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?

I am equally baffled. There is the idea that grammar schols are 'best' and therefore your DC must go which misses the point that they are 'best' for the highly academic DC.
DCs are all different, I have just tutored a YR 6 girl who took two sessions to understand the question -if 60% of a number is 200 what was the original number-(and I expect she has forgotten how to do it now)-and yet I wouldn't even have to explain to those at the top of the ability range, they would work it out for themselves.
I get very fed up with the justification of 'it helps the bright DC from a poor background'-it is utter rubbish! Pushy parents will drill their mediocre DC and grab the place from the bright DC who hasn't even seen a paper before they do it!I can't see any sitting by and saying the bright DC from the disadvantaged background is obviously cleverer and should have the place! It should be a level playing field with a way of doing it, where no DC can prepare in advance. (Unfortunately I don't see a way of doing it).

piscesmoon - "most" children do not have an IQ of 100. An IQ of 100 is the mean and the median.

The vast majority of children have an IQ lower or an IQ higher than 100.

S Deuchars - I have posted at length on here about IQ and have read widely around the subject. That said I haven't heard of the book you mentioned so will source.

All very interesting, thank you. I like what you say, Mice, but then that's because that's what I'm hoping!

I believe in the concept of learnable intelligence and if a group of children are treated as if they are intelligent over time they become so to a degree (the reverse is also true). There is heaps of research out there to back this up. IQ is multi faceted and involves habits of mind which can be trained to some extent. Confidence also breeds increased confidence and success breeds success.

The school system measures and praises a certain type of intelligence. Intelligence tests measure verbal and logical reasoning ability. There are many other types of intelligence that the tests are not designed to measure. Potential can also flower later.

All those in my primary who appeared bright early on, good 'secretarial skills' - great joining, good finger spacing and no work spoilt due to poor presentation had involved parents who knew how to play the system, well groomed and keen etc, these kids tended to pass the 11 plus or were put into the top stream at our local comp. In my opinion others, just as bright, were treated as less so and this became a self fulfilling prophecy going forward for far too many.

Parents and even teachers in some cases wishing to protect themselves or their children/pupils from embarrassment say things like 'John will never be any good at maths, he's reached his ability ceiling, its not his thing. He's better at football' and every time the phrase is repeated it reinforces the child's mental paralysis. Innocently and unintentionally the doors of possibility are screwed up.

A frightening proportion that start out in the top ability tables/sets seem to remain there going forward. Those that work their way up from the bottom to the top are there but most would agree they are in the minority especially as you get to about year 3 plus. How many threads on Mumsnet mention the reception teacher who can predict the 11 plus successes with 90% accuracy. How depressing. A late developer threatens the authority of those who wish to put children into watertight categories, later on he/she calls into question the credibility of academic qualifications and casts doubt on the school's judgement. In short late developers are subversive.

I know children who have failed the 11 plus - in the Bucks area- appealed and gone to to get brilliant A'level results.

I guess when resources are scarce it boils down to who deserves the best education?

Cortina - that is a brilliant post

I've been thinking that for years but would never be able to articulate it like that!

Not only is a grammar school education not suitable for everyone, not everyone wants that type of education. You can't make all schools the same because different children and families want different things.

Thanks v much, Vulgar. :). It's a subject I feel quite passionate about.

What I was trying to say Bonsoir was that a highly selective academic education is suited to those at the top end-way beyond the IQ of 100. Most DCs are average and that figure is made up of the many below and above. Parents need to select the school suited to their DC and if the DC isn't academic look for a different kind of education and not say 'my DC won't pass the 11+ therefore I will get them a tutor from year 3 and they will do exercise after exercise for 4 years until they crack it'!
It is so sad that all DCs have to jump through the same academic hoops and other skills are not valued. I would like to see those with practical skills just as highly valued.
I agree, largely, with Cortina and DCs live up, or down to expectations. I think that separating DCs at 11yrs old is wicked and a waste of talent. I failed the 11+ and did pretty well, as did a lot of the 'so called failures'. There were DCs who took up a grammar school place and left school at 16 yrs. Some who failed at 11 went 'up' to the grammar school at 12 but no one was ever sent 'down'.Somewhere the dividing line falls and there is no difference between those on either side of the line-in fact taken on a different day they may have swapped sides.As in the twins that I know where one passed and one didn't-despite being roughly similar.
Every DC deserves the best education and it shouldn't be just given to those who have the highest IQ, and then DCs wouldn't have to be drilled in 11+ type questions. I know lots of DCs who got a place through intense parent preparation -who were not suited.

Historically those who went to grammar schools took O levels and those who did'nt took CSEs the former was much more academically demanding than the latter and most schools would only let you take A levels if you got Olevels. Since olevels and cses were replaced by gcses I do wonder how academically demanding they are for the average child who gets into a grammar school.

Considering how many people disapprove of grammar schools, it is surprising how popular they are!!

Whilst I do agree with Cortina's sentiments, there must be some children, however, who really are not going to achieve highly however well they are taught or whatever. You can't make someone more intelligent than they naturally are, with all the will in the world.

I do agree that mediocre students can be tutored to pass the entrance examinations and it is fundamentally unfair to those from backgrounds who do not have the wherewithall to compete with the 'pushy'middle classes, and that there are many equally bright children from less advantaged backgrounds who are losing out on places.

However, having said that, my DCs weren't tutored, are/were fine at their GS and had/have generally a lovely time.As Mice said, they are not forced to work Very Hard and have an awful time. They actually enjoy school and don't get teased for being 'clever' etc etc. They are/were also completely normal, scruffy, beligerent teens not some ghastly overachieving Geek.

If you have a highly intelligent DC they are going to blossom if they are with other highly intelligent DCs and they can work at a fast pace without having to wait for others to catch up, and still be heavily involved in music, drama, sport etc. I don't think it is fair to drill your DC to pass a test when it is the start,not the end, and they feel inadequate when they have to struggle to keep up. I think they are fine if it could be a level playing field and didn't depend on parent manipulation (in some cases).
The answer is to make all schools excellent-whatever the abilities of the DCs.

Pisces, couldn't agree more with your last statement.

It seems to me very unfair that those at the top of the ability get the best-of course they should get the best but so should everyone else. It struck me last night watching the BBC2 schools programme where the Birmingham Dcs had their first day at secondary school that it was unequal. The boy at the grammar school was in the right place-you could see that he needed the stimulus of other top ability DCs and he would get an excellent education. I really felt for the poor boy, who was having all the sanctions laid down on the first morning, with a resident policeman on site.
I can see why parents drill their DCs to pass the exam-it is a way of ensuring a good education.
I am very anti the 11+ but I really shouldn't comment-on reflection I am conscious that I have 'bought' places at an excellent comprehensive because I can afford to buy the house in the 'right' area. I am grateful that I could but it is equally unfair.

Yes, I agree too, piscesmoon. By gaining a GS place you are more or less guaranteeing a good education and good GCSE results (if that is your priority).

It is an unfair system and it is equally unfair that people can buy a house in the catchment area of a 'good' comprehensive. Throw in the advantages of a private education too, to already advantanged children, and it is even more unfair.

I don't know what the answer is really.

I really don't think that you can tutor a child to be more intelligent than they are. You can tutor the child to gain an understanding of the work and how to be able to work things out, which will in turn help them answer the test questions, but if they haven't got it then they just haven't regardless of tutoring.

I tutor my dd in maths because she was falling behind in class. She couldn't grasp some of the maths concepts but when she was shown at her own pace she can understand them.

She is doing the 11+ because I believe she can cope with the work - her english ability is way above average and her maths fell into the average category (though below her class average) so she needed some help, not only for the 11+ but to get her to where she should be anyway. How could I send her off to secondary school without her being able to do primary school work?!

She has a good chance of getting the 11+ but even if she doesn't she stil has to do the work at a high school and go on to do GCSE's and I want her to do well in them.

It's not really fair to say that a tutored child is taking the place from a naturally bright child. It stands to reason that the bright child should get a high enough score to get a place at GS, even if they had never seen a test paper before.

I also question actually, whether selective schools actually want the brightest children.

It seems to me that what they actually want is teachable children.

So in some ways, a child who has been tutored and shown himself capable of being taught the methods probably fits quite nicely.

I would hope that they want the stimulation of the best minds, those who question everything and take nothing for granted, those that look at things from an original point of view and think way outside the box, who take things much further than they need to by reading around the subject etc, those that are interested in everything and have time for hobbies, music and sport etc-those that keep their teachers on their toes! I think that it much preferable to inputting the knowledge and having it regurgitated, neatly, by those who won't rock the boat!
Teachers like a bit of a challenge! (or at least they should do)
Children can be trained to answer 11+ questions-some it works fine for and some struggle. A child who is going to do well at grammar school is the sort of DC is effortlessly at the top end of the primary school class. Tutoring can be good for the DC who is a late developer e.g. my DS1 came on in leaps and bounds in yr 7. I think he would have been borderline at 11 but was a definite pass at 12, however he wouldn't have reacted well to tutoring and he was just able to move up to the top bands of the comprehensive.

Tbh, I see tutoring for the tests as revision. For my law exams I certainly wouldn't go into exam without having revised to give my self the best possible chance of pasing it. Or should I not bother revising because I'm only bright enough and only deserve to be at uni and carry on with it if I can pass the exams with no revision or work?

The only children sitting the 11+ are the ones whose parents have put them in for it, and I would think there are not many that would let their child go through all that with no preparation, even if it's only looking at one past paper.

Revision is fine and preparation for the type of paper is fine, but (IMO) having a tutor from yr 3 with the express intention of getting a grammar school place is quite different.

Picesmoon - agree completely. A friend of mine teaches at one of the London "super selective" grammars. A sizeable majority of her students have been tutored intensively from very early on as well as Kumon,etc. Some of her pupils have had a tutor since reception with a view to gaining a place at the grammar. Hardly a level playing field, is it?

That is what I object to WoodRose-and then those same parents, when defending grammar schools, will trot out the tired old chestnut of 'they help the bright DC from the disadvantaged background' which is rubbish because the bright DC from the disadvantaged background hasn't had anything like the same amount of preparation. I think that whole argument should be dropped, it might have been true in 1950's but it certainly isn't true today. The child from the disadvantaged background is no match for the pushy parent!
The other thing I have never ever understood is that only the bright child deserves to better themselves and the rest should know their place-and stick to it! Why can't all DCs, whatever ability, get the best and better themselves?

Well if selective schools want their puils to be questioning and a challenge - why the hell do they try to find them among a pile of VR papers?

I wouldn't have thought that would tell you a whole lot really.

I agree with that pisces, my dd started tutoring in March when I realised how far behind she was in normal classwork. If she had any chance of doing the 11+ she needed to know the stuff being taught, but more importantly she needs to know this stuff for her to progress through which ever school she goes into.

I definitely wouldn't have tutored her from reception to get into grammar.
See where they are at the start of year 6 and take it from there.

The way I see what I'm doing is helping her to get to where she should be academically for her age and then see how she would do in the 11+.

It would tell you a great deal if they had only seen one paper and then had a go. It doesn't tell you much if they have been churning them out every week for a year!