarily a good predictor of future performance.

Most DCs have an IQ of 100 (even mumsnet ones!)this is the average (if they were all really clever the average would be 120). Selective education is for those with an IQ at the top of the range. You can drill tutor your DC to pass the test but I think it is unfair because the test isn't the end-it is the start and the poor DC has to cope when they are going to be out of their depth.
I think that the whole thing is dreadful as some DCs develop late. My brother failed 11+, passed at 12 and was in the express stream of the grammar school at 14-he was the same child! (He has a high IQ which didn't show up earlier). The 11+ is too crude-fine for separating the top from the bottom but in the middle it draws a line between too DC with the same performance. I am all for comprehensive education and letting the DC develop at their own pace.

Certain children thrive in different environments, I feel.

When we were looking at secondary schools, DD looked aghast at the highly selective one.

And her shouders relaxed when we arrived at the mixed ability school for girls. Decision made ( though Daddy was twitching lol).

DS on the other hand has set his sights on a highly selective all boys public school. And he'll be happy as Larry there.

And yes, they'll take the same GCSEs ( possibly on the same day as they are twins) but the larning environment will be different.

One hopes that it will bring the best out in each. We shall see.

Certainly the results for the schools are not miles apart given one is highly selective and one is not.

I went to a secondary school with an entrance exam. If children had been in the primary school (which also had an entrance exam) they automatically got into the secondary.

There was one girl in our year who had somehow managed to get into the primary and simply couldn't keep up. In Scotland we sit standard grade exams at two different levels. You either sit foundation and general or general and credit. This girl was the only one in our year to sit the foundation exam. I wasn't her particular friend, but everyone knew. People in her class resented her as the teacher had to spend more time with her as she needed extra help.

The school I went to was geared towards those with lots of academic ability and there simply were not the support systems in place for those who struggled.

The idea of children being coached to get into a school like this bothers me a lot. In my school they would have been resented by their peers and baffled their teachers.

I do, however, understand that the situation is different in England and not all schools are like mine was.

My children attend a highly selective mixed grammar school where the majority of children were tutored.

I have never been aware of any children that gained a place that struggle or are unhappy and it is also not apparant which children were tutored and which were not. If children do struggle it is not made clear and they must be fully supported through as the exam results really do speak for themselves.

Our choice of school was based on a much wider decision than league tables and results. My childrens friends were mostly the children who were top of the class in primary school. Now they face "competition" and mine now like the fact that the whole class works at a very similar level, without the stigma or the pressure to maintain that top of the class position. They take their subjects above and beyond what is required in the curriculum and seem to have a lot of fun at the same time.

So many people believe that as they attend such a "good" school they are pressured to work extremely hard, have mountains of homework, high expectations on young shoulders and our experience couldn't be further from that.

They do work towards the same curriculum and the exam results speak for themselves that these children can achieve. As they are blessed with being bright it means that for them the academic work is easier and therefore they have more time and opportunity to devote to the arts, music and sport. It never ceases to amaze me just how talented my childrens friends are on the sports field and musically - and how much enjoyment they get from it. These talents are far more celebrated than academic achievment.

I am delighted that my children have the opportunity to attend such a good school. The result of tonights rugby match against a local school is far more important to my son than his next exam result, lunchtimes are not spent in the library stressing over quantities of homework but trying to balance the fine line between using his blazer as a goal post with his mates and finding time to whisper sweet nothings to his girlfriend in the form room... while the other one is off playing in the jazz band, organising some rehearsals for the latest production as well as trying to convince the head to implement some eco water saving toilet flush system...

If my local comprehensive school could have offered them all the same opportunities they would have had an easy walk to school and life would be simple. It would have been unfair of me to pick an easy life and an ok school experience when with a few adjustments and a more hectic schedule they now have a truly excellent education. It has been an easy decision to make and one I have not for a second regretted in any way.