'new' grammar schools in kent...

[oliverreed]

well, not technically. The local authority have been given the go-ahead for two (I think) annexe grammar schools in Sevenoaks. Gove is surely rubbing his hands with glee. I agree with the decision as pressure on places in this area is causing a lot of heartache for many families whose children are travelling a long way, but is it paving the way for the creation of new grammar schools.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts?

@seeker but you see, it sounds to me as though you have no experience of the system. At least, as it operates where I live, or where my relatives live. I know you have experience of the system in Kent, but it sounds to me as though Kent has significant differences from the rest of England. You seem incapable of acknowledging this.

I did say I would be delighted if somebody could show me that the system works better and more fairly in other areas- if in other places there are a proportionate number of children from disadvantaged homes in grammar schools, and if the system really was a driver of social change.

Seeker look at Sutton www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/education/school_tables/secondary/11/html/319.stm

Whilst obviously the LEA is much smaller, the results as percentages seem an awful lot better as only a small percentage of pupils are in grammar places. Not much in the way of private schooling either. I'm frankly shocked at the low GCSE results at some of the Kent selective schools, like I said earlier on I think you need less grammar places, not more.

jalapeno
how many of the children at each of the sutton schools lives in the 2catchment" area for that school
London is an odd setup because kids travel all over the city rather than going to school near home
eg a poster asking about getting to Eltham College from north of the river !!!!

Which school do you mean talkin? As far as I know none of our schools have true catchment areas.

The selectives have no catchment except nonsuch has some in/out borough places allocated but the other 4 don't it is purely rank order given places irrespective of address, LEA etc. Most people are horrified by this but I think it works well for all the reasons on this thread. Each school has it's own exam at different times so better for the "only one day to prove yourself" argument.

The comp places are usually as the crow flies as opposed to catchment areas afaik. The comps with "better" results are in small catchment areas and some have tennis, drama etc scholarship places. One has an "elite" stream which I think is a grammar stream by another name. One or two have some tennis/drama places etc. the less desirable ones have wider catchments. I'll see if there are stats somewhere.

Sorry meant to say the more desirable comps are in areas of very expensive housing and less desirable ones in or near the council estate (although still expensive houses actually but it's the difference that counts and obviously some are still LA owned). If you're bored check rightmove within 1m radius of the postcode of the different schools...

so the selective schools have access to a HUGE population from which to pick
whereas a grammar on the Isle of Thanet has only around 100,000 population within a 50 minute journey

it would be interesting to see what would happen to London traffic if parental "coice" had not been allowed to go as far as it has ....

Yes, true about traffic but in reality I bet a lot of children get public transport. Transport links are very good and would be much quicker than driving!!

Here are some of the furthest kms: www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=17721&p=0

It isn't perfect...but seems fairer than Kent. Because of the pan London thing lots of Sutton children go to school in Surrey or Croydon schools just over the "border" too. And all of the schools seem to perform reasonably well considering the diversity in the area.

(I'm waiting for someone to come and jump on me about how unfair it is to have no catchment...)

its less that the "no catchment" thing is unfair, than that its insane
kids travel all over to get into schools miles from home and even further from their friends

my secondary school was on the Dartford to Charing Cross train line and a couple of bus routes so those of us who could not walk tended to get public transport - I remember very few parents cars at school
my kids secondary school has over 100 cars dropping off every morning

it would be saner if there was a single application system for London schools (but ILEA is dead and buried)

but getting back to the point : Kent LEA does not work well and adding a few more grammar school places when some of their grammars are SO dire is not going to help IMHO

Yep agreed.

Makes sense to me to have catchment areas for comps but I suppose if you have 100 extra kids within it one year you're screwed.

Seriously considering moving away from the insanity and even worse paying a premium for the pleasure in house prices!! Hampshire you say...?

we've got some rather corking comps that are shockingly MC and feed into the one and only PSC.ac.uk school is a 5 mile 8 minute drive from home - they come home on the bus PSC will be 25 minutes on the college bus that passes our door ....

I went to Grammar in Kent in 80's. In Maidstone, they abolished the 11+ for several years, sent all kids to secondary schools until 13+ and then selected 25% of the cohort. You were offered a Grammar place.
I never sat an exam

On the negative side, I spent 2 years of formative education time doing sod all, not being challenged and never grafted from that moment on.
I'm happy with my life outcomes, my salary etc.

I've stayed in Kent, albeit London borough. I expect my kids to go to grammar, both me and DH did. I realise I will likely have to tutor at least at home if they will knuckle down with Mother!

I agree with whoever said Grammars don't get great results. Our local one got slated for their appalling IB GCSE stats.
Not all Grammar's offer single science, MFL or Latin!

I think bring back all super selectors at 5% max and bring the secondary schools up to scratch.
What's left over after Grammar isn't up to scratch around here!

My area Kingston / Richmond is somewhat similar to Sutton (except we do have plenty of independent schools).

We have a couple of Kingston Super-selectives - but they take a tiny (less than 5%) proportion of local children. Many children sit for them anyway - with an almost lottery mindset.

There are also some excellent comprehensives with a good mix of abilities. The better comps would see themselves as competing with both grammar and private schools. It's not unusual for a top comprehensives to be the first choice school, with children sitting 11+ in case they don't get into the comp.

It seems to me that the structure of a school is not a great indicator of how good it is and (more importantly) how good it is for a particular dc. More important is the ethos, the leadership and, in some cases, the intake.

I suspect that in London, the choice and the competition does drive up standards. Certainly London tends to outperform much of the rest of the country, especially in the performance of its poorest pupils.

What do people consider low GCSE results?

I would consider anything under C low, but I suspect most people are talking about under A and some people below an A*.

Me too. But I was very surprised that the are people on here saying that 98% a*-c are bad results for a school.

They want to know where the 2% went! It would be interesting to know their own results-I would bet they were not a complete string of As. (it was much rarer)

The 2% can be easily accounted for. It's the occasional kid from the wrong side of the tracks who gets in by accident...........

Not always. I got a d in physics. I just hated it. Still got ten others a/b.

I was being ironic, scarlett!

I would call 10 a/b highly successful, but I think it is failure now-it has to be 10 A*s.

It was ok, I had several friends that got 10 a stars (1998), and I can honestly say that they are just really clever, no tutoring etc, and they are all successful now.

I am much older and getting results like that in grammar school was rare.

I am talking about five or six out of a year of 160. There was the added incentive that you had to get at least three b grades in order to be allowed back for a level. And there was a real fear of not getting back.

2% off 100% is nothing- I'd expect that sort of number of children to underperform for health reasons or traumas in personal life and so on. And some children just get stressed by exams and don't do so well. To suggest a school 'ought' to be getting 100% above any threshold is ridiculous.