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"

LaQueen,

Imagine a comprehensive school.

It takes in children across the whole spectrum.

All those children make great progress from their starting points, and achieve their full potential as measured by GCSE grades.

Because children are taken in across the whole spectrum of abilities, the average level of attainment at the end will be lower than in a grammar school which only takes in the top few % BUT that does not mean that the most able didn't achieve exactly what they woiuld have done at the grammar. It just means that the average is 'brought down' by those who entered at lower levels.

And which is the more impressive school? The one that can take in a lot of very different children and get them ALL to achieve their full potential, whatever it might be, or the school that only achieves that for a narrow band of very bright children? The latter is, in fact, relatively easy .....

Aris, I know teachers have appropriate targets for all their children and that now the right amount of progress for all students has to be made, but it's still true that the major target the schools fear to miss is the % getting 5 A*-C inc maths and English which is the headline figure most widely reported on which they are judged. For maths and English especially, borderline children are taken out of other lessons for extensive interventions quite routinely.

It really would be a very very small number of children who would need a separate education, we would be talking about 1%.

I agree aris I dont think all comps fail bright children. I suspect a number of the brightest children at comps could have either achieved better results, or more oppourtunities at a grammar.
I think there is quite a big difference between what is on offer at a GS compared to a comp.
I also think that in my area at least the comps are not best equipped to motivate and inspire some of the brightest children in the school which is a shame and I also know there are other factors that influence why some children who would have excelled at a GS do not do so well at a comp.

LaQueen but you ARE missing the point

My kids play music with great musicians (some of whom are not academic) and play sport with fantastic athletes (many of whom are not academic) and do art and drama with highly creative (but often non academic) people.

Why on EARTH would I want their horizons narrowed by missing out on that before they go towards RG Unis?

I feel under far more pressure about my A* rate than the C/D rate.

In fact in recent Management meetings new we have discussed two groups , A * targets and B targets , no mention of the C/D borderline

LaQ,

I accept the 'special education' model of education for the exceptionally able - but I would argue that the proportion of children who need such 'special education' institutions is as small, and probably smaller, than the proportion who are in SEN special schools at the moment. Certainly not as large as the proportion who are in grammar schools in grammar areas.

talkin are you implying that isn't the case at a grammar?
That there are no talented musicians (unlikely as this is a school that offers music places)
That there are no actors, athletes etc?

There's a wide range of extra curricular activities at a GS as well?

Tantrums,

Do you live in an area with GS? Then the other schools that you refer to are ot comprehensives - they are secondary moderns (despite sometimes misleading names) and therefore, BECAUSE they have the brightest children sliced away from them, they are not always best equipped to educate such children to the best advantage.

True comprehensives in true comprehensive systems do not have their biright children removed, and thus cater for them better IYSWIM?

LaQueen
so no space for art, music, sport, languages, travel - breadth of education and understanding
just narrow academic subjects?
yeuch

LaQ,

I agree with you - but such in the same way that SEN special schools cater for a few hundred children over a very wide area, special schools for those so unusually able that they cannot be effectively educated in mainstream would only need to be of that scale.

Brycie This is at a comprehensive, right? yes.

Its a selective school, no catchment area.

Nit: I didn't see your reply before - sorry just posted that rude-looking question. Thanks - am going to go back and read your response to my questions.

Actually on the way I saw this:

"Tantrum and LaQueen, you still aren't getting it.

No one is saying the grammar = the comp."

Actually some people are saying that, and some are saying comps are better because they progress their children more.

Going back again to find Nit's post.

I have also enjoyed our conversation , well almost, and would like to apologise for being so touchy in the middle. Being put on bed rest leaves me grumpy and bored.

Which post are you trying to find? I might be able to help...

I've enjoyed it too. I am absolutely shattered now though so am going to sleep.

Brycie
Statistically, Grammars do get less progress out of their kids than other schools BUT having researched it, I (as an anti grammar school person) do not hold that against them.
This is because the kids generally arrive so blinking hothoused by tutoring that they are a year ahead of themselves on arrival and slump back to a truer academic level over the next few years.
That is a fault of the selection process, not the schools.
We in non selective areas do not have to worry about kids hitting a level by a date until GCSE!

Tantrums, sorry, was that a reply to my query?

So your area has a selective school within it (my local selectives equally have no catchments, the most super-selective of them brings children in from 50+ miles away)?

Technically, that means that ALL of your local 'comprehensives' are secondary moderns. Even my local comprehensive, which is excellent (due in no small part to its catchent, though) is technically a secondary modern, and to complain that such schools do not cater for the brightest when the brightest have been removed from them by the 11+ system is damning them for something which they cannot change IYSWIM.

Aris, I'll guess that your school is in no danger of falling below the 40% A*-C inc maths+english threshold then?

I'm also guessing that you don't take children out of language and humanities classes to focus on Eng and maths to get their grades up to A*? Some schools do this to ensure dc hit their 'C's in those subjects.

Are schools not now rated on the gcse passes achieved by the below low level, average and high level child. You can see the results for each school and it would be more realistic to compare the average pass for a high level child in a comp with those at a gs. This would not be the top 5% and some comps would have more than others. This is something schools are measured on and therefore the years of just trying to get as many Cs as possible may be on the way out.