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 think some of the schools would probably love to break out of the VR and NVR thing, but that is pretty much the only way they can do selection while complying with the admissions code.

I'm sure interviewing would much more enlightening in terms of weeding out the quirky, sparky ones from the over-tutored robots, but interviews are expressly banned under the admissions code, so that schools can't be accused of covert social selection.

Basically, there's no really good way of doing it that is fair to everyone. And some of the semi-selectives or notionally 'comprehensive' schools that pride themselves on their academic prowess can be even harsher than fully selective schools in terms of developing every more inventive ways of weeding out people who they don't want there. Lots of schools use their 'zero tolerance' behaviour policies to manage out kids with SN, for example.

My reply was about VR papers-UndomesticHousewife posted inbetween-a sensible post.
It all depends what you think education should be for- and I don't think it should be about meek DCs sitting quietly in rows making notes while the teacher speaks and regurgitating it, neatly, for a test. If that is what selective education is about then I dare say drilling your poor DC from reception fits the bill!!

I don't think selective state schools are looking for sparky children with challenging ways of thinking about the world. They are there to do their GCSEs and A levels, not run an NGO or create a paradigm shift. Independent thinkers will thrive in a comprehensive school. Independent thinking is something that doesn't really develop in many clever people until early adulthood.

A lot of GCSEs are about learning in a rational and methodical manner. DS is in year 8 at a Grammar schools, and is doing Latin, French and German this year. They require the same kind of methodical thinking and attention to detail that are required for VR, which is essentially a test of how wide your vocabulary is and if you understand the relationship between words as a system. Many subjects at school use this kind of systems thinking - languages, Science, Technology and Maths. It is only really English and History that require that kind of challenging and sparky intellect at school level.

And that I think is part of the issue - many parents don't really want their children to have the kind of traditional education offered by Grammar schools. They don't want their children to do a single language GCSE, never mind learn 3 or 4 languages. They don't want their children to do one and a half hours homework a night in Year 7. They don't want their children to do three, four or five single sciences.

They want their children to focus on debating Science, rather than doing Science. They want their children to have lots of opinions, debate things and be creative. My son's grammar isn't really good at all of that. It offers almost no drama for example.

There are certainly children clever than DS who are not at the Grammar, because their parents didn't want them to go and don't want them to have that grammar sort of intelligence. I would say with academically minded children there are two sorts - if your child mainly has opinions they will be better served by a comprehensive school, and if your child mainly has questions they will be better served by a grammar school.

The problem for some children is that they live in areas where 30% of the children go to a grammar rather than 5%. The consequence is that there are no comprehensives, just secondary moderns.

One issue seems to be that of elitism and how people who don't go to grammar school feel. This often seems to be put forward by people who did very well in a comprehensive school. I think the people who really should be asked about this are the people who were in lower sets at comprehensive school. Would you rather the children in the top sets were educated in the same school as you or at a different school?

I think that people in the lower sets at school prefer to have the higher sets in the same school-they do mix! My DS2 is dyslexic and has always been in lower sets but most of his friends are in the top sets.
It wasn't my experience of grammar schools Milly-perhaps they have changed-certainly when I was there people were very opinionated and it was encouraged. I really don't think that a traditional grammar school education boils down to an exam factory!

I'm not suggesting they are exam factories. Whether you're doing it to pass an exam or learn a subject like maths or languages for another reason, to become competent at that subject you need to think in a rational and methodical way. It is not about being opinionated.

But some people now (in general rather than on this thread in particular) think that holding an opinion is a sign of great intelligence, as if children are a mini version of mediocre undergraduates on a cultural studies degree.

But it is perhaps hard to generalise. Grammar schools vary hugely. What I don't understand is if people don't think that the curriculum at grammar schools is better, and the children aren't really cleverer as they are all coached, in what sense do you think they are going to a better school, getting a better education or taking up scarce resources? The resources they receive are the same as any other school.

giddypickle are you in the north?

grammar schools near us not dull at all - the antethesis
so much going on -such huge pool of talent

Grammar schools select clever children. That is the point of them.

What is the point of the OP? To question the availabality of schools for clever children? To suggest that some children aren't actually cleverer than others?

You make grammar schools seem deadly Milly-I can't think why anyone would want to go to one!!
Of course grammar schools vary but I would expect them to be exciting, as NotanOtter says, with a huge pool of talent. The education is good and varied because the DCs are quick to grasp new concepts and keen to learn and they get good teachers because they like the challenge of of being able to move on quickly. The rational and logical thinkers are there too but there is a mix. I am a rational, logical thinker but I don't think they are the only qualities that make you competent in a subject. I feel rather a plodder with my methodical ways and I envy those who are not as constrained.

Our local GS is 'super selective' and so the local comps are v.g too.

However, the GS is NOT dull. It is full of pupils who are not only academic high flyers but also brilliant musicians and sports people too! They regularly win inter sports comps between the local state and private schools. And there are loads who win national music comps too and sciency/maths Olympiad things.

Absolutely not trying to show off about it or anything, my DCs certainly weren't/aren't in that league BUT they certainly felt/feel like they were in the minority....am just illustrating a point that the GS is not full of dullards, far from it. They have a pool of very naturally talented pupils and why wouldn't they really when the selection only takes the very top percentage of those who take the entrance examination.

Dd is at a superselective and it is in no way dull! Yes the girls are very academic but many of them excel in sport (though not dd - takes after her mother poor girl!). The school takes sport very seriously and they regularly win or come in top three of national school sports competitions. The school is a vibrant place to be and it never ceases to amaze me the talents the girls display across all areas - art, sport, music etc as well as academic. Most of all it just seems like a fun place to be.

My academic but vibrant, lively and interesting DD has only just started at a superselective and is really impressed with the other girls there, many of whom show talent and have achieved in lots of areas other than . She is loving the lessons as they move at a quick pace, but as she says, not too quick for her to follow, and are fun. She was bored a lot of the time in primary school when the teacher would go over the same thing again and again and she had already 'got' it.

MillyR - you're dd's school may not be the norm. I've visited a lot of grammar schools, admittedly boys grammars, and they' re really not all like that.

Most of the ones I visited encouraged independent thinking, especially in the subjects you'd expect to do that (R.E., philosophy, English), but also in other areas, eg. with lots of pastoral stuff, where the children are encouraged to get active in the local community, politically/socially; or the example of one boys' school where they were encouraging out-of-the-stereotype behaviour with lots of ballet, compulsory in the P.E. timetable.

Normally I don't think I'd post a big rah rah rah for grammars, or any kind of school, really. And I don't intend this post as being such. But I suppose the point is that schools vary so widely, all of them. I think it's quite hard to generalise based on the experience of your child's school.

Some of the comprehensives I visited encouraged independence, etc, etc, but, you know, some didn't. Some were good, some bad. Some good in one area, but perhaps not in another.

And ALL the schools I visited, comp or grammar, varied enormously in their ethos and feel and achievements.

Oops. "your", not "you're". I know I'll get picked up for that!

I went to a grammar: we went faster than the local comprehensives/6th form colleges(and were aware of that!), had more homework, and didn't have access to vocational courses.

The emphasis was on academia and academic achievement, as well as all-round achievement (sport, music etc) as an accessory to that. We were given the opportunity to do everything from debating teams, athletics, etc and you could take somet ime out of lessons to do those things.

Sometimes, it was a bit too exam-focussed. In 6th form, we had to go to 80% of lessons to be eligible for the exam. I went to approx 40% in English (not proud of this now!) and was still put forward, because I was a 'cert' for an A. So in that sense, sometimes they just banked on the grade rather than nurturing the pupil. Exceptional cases, however.

However, it was the perfect place for motivated, academic girls. We got to do Advanced Extension Awards, and the teachers encouraged wider reading, arguing, interest in politics, debate etc. People came out motivated, confident and sparky.

For someone that couldn' keep up, it would have been a miserable place however. I was crap at maths, couldn't keep up, and it haunted me until GCSE's were over, because they didn't slow down and wait.

Still, would certainly encourage DC to apply if he/she seemed to have the temperament and academic ability.

Slight digression, but the extracurricular stuff is an interesting question which I?d like other people?s opinion on.

DC attends a single-sex, highly academic grammar populated with DCs who excel in all areas. But here?s the kicker: the DCs who are really good at sport, music, art etc are mostly good a those things outside school, ie by the time they go to secondary school they are already obviously talented. One of DC?s friends plays age group sport for England, but hasn?t learnt that at the grammar school; another plays in the National Youth Orchestra, but again was doing that for at least 2 years before joining the grammar school.

Of course they carry on doing these activities at their grammar school, but they didn?t learn them there.

My point is, the grammar school is (understandably) quite happy to take the credit for little Jenny playing violin, but haven?t actually had a lot to do with it ? Jenny would still be in the National Youth Orchestra wherever she was at school. Does that make sense?

Yes, agreed Mattellie. Grammars are still state funded and do not have endless facilities or large numbers of staff or indeed time in the school day to coach to that level especially in sport. But that is really a similar situation at most schools if we are talking really high level stuff - independents too. The children's budding talent, encouraged by parents, at school selection age is often a factor in offering a place at a selecive school.

I?m sure that?s right, jem. DH went to a top public school and says that his hockey coach, for example, was an ex-international who definitely improved his hockey-playing skills, no question.

I guess I was asking those posters who said their DC?s grammar schools do really well at sport and music whether they feel that?s actually down to the school in any way, or more because the school is attended by the sort of DCs who are committed and keen to do well in all areas, not just academic ones?

But you know, the whole "accomplishments" thing you're highlighting, Matellie, is an issue at comprehensives too.

Eg. Our local comp has a brilliant music department but priority in instrument tuition is accorded to those who arrive in yr. 6 already able to play that/those instruments. I suspect that's not unusual. And I would bet hard cash that the majority of the musical successes have strong family support.

The irony is, I suspect we're going to look back on this as having been a golden age in state education ... .

mattelie - I think it is a case that dd's school is attended by the sort of dc who are committed and keen to do well in whatever they do rather than anything the school are doing. Obviously the school encourages them to develop their skills and offers ways of doing that such as orchestras, teams etc but comprehensives do that as well.

Yes, that is absolutely true Mattellie. Also they can't really take that much credit for the top exam results by that same criteria.

But I suppose the whole thing is that pupils don't get put off continuing with musical instruments etc. and are actively encouraged to keep going, as I am sure they are at other schools but peer pressure might put them off (thinking of my DCs :)).

Also by only offering the most academic GCSEs there is no chance of accidently taking GCSEs that are then deemed 'unacceptable' by universities etc.(even though everyone pretends all GCSEs/A levels are equal etc etc).

I'm glad that people seem to think that grammar schools are vibrant, lively and interesting-that is my view and they certainly ought to as they can cherry pick the talent. I really can't think that they want merely methodical learners without opinions.
About 3 years ago I had a wonderful job, unfortunately a one off due to a certain set of circumstances, and I had the top 18 Yr 5 DCs for Maths and Literacy. I loved it and so did the DCs because we could really cover a huge range of work and they were not held back in any way. The group had widely different personalities, I expect that all could have coped with a grammar school but I'm not sure that all were suited. The core of both groups were the same but I had some who just came for Literacy and some who just came for Maths. Those who were weak in the other subject would have been at a disadvantage. I could have immediately identified 6 who were real high flyers-they were a mix of the original, sparky, self confident and opinionated and the rational, methodical, quiet, keep their opinions to themselves, learners. There was a boy who was a bit immature but showed a lot of promise so I am sure he would have 'grown' into it. There were 2 boys who were anything but methodical and rational, but they had first rate brains and were high achieving when they were inspired. I think that a grammar school needs a mix of types. I am sure that the weakers one could have passed the test, if they has plenty of training, but the ones who would do best were the ones who would just do it without much preparation.

Sorry 'weaker ones'.

I think grammar schools do have a mix of both. Obviously there are some who are tutored and get in on slightly dubious merits but at my DCs super selective GS there certainly are ones who get in on merit alone and jump the queue, as it were, over others. I know this for certain.