'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?

In my dd's school, every year they get one or two who do very well in all theri academic subjects, but slip a grqde or two in a non academic subject- probably because they were under the mistaken impression that Art or Textiles would be a nice gentle interlude amongst the Maths and physics.....

@exoticfruits yes they were actually. I was the person who originally said I didn't think the AKent grammar results were that great and I stand by that (although I was basing my comment on the A level results and the schools one sees at the top of the league tales year after year). Not the %who get A-C because yes, a C is not a great grade. In fact, the BBC website tells me that 158 schools got 100% A-C last year but I still think the A*-C stat is pretty meaningless.

@exoticfruits I bet you're not as old as me. :(

I'm so ols I remember when 3 As at A level was unusual and there were no A*s.

C isn't a great grade for a grammar school obviously, but very few of the 98% A*-C actually get Cs.

I bet I am Metablis3!
I think there is something wrong with the exam if so many get all A*.

I don't think one size fits all. If so many get the high grades that universities can't choose and yet hundreds get no qualifications at all it ought to tell you that the system isn't fit for the purpose!

@seeker I did my O levels in 1983 and my A levels in 1985. 10 As at O level and 3 or 4 at A level wasn't that unusual in those days.

As far as the 98% go, yes I'm sure most of them are getting A-B but then you'd expect that. What would worry me is the fact that the 2% didn't just muck up one exam. The figure for A-B given in the league tables is based on 5 GCSEs at A-B* which means a couple of kids (or more depending on how many in the cohort) 'mucked up' maybe 5 or more exams, depending on how many they take at that school.

I won my bet!

@exoticfruits not really. Your original bet was regarding my exam results. A bet you definitely lost.

As stated ages ago, I went to a GS. It wasn't 'super-selective' as such (though it is now- I do wonder if it might be one mentioned earlier that's now full of wealthy parents who 'prefer not to pay'?!),

I know of several girls who left at 16 with 4 or 5 'O' levels. Imho, they shouldn't have been at the GS. We also got quite a few girls from the local girls' SM into our 6th form where you had to get 7 'O's to get a place. Many of them heaved a sigh of relief that they'd finally made up for the shame of failure they'd suffered since 11. One girl left my school in Y8 to go to the SM but no one joined us locally from Y8-11.

I now deliberately live in an area with a 'outstanding' comp in, yes, Hants, like Talkinpeace. This is because although DS1 would definitely have passed my 11+ (but possibly not the new one and I was uneasy about him attending a school that now has significant numbers of boys who holiday in the Maldives) I knew he'd be fine and happy at the comp we 'chose'; but the real reason we went with this school is that DS2 wouldn't have passed an 11+. He would have suffered the lifelong burden of 'failure' at 11 and could find himself in classes that contained not only the DC who came 24th out of 100, but the one who came 80th as well (as happened in my brother's SM), if we assume 1st to 23rd are at the GS.

So they will both be at a comp where both will be taught in ability bands; some lessons will always be taught in all ability groups i.e all parties will know of the existence of the others and interact with them on a daily basis.

The main reason I'd favour a GS, if I did, is that there is only a small slice of MC life represented; that's to say there's a lot less indiscipline and low level disruption because a) in theory DCs can be selected out as well as in and b) the DC should in theory be clever enough to recognise that to shut up and listen is in their own interest (and c) the lessons move at an appropriate pace for the DC's intelligence- I could add I had many teachers at my school who'd've been eaten alive at a 'normal' comp!).

Well, guess what? There's little low level disruption at my DCs comp and they are pretty much taught academia in ability groups. BUT should DS1, for instance, want to get heavily into performing arts, or woodwork, for instance, he can use first class facilities because the school take this stuff as seriously as triple science and 3rd MFLs. This school easily outcompetes a lot of Kent GSs, I also note, in terms of league tables!

My final thought is that the problem with today's GS are that they are divisive, they ensure the privilege of the few over the sense of failure in the others; they can be very hard to access by DC who maybe bright but who haven't had the advantages of private prep schools, for instance. Maybe there is a place for 'special schools' for the preternaturally bright, the 2% but scything off the 'top' 23% is blatantly unfair and socially divisive.

Not sure why it is relevant but my results were a string of As at both A Level and GCSE. But that was at a comp, I would expect such results to be standard at a Grammar.

Having had a dig around I suspect what happens at these grammars is that the students focus on Mathis English and science at the expense of all other subjects. So I have seen 100% Mathis English and science but then almost half the class getting D at a more creative subject.

In my top sets there is absolutely no disruption and lessons are pacy. Students are ambitious and competitive. As the previous poster says they can have this but still have a creative outlet with fantastic facilities .

I think it's a bloody good idea. DP grew up in working-class Liverpool and would never have made it to Oxford and a high-earning job without the 11+. Grammar schools may well be popular with sharp-elbowed middle class people but if even 25% of the intake is bright kids from poor families that's still better than selective education only being open to those who can afford school fees.

@nice I don't know why it's relevant either. But apparently to have a view about the quality of a School's results you have to disclose your own! To satisfy some people anyway. :) I still think that any student who gets in to a grammar school should have the potential to do well at GCSE and A level and if they don't then that is a shame and the school should look at itself to see if it is in fact doing as well as it could, or coasting because it can.

Manatee: (Q) "I think it's a bloody good idea. DP grew up in working-class Liverpool and would never have made it to Oxford and a high-earning job without the 11+. Grammar schools may well be popular with sharp-elbowed middle class people but if even 25% of the intake is bright kids from poor families that's still better than selective education only being open to those who can afford school fees."

Thereby lies the problem: Vastly disproportionate numbers of DDs at my old GS were privately prepped to make sure they got in over and above the 'bright but poor' from the local villages who just don't get in. Until that can be stopped, I'm anti 11+ selection.

Actually I think that a school that takes the top 24% jolly well should be doing better than 98% A-C. My DC's children's school -admittedly independent, but not more selective than the neighbouring grammar, and probably has a wider ability intake due to being the only academic ind school in the city that will take boys-, gets 100% A-C, and in my daughter's year last 30 pupils out of 120 got all (ie 10 or 11) As and A*s. Also 89% meet the EB standard, better than the super-selective grammar.

duchesse- selection by wealth and ability?

i was educated at a state grammar in medway. more than half of the intake was from one private primary school, and that was 20 odd years ago.

we recently relocated to the North, and had the choice of living in a borough with selective education. we deliberately chose not to live in that particular borough, as I remember the secondary moderns in Medway being very much the Cinderella schools.

TBH i am always amazed at the confidence of those with young primary aged DC who move into an area "for the grammar schools". how can you be that confident your children will make it (I write as someone whose school aged child is reading a good few years ahead and is in all of the proverbially top sets)? would you really choose a secondary modern over a true comp for a child who didn't pass?

we've chosen an area where the local comp offers 3 MFL (any 2 to GCSE), single sciences, BTECs and NVQs. this is fairly standard in our borough, because the comps are true comprehensive.

litten- so you believe that being richer makes you cleverer? And tbh many parents struggle with the fees, so not that wealthy either. At 10,000 pounds/year it's just about affordable on a moderate income. Many people get grandparental help or remortgage to pay the fees.

Charlotte -there's a lot of outrage just over my county boundary because of just that! I am always amused here on MN where you see 'DC is 4 and we can't decide whether to go private of move to a GS area'- like it's an automatic, god given right for a DC whose parents can afford private to pass the 11+.

The over-the-boundary parents near here have carefully placed themselves: the GS 11 miles away or over the boundary into our comp county and some very good schools should Jocasta fail.

Another aspect of the Kent Test (which may have been mentioned, though I haven't noticed it) is that it is virtually impossible to get hold of past papers. There are, however, some tutors who have tracked them down. Teachers with test age children are fairly good at getting furtive photocopies of the tests on the day.

It would be considerably fairer if everyone had access to the tests - and I say this as a parent who is in possession of four past papers.

No duchesse- I mean that your school selects by wealth and ability. You can't automatically equate your school's intake with that of the state GS where, though many of the DCs may well be from wealthy backgrounds, a DC from a poor background has a chance of getting a place.

And I should have said, duchesse- the GS takes 24% by ability, apparently; your school takes 7% (which is the national av. for privately educated DC) by ability and wealth. Not sure this makes your private school have 'a wider ability'.

@duchesse the grammar isn't forcing DCs to do EBacc subjects. It is possible to not do either history or geography. Last year 12% of the kids didn't do history or geography. They are all forced to do 3 sciences though (something I'm not personally wild about as a policy). It seems the school prefers to force kids to do 3 sciences rather than force them to do one out of hist. And geog. Me, I'd go the other way. But I'm not in charge. Re the ability intake at your older DC's school - yes, definitely wider. I know several boys there who didn't get into either C or TBGS but did get in to your school. I'm sure they will do very well, they are very nice lads. Not posh, either.

Quite a few of my DCs' friends were from single parent families on a low income. They got generous bursaries. Uniform obtainable at very low cost from the school 2nd hand shop- which most children used as such good value. (eg school skirt 5 pounds (34 pounds new), normal navy blazer in polyester, normal grey school trousers etc...)