Middle class access to grammars via tutorproof 11+ part 2

[boschy]

May I do this? only there were some contrasting views at the end of the last thread which I found interesting.

One was mine (sorry!): "I think fear actually drives a lot of those parents who are desperate to get their child into GS, so they can be 'protected' from these gangs of feral teenagers who apparently run rampage through every non-selective school in the country.

Because clearly if you are not 11+ material you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who likes nothing better than beating up a geek before breakfast and then going to score behind the bike shed before chucking a chair at the maths teacher and making the lives of the nice but dim kids a misery."

And one was from gazzalw: "If you had the choice would you opt for a grammar school or a comprehensive that has gangs?"

Soooo, do people really think that all comprehensives have vicious gangs, and all GS children are angels? Or that only those of academic ability adequate enough to get them through the 11+ should not have to face behavioural disruption of any kind? If you are borderline, or struggling but still work hard, should you just have to put up with disruption because let's face it you're not academic?

PS, re the knuckle dragging Neanderthals I mention above, should have said - "and that's only the girls"

Aris exactly. GS are not the best schools for every child. My ds2 won't be applying for a GS place. He wouldn't thrive in that environment and like I said up thread, I think he will get better results and a better experience overall at a comp.

Again Tantrums you still don't get it.

You cannot compare a comp with a grammar.

You can only compare the top 20% of the comp with the grammar.

If my son gets a single grade C or even a B at his grammar school I will be convinced that they have failed him even further. I sincerely hope they are not expecting him to be getting anything other than A*, that would be our expectations of him at the comprehensive.

No I wouldn't LQ. But if it was a good comp. (and I do accept that not all are by a long way) then I would still expect the ones that would have been in the top set of the GS under that system to achieve the same. And by the same token, the whole top set of the comp should achieve broadly the same as the top 3 sets (or whatever) at the GS.

Would this actually work? Hmm. For a really good comp then probably it would (just about), for an average or lower one then probably not. One reason is that comprehensives tend to focus more (provide the best teachers, more interventions etc) to those at risk of missing C grades rather than those who may miss out on A*s, though this situation is improving with the revised school targets. I also do think that grammars probably are a bit more geared up to suggesting/providing more extension work for the very most able.

What don't I get QLB

I have never ever had a teaching assistant in one of my top set classes, I find it ate astonishing that you have been in the top set of 18 different schools as a TA.

Tantrums-It's not impressive for a grammar to get 100 A-C
It's normal, it's expected, anything less is unacceptable.
That's the point.
That is the norm at GS. That's why there is such competition for GS places.*

It is also the norm to expect 100% A-C in the top sets at a comp.

You seem to think this isn't so, as you compare a grammar to the whole comp, which isn't a fair comparison.

As I've already said you can only compare the results of the top 20% of a comp with a grammar.

It is not actually permitted for you to teach a class after so many days so you certainly should not have been taking a physics class for a week. What an astonishing school, to not pay for appropriate cover and yet have money to throw around putting TAs in top sets.

LaQueen,

I think the whole discussion around grammars is a discussion about the balance between meeting the needs of those - very few, probably far less than 5% - children who can ONLY access the education they need via some kind of 'speical school for the very able' - and the needs of the vast majoity who can access the education they need via a properly comprehensive system.

If we look at the other end of the bell curve, nobody argues that there are some children who do need education in the non-mainstream setting of a special school.

However, the argument at both ends of the curve is where the line is drawn. Over the last 30 years or so, the number of children who would once have been in special schools who are now successfully educated in mainstream has grown enormously - which would indicate that there are many fewer children than we once thought who could not thrive in a mainstream school as long as there was suitable differentiation and support.

Similarly, at the top end of ability, the number of exceptionally able children who cannot successfully be educated in a mainstream comprehensive is very small, certainly fewer than attend grammars in any but the most superselective systems, and very, very much smaller than the number of children who go to grammar schools in counties like Kent.

Is it fair to deny c.50% of children in countries like Kent the type of school that they coulddo best in - good comprehensives - in favour of the c.1% or less of children who can ONLY get the 'special education' they need in a hhighly selective environment?

The other point is that comprehensives are hugely variable. In my own town, we have one that does much better than many grammars and all the private options open to boys. However, a relative works in one elsewhere in the country that although it is technically the same 'type' of school, is a wholly different institution in terms of intake and output. It makes it virtually impossible to generalise at a 'sector' level.

LaQueen
which one of those two?
or how about this one
www.kings-winchester.hants.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/11-12-results1.pdf
and I still have not linked my own kids school ...

the results CANNOT be as good as GS because these schools are NON SELECTIVE
but with the kids who would have passed the 11+ they are clearly getting totally comparable results.

And BTW - neither of my kids has ever had a TA in their top set classes - the TAs are used in lower sets exclusively.

But we do not try and help A* students get C grades. Teachers are judged against the target trade of every individual child, if I just focused on my C / D borderliners I would get sacked. I might have to go back to working in a grammar.

LaQueen But, regardless, its results aren't anywhere near as good as our local GS. They just aren't.

Oh dear LaQueen, you STILL don't understand.

No QLB that statement was nothing to do with which results are or are not achieved at a comp.
A poster said it was not impressive that the grammar got those results. And I agreed. It isn't impressive. It's standard.
And I can categorically state that the comps in our area at least do not expect their top set students to achieve a minimum of an A grade. The GS does. You may have different experiences with comps and I would not presume to argue that with you.
But that is most certainley not the case here.

No talkin i was wrong its not a comp, but not a secondary modern either, its an academy

And again that is exactly the point tantrums, there is no one here saying that all comprehensives are the best environments for bright pupils . However it is wrong to say that a comprehensive will fail bright pupils just because it is a comprehensive,

Exactly Arisbottle.

Also the environment at my local comp was good enough for my DDs to get the same results as friends in a grammar, and be accepted into RG unis, so it really couldn't have been that bad.

The difference in environment is a factor, I agree with LeQueen

There are many more oppourtunities for GS students which I can imagine contributes to parents choice of schools.

kilmuir
Academy is a meaningless term : if its a school that takes the kids not entered for / who failed the 11+ it is by definition a secondary modern (unless its a technical school - but only parts of Lincolnshire use them)

laQueen
I can see why you have such a dire view of those comps then - the sooner those SMTs were replaced the better.

Yes the rules have changed lequeen. Not sure when though, am not sure it was permitted even then