Those of you in favour of grammar schools, come and tell me what to say to my Ds...

[seeker]

He woke up crying in the night because the reality had just hit him that he won't be going to school with his close friends in September because he failed the 11+ in September. "I can't be very bright, can I mum, or I would have passed" " no, it was just one of those things-you're going to a good school, you'll be fine" "I know- but if i was clever I'd be going to school with X and Y" "You are clever- look at your SATs-you'll be in the top set at the high school because of those" " it's not SATS that are important, though, it's the 11+"

Do you want to have more kids feeling like that? Then campaign for more grammar schools,

Well, in my situation, the high school doesn't do Latin. And the grammar school doesn't do leisure and tourism, horticulture or catering. But apart from that there doesn't seem to be much difference. I was puzzled by somebody saying the grammar schools were for children who would be interested in more academic subjects.

Our GS doesn't do Latin. Nor does it do Food Tech, Arabic, Spanish, all definitely done at the comp DS goes to. The GS makes everyone do triple (separate) sciences, which is a possibility for some at the comp.

Your high school has to offer subjects which appeal to a wide range of abilities, seeker. If you want your son to learn Latin, then there's ways of doing this outside school. As you've said, there's little difference between them otherwise. I think the big issue that he has is that he won't be with his friends. He'll make new friends as a lot of children will be in the same position. He'll also find that he's in the top tier, and he won't be alone.

I'm just looking for clarification of this -" Grammar schools aren't about the clever kids being separated because they are somehow better, they are about teaching the more traditionally academic subjects that those children are likely to be interested in."

And nobody will give me any.

I don't think that's true, seeker. It's selection based on who did well in a test. They cream the top off, leaving the rest to the high school. If the high school have the same exam results then it wouldn't matter though.

I think it's another way of saying that GSs have a very narrow curriculum.

So he wasn't coached at all?
Did he have any 11+ preparation?

How exactly did you expect him to pass?

By entering him with no prep, you've set him up for failure.

Well, perhaps nobody apart from the person who said that, agrees with that? I know I don't, exactly. As I've said before many times on so many of your threads, it's all about pace for me. DD1s school completes KS3 in 2 years instead of 3 and they have barely any homework. They are full on all the time in class. They move at the pace required to keep the kids engaged and not bored. There probably are kids who didn't get in each year who could have successfully operated at that pace but not, I think, many of them. They aren't doing different subjects, as far as I can see, they aren't even doing more of them, till the 6th form. They are just moving at an appreciate pace. Which is faster than most kids will be comfortable with.

I don't believe that our GS hs a narrow curriculum. I think the curriculum is just fine.

Why is it that 40 years ago, when people did the 11+, a percentage managed to pass without any tutoring?

Oh, I know, why. The tutored children are taking the GS places now..... which means that ALL parents feel obliged to tutor their children to give them a fair crack of the whip.

Apart from the obvious exploitation of the more wealthy parents, it's not exactly fair to the bright children whose parents are uninterested in theier children's education, or just can't afford tutoring.

What a society we live in.

Many parents exploit the education system though, flexy. The ones who pretend to be of a certain faith, the ones who move into a better catchment, the ones who go private, they're all doing what they think is best for their child. Tutoring can be helpful for very bright children who don't know how to work the exam, the ones who need extra support to pass the exam however, are very different. It's doubtful that they will cope when the tutor is no longer needed.

I don't know much about grammar schools, but assume their curriculum wouldn't include BTECs or national diplomas and would include compulsory mfl and triple science and more maths (statistics or FSMQ).

He did a couple of practice papers at home- he scored very high marks. He did the familiarisation papers they all do at school.

If you think I was setting him up for failure by doing this, you are acknowledging that grammar schools are only accessible by the children of educated, aware, affluent parents who understand the system. Which is completely outrageous. And contrary to what the most vociferous supporters of the system claim- that it is a potential route out for clever children from disadvantaged backgrounds. When everyone knows that it is actually a way for the privileged middle classes to accrue more privilege for their children without paying private school fees. That is the crux of it- well done for being so open about it, bintang.

What 'everyone knows' depends on 'everyone's' bias. And whether 'everyone' has a shoulder which is actually shoulder or mostly chip.

What happened with the appeal? Is your son on a waiting list?

I know they do lady, on all different levels. IMO it muddies the waters about how schools are actually teaching. How many As and A*s are down to tutoring, not the school? How many schools are high in the league tables because many of their catchment parents can afford tutoring, which ups the grades?

It just makes me feel very sad for the children whose parents can't, won't or don't get tutors for their children at any stage of their school career. By using our privileges, we are creating an underclass.

Society as a whole isn't fair though. It's divided into those who have, and those who have not. The NHS is the same; if you have the money you can get treated quicker. There's a lot of parents out there who don't know how to play the system, they just send their child to the school which the LEA allocates to them without question.

I am not defending it, but yes- grammar schools are only for those that can afford preparation and understand the system, hence FSM rates of

Well,MordoinAgenos - I've read many discussions over the years on the economic advantages of paying for your child to be educated privately at KS1/2 to ensure a grammar school place thus saving parents from paying secondary school fees.I have friends this applies to.
That looks like the privileged middle classes accruing more privilege for their children without paying private school fees to me.

"What 'everyone knows' depends on 'everyone's' bias. And whether 'everyone' has a shoulder which is actually shoulder or mostly chip."

I don't think it's demonstrating a chip to say that if an exam required extensive tutoring to pass, it is likely to exclude significant chunks of the population? Or is that such an uncomfortable thought you avoid it by resorting to personal abuse?

Yes, but as seeker so rightly said, GSs were meant to be a conduit for the less wealthy to succeed. That whole ethos has been shot to pieces by the huge tutoring industry that has grown over the past 20 years. It actually makes more of a case for comprehensive education - at least it's fair until GCSE and A level.

Grammar schools are so last century and went out with the cane. I wouldn't put my children in for the 11+ as a protest if I lived in a grammar area because it is a load of bunkum rubbish and mixing is better anyway. So the better school is the one with the more mixed intake which is YOUR SON'S SCHOOL, Seeker.:) So he wins and is the best.

Yes,when I was taking the Kent Test , which the 11+ had temporarily become 40 plus years ago

top cohort top smohort. The test is a load of old bahooey so it's a lottery anyway. Even if wasn't a crappola exam, school 1 would have 77% of kids in it and school 2 23% so school 1 is probably better if you like a wider ability mix. And I would put money on it being more ethnically and socially mixed too. So a better prospect all round if you are more inclined towards a comp in an ideal world. I would just bypass the stupid exam and choose school 1 for my kids if I lived in Kent. Seeker's son is in my top choice school in his area.:)

Like the NHS, Grammars get exploited. Practically every sector you look at where the public don't have to pay gets the same treatment. There is no way to stop it. You just have to look at the flip side and see the good instead. That person who got a blood test that warned them about something immediate treatment would cure - which they wouldn't have got free in another country. That boy/girl who's parents are on benefits who gets into Oxbridge and makes a huge change thanks to being given a place at a grammar.

You can pick holes in it, but it does long term good, even if the short term for the rejected child seems so bad. I don't want to be flippant and say they will get over it, but carrying it around as baggage for life won't help the child. It's just the first in one of life's lessons that not everyone is the same.