'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?

@litten Duchesse's school takes the DC who do not get into the GS. Plus a few who are so committed to only being educated with their financial peers that they woukd rather go to a school which costs 10K a year and gets markedly inferior results, especially at A level. I'm certain the ability range at that school is much wider than at the GS - I know many kids who go there and I know several people who teach there. It's a great school. But it's not really very academically selective. It gets good results because the quality of teaching is very high and the classes are small. That's what people are paying for.

Erm, actually most classes are 24-25 (apart from A level classes that are a lot smaller) and I wouldn't in all honesty, having taught there, say the teaching is that great. Very highly qualified teachers (good degrees from top universities) but many severely lacking in teaching ability. Also it's making more and more use of NQTs to keep costs down.

And I'd say that about 25% at most are CGS rejects, including my own children.

IEEE- that's not the case. About not being able to get papers, I mean. You can buy them in Smiths. And practically everywhere else. And download them.

That's interesting about the EBACC- dd's school doesn't let them do loads of GCSEs, so a lot don't a tually get the EBACC because the school has a very very good RE department, and it's a music and performing arts specialist school, so lots of the kids do RE and music or expressive arts instead of history and geography.

@duchesse I didn't know about the NQTs. The teachers I know there are, I think, very good. And 24 is a smaller class size than 30! But it's not tiny, no. I definitely think that school is a really really good school though. And I know from my friends that the bursary schemes are excellent. Sadly the net result is that people in the middle are completely squeezed out (unless they have grandparents or relocated from the south east having been able to realise property gains) which means there is a pretty big gulf between the obvious haves and the have nots, with very little to fill it. This is something that I know worries some parents and teachers.

Metabilis- that was certainly our case. DD1 went to the college this year as we'd quite simply run out of money and not eligible for the bursary scheme. She's doing very well on the IB course thankfully.

@seeker At my DD1's GS - the one Duchesse is referring to - they have 3 free choices. They do 10.5 GCSEs (RE is the .5, it's compulsory). The subjects they can choose from are German, Hist., Geog., PE, Drama, Art, Music, ICT, DT and Business studies. They 'recommend' the kids don't opt for music art and drama as their 3 free choices but they don't prohibit them from doing that. Personally I can't understand anyone not opting to do history but apparently there are some strange people in this world who don't like it! I wouldn't blame anyone for not doing Geog. I don't know anyone in this year's Y9 (they do GCSEs in Y10) who isn't doing either hist. or Geog. but they didn't make it compulsory so maybe there still are some who aren't doing either. Huge numbers of kids seem to do art, also music and drama. I think that's good, personally.

Dd's is similar with the 10- but RE isn't compulsory- they have to take some RE lessons because of the outrageous government policy (don't start me) but they don't have to take the exam. They get a choice of 4which has to include a humanity and a MFL- so 2 free choices. They are steered towards doing one of the "creative" ones, so that leaves 1. Which for many means additional Maths or ICT. Or in my dd's case, Expressive Arts. So it's very easy to do a good spread of good GCSEs and not get the EBACC. Dd will because history is her thing. But the RE course is excellent and challenging and just as good a choice as history or geography in my humble opinion as a fervent atheist!Bonkers.

Mine all fulfilled their RE requirement by going for a weekly tea-drinking session class with the chaplain and a chat about ethical/philosophical matters.

Sorry to butt in here....

But the pro-grammar school crowd have to ask themselves questions:
-When they say 'GS' do they mean 'super-selective, 2% schools' or do they mean '23% schools'?

The first I can agree with: such DC are often so 'marching to the beat of a different drum' that they would benefit form highly specialised, academic teaching maybe not available in most schools. The 3-23% - well, no. That concept really does smack of 'keeping my DC away from the Others' even though they really aren't that much more 'able' than many.

Do the pro-GS crowd agree that they would readily send their DC who failed the 11+ to 'the local SM' (though many like to suddenly call them 'comps' as it sounds better and is only really valid if only maybe the best 2% have been scooped off, but the top 23% gone? No, you have a SM). OR in the interests of 'only 'what's best for my DC' which, on MN, appears to ride roughshod over any concepts of 'the common good', they'd go private instead.

Do the pro crowd accept that IF they view a GS education as delivering the 'most suitable' education to the able DC (by which most seems to actually mean 'my own'...), a damn sight more cash will need to be spent on providing a 'suitable education' for the less academically able? Which might mean 2 or 3 different types of school, and which would definitely mean considerably smaller class sizes, more innovative and versatile teachers as the 'less able' require rather more input that the clever (please note, as above, that the private spoken about has classes of 25 and even Xenia tells us her DDs amazingly, incredible hyper competitive north London girls private schools have classes of 26 because the DC are a) so able they need no personalised tuition, b) that they're all of the same, very high intelligence and c) there are absolutely no discipline issues...) AND bear in mind you do not necessarily get the 'best' teachers in a 23% GS as in 'those most able to inspire the widest variety of DC'.

Do the pro-crowd accept that all this costs money that just might be taken from GS pot? Or do you think that in reality, our class driven society will conspire a way to ensure that 'the best' (and I haven't said best academically) is only available to the sharp elbowed and wealthy? which, incidentally, is what someone on this thread has accused the Tories of in closing grammars in the first place- a ploy to remove a tier of competition challenging their own privately educated DCs 'rights' to wealth and influence.

Seeker if it was me with the bad result in Kent GS thing, I'm sure I looked at a table that showed some of the selective schools on 88% and 90% ish A*-C.

Litten tree I am pro GS for the top 5% or so, agree that to maintain comprehensive system for the rest is important. Perhaps there could be enough grammars dotted around the UK for that to happen. Impossible logistically but that would be the ideal

And no, I don't expect mine will go, to be fair they are far too young but I don't know whether it would suit them at all yet!

@litten I support super selective grammars. My DS is at the local comp for which my DC's primary school is a feeder. He didn't even do the 11+. He didn't want to. Since there is only one GS in a 50 mile radius where we live and at most 10 kids go there from our city in any given year, some of whom wouldn't otherwise be going to the comp my DS attends (because they didn't go to feeder primaries) then I think it is still fair to call it a comp. my DD1 would not get an appropriate education at the school my DS attends, he is getting a great education there, I think. DD1 has different needs. Not better - different. DD2 is the same. I hope DS will get excellent GCSE results when the time comes, he is on track to do this - at the normal pace. Accelerating him a year would be a disaster. Not the case for my DDs.

As far as funding goes, the GS gets significantly less funding than the other schools funded by the LEA. The LEA gets significantly less funding than practically every other LEA in the country.

Jalapeño- nope- all 98,99, 100% round here!

Could those lower figures be from a few years ago?

@ litten - I think 23% is more than is nec - top 10% oor 15% maybe?

i'm not really in favour of super-selectives as the whole syatem puts kids under too much pressure to pass and i think catchment areas make for nicer schools, with a local feel, where kids don't have long journeys and actually see their friends out of school.

Re the view that one only favours grammars if one thinks ones dcs will get in, that's nt the case. I hoped dd1 wouls get in as she's always been v bright but didn't know that would be the case until she applied. The school I chose for my dd was actually the semi-selective ie some kids get in on distance/sibling too, not the pure grammar, as I felt it had got too pressurised and stressed since I was there; the semi-selective was more chilled.

it does mean my dd2 is guaranteed a sibling place there - hoowever, until this year, i was v unsure I would encourage her to take up the place, as she has mild dyslexia and I didn't want her to go somewhere if it was too academic for her. She is now outperforming her sister at the same age so I'm happy it would be the right choice for her, but if that hadn't been the case, I would have felt the comp was a better option and where sh'd be happier. I don't think a highly academic education does suit everyone, and I see no point in sending a child t a very academic setting if that's not right for them. I also have a v much younger ds, who as yet has shown no signs of being especially academic, and will happily send him to a comp if that is right for him.

As a teacher, I have to massively disagree that is harder or costlier to teach less academic children - it's much, much easier. it's really hard to consistently challenge v bright kids. So I think the money should be directed equally - no need for a premium at either comps or GS.

I have read all the post after mine but there is only one remark I am really disposed to disagree most vehemently with- from a teacher- (Q) " I have to massively disagree that is harder or costlier to teach less academic children - it's much, much easier. it's really hard to consistently challenge v bright kids." First, define 'very bright kids'- have I not already stated that I feel the -hell, potentially 'oddball' DC who constitute my 2% of the academically brightest- who could, with all due respect, probably run rings around most teachers- constitute maybe 1-2% of the populace?

You are not seriously suggesting that DC who may need a wide variety of different approaches, widely differing learning styles, possibly with educational special needs might just possibly need a more creative teacher than that needed to impart the required knowledge to the top 21% not catered for by the very top 2%?? The ones who would be at a specially catered school, apart, anyway?? Bearing in mind that I myself went to a GS where the teaching was in no way differentiated? Therefore have an inkling about what I'm talking about?

As I have already stated, as well, many of my GS teachers would have been slaughtered by a mixed ability comprehensive intake! Bloody hell, we as nice GS girls, drove a couple close to breakdown (before we reached Y9/start-of-GCE seriousness). They were fabulous in Ys 12-13 when we were all singing from the same hymn sheet but purleeez don't go assuming the 'less able' are easier to teach than the 'well-able' (as opposed to the 'truly gifted' who'd keep you uncomfortably on your toes). I am actually disappointed that a teacher says so.

According to the BBC 2011 league tables Dover Boys GS got 90% 5 GCSEs A-C, the 88% one is selective but independent Might be being dense but here is where I found it.

I noticed on the comparison of LAs that Sutton had top percentage of 5A-C GCSEs so certainly seems to argue in favour of a couple of superselectives for everyone else. Even better than Kensington & Chelsea so sort of helps the class/wealth vs educational outcome too!

Are you a teacher? If not, what on earth do you base this judgement on?

i am currently teaching several classes of v under achieving 16-18 year olds at a sixth form college, range of special needs, and it';s a piece of piss copared to teaching top level classes.

Do you wish me to lie?

@ litten

Jalapeño- all the other Kent grammars got over 95%- not sure that one school only getting 90% is justification for saying that Kent Grammars get bad results!

I didn't mean they all did badly, obviously most of them get very good results...was just shocked to see that sliding scale of selective school results. Area still obviously plays a part if some are 100% and some 90%, I would have thought that it would be 95-98% across the county.

But only 3 out of the top 30 or so schools got less than 95%. Hardly a sliding scale- unless I'm missing something?

Fair enough it isn't a sliding scale as such if it's only 3 or so of the selectives getting less than 95%- I didn't look at them all just wanted to see what the Kent comps/secondary moderns were getting and noticed the bottom few were 90ish%. Still a huge surprise considering it's a state selective school though (Dover Boys I'm thinking of here), what's the reason for it though do you think? Do they ever adjust the number of places if the bottom mark of the top 23% is particularly low or is it a strict 23%?

Because I'm an education nerd, I went to look at the Dover Boys Ofsted- thy are rated Outstanding, which seems a bit odd. But apparently there was a significant issue with Citizenship provision last year, which I suppose could have impacted on the results? And there were only 121 GSCE candidates altogether- it wouldn't take many to drop the percentages. But I agree it looks strange.

Not as strange as the fact that famous independents are quite low down the list - what on earth is that about?