Genuine question - why do some people have a problem with the grammar school system thread 2

[octopusinastringbag]

Original thread full so here goes.

I think the people who are concerned about aspirational/non-aspirational need to trust their DCs to select friends who are like minded. Generally it is my experience that they find their own groups who are similar to them, especially with setting and especially once the GCSEs have started.

"Does it mean that we should put a future electrician though a grammar routine of high-level maths and Latin? If it is not something a person wants to do (or is cut-out for), it is ridiculous and counter-productive"

Show me where anyone has said this?

"I do not for a minute believe comps teach hard disciplines to the same standard. It is not what I have seen."

Evidence please.

So, Summerworld, the 40% of A-level entries at DS's comp that got As or A*s have 'not been taught hard disciplines to the same standard'?

Including the 100% of further maths candidates who got As or As? The 100% of the Russian candidates who got As and As?

Sure?

Even at GCSE, where the intake is most 'comprehensive' (not all pupils carry on to A-level), over 35% of candidates got 5 or more GCSEs at A* or A. They do not offer any 'GCSE equivalent' courses, and the list of subjects is almost identical to that of the nearest grammars.

(Just done a more detailed comparison between Comp and one of the nearest grammar subjects at A-level: at the grammar, only 2 children did languages [2 possible options], as opposed to 36 at the comp [3 options]. Subjects only studied at the grammar included Theatre Studies, Sports Studies, Media Studies, General Studies. Only at the comp: health and Social Care, and Photography (both very much minority options). The gramma also has a MUCH lower A / A* percentage)

^curlew Fri 01-Nov-13 17:27:49
"Does it mean that we should put a future electrician though a grammar routine of high-level maths and Latin? If it is not something a person wants to do (or is cut-out for), it is ridiculous and counter-productive"

Show me where anyone has said this?^

people have said that grammars are selective and thus bar the way to non-academic children who also deserve good academic education. True, but they do not need 'grammar-style' academic education. Hence, the example with a future electrician studying Latin. If the non-academic kids will not get into a grammar, but they will get what they need at a comp, why such hard feeling towards a grammar which caters for very academic children?

I am not sure comps are the best place for very academic children. I well believe there are excellent comps comparable to grammars or even better, but those are few, there aren't enough of those to make a difference. I have got friends who have got children in both types of school, and yes, there is a big difference in how hard disciplines are taught.

Teacher with2kids, you have certainly got a very peculiar grammar where you are !

Summerworld,

But IF a grammar is available, then what is left is NOT a comp - it is a secondary modern. And that may not give the 'middle ground' [which, after all, is what the majority of a secondary modern's intake is, not the genuinely non-academic] a good academic education - by which I mean an education which is as academically rigorous as can be achieved by that child.

No, not a peculiar grammar - though I admit that DS's comp is a rather odd secondary modern! I did the same comparison for another local grammar - as I too thought the first one must be anomalous. Again, 19 [vs 36] doing MFL at A-level, critical thinking and General Studies forming a significant number of A-level passes, lower results for 'hard' subjects like Further Maths and MFL than the comp. Better A/A* figures than the first grammar i looked at, though - roughly the same as the comp.

Teacherwith2kids, this a very good school you have got. I do not think I would fret about sending my DC there!

One presumes that all bright kids would by-pass the comp and go to a grammar if one was available. But it is not the case, as many posters have said, sometimes children just have a bad day, or they are not all-rounders and do not pass on that basis, or their parents do not believe in grammar education and a myriad other reasons why those bright kids will still be going to the local comp if a grammar is available. They can still make up a top set and get the best a comp can offer. Especially as noted earlier on this thread, often there is not significant difference between people who pass the 11+ and who do not. Sometimes it is only a couple of marks.

Besides, no comp is a true comp as long as there are private or grammar schools, and as long as catchment areas operate. There is always some form of selection going on.

I have always understood that the hair and beauty teachers are different teachers from the maths teachers... So yes I think you can have both.

Joining this debate late but very much enjoyed reading posts!

FWIW I hate comprehensive schools because of my own personal experience of being educated in one. In nice MC area so should have been "good comp". Instead bright kids put under pressure not to perform or else face bullying, kid shooting teacher with air rifle etc. Was former grammar so culture had beeen good (reason parents selected school) but for some reason that did not translate when became comp even with same head and teachers (I was 2nd year comprehensive intake) Horrid place but no alternative via money or academic selection.

Equally don't agree with grammar school selection on one 11+ exam. Especially as in our area all kids aiming for grammar are trained (at parents expense) to do VR and NVR tests so just becomes test of tutoring and money. It is acknowledged that post war grammars were one of the reasons for much higher social mobility amongst baby boomer generation than now but schools, not parents, trained kids for 11+ so working class not reliant on private tutors to pass. Grammars then allowed bright kids to thrive (no peer pressure to fail like I had)

I like system in Germany and Holland where still have grammars but selection based on teachers appraisal in discussion with pupils and parents. Effectively anyone can go to grammmar. But if fail a year have to resit. Second fail and you leave. Alternative is technical school which still gives quailifications to get to uni. System allows late developers to transfer in so not an all or nothing like 11+.

Also think we need more variety of schools not just one comprehensive sausage machine. Sadly there are kids whose behaviour is disruptive to others for many reasons. These children need a different environment which supports their learning better (disruptive behaviour is just as detrimental for their learning).

And finally what is wrong with electricians or any trades people doing advanced maths etc? If they were trained to a higher level then maybe we wouldn't have all the shoddy workmanship we have to accept in this country.

There are certainly plent of comprehensives whose top sets do as well as grammar schools. It's quite unusual for a comprehensive to do as well or outperform a grammar globally. But you wouldn't expect it to, would you?

Well, apparently, Lincolnshire. The Priory academy which is apparently a comp did better than all but 4 of the grammars in Lincolnshire in the most recent official tables (which are the 2012 results).

I've not seen posts claiming a comprehensive school gets better results than a grammar... It would be unlikely, wouldn't it? I think it's been shown that selective areas' results overall arent better than non selective areas, though.

The tables are all complete bollocks though, because 5 Cs scores the same as 5 A*s. the best measure is average points per pupil but even then you get people claiming (without being totally off the reservation) that this is bollocks too since a school where everyone does 9 GCSEs and gets good results will score the same as a school where everyone does 12 and gets good results but obviously the kid with 12 good results will be perceived as having done better than the kid with 9. And then there's the subject mix....

It all comes down to will a high achiever do as well in a comp avaable to them as they would in the grammar available to them. Fr some kids, the nature of their personality (not necessarily their intellect) and the relative characteristics of the schools mean the grammar is a better choice but for some there really wouldn't be any difference in the top set of a true comp. My DS will finish KS3 with the same maths level as his sister did, even though he is at a comp and she is at a top performing super selective. We'll draw a veil over his English though ;)

Gloucestershire.

At A-level (looking at top 15):
Grammar schools: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 15th.

Privates: 2nd, 7th, 12th, 14th.

Comprehensives: 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th

So globally - not even just thinking about top sets - the best comprehensives outperform all but 3 of the grammars, and all but 1 of the private schools. Bearing in mind that they are not even true comprehensives, but technically secondary moderns, that isn't bad.

You need to consider an area where there are no grammars and just compare the higher ability kids to get a true picture. This will compare the levels of grade achieved and not the numbers of A-C. Privates do not generally make a difference in these areas either as in our area there is no snobbery over comp or private but the people who send the kids private are the ones who have children with concentration issues who struggle in bigger schools or have SEN.

The very top set in my ds's secondary modern get comparable results to the grammar school- although the range of subjects isn't so wide. You can do food Tec at the grammar, for example, but not at the secondary modern (yes really- another bit of misinformation nailed. Grammars do "soft" subjects too!) The problem is that there are usually only about 10 kids in that very top set.

We have no grammars in our area but we do have five superselectives in the nearby city and these schools are amongst high performing in the country. 60 out of DS' comp which is about third best in the area got a minimum of 9 As or As at GCSE and over half of A Level grades at A to B. 85% in Mathematics and they are all encouraged to do that. Two children got 4 A*s at A Level. This may not sound as good as the superselectives but bear in mind there is no selection at 11. It takes kids from a much wider area than a normal comp in a very MC area. This compared favourably with the superselectives which has much more high ability children at outset but that is a very good school. I would hate to see a return of the 11+ and would leave any LEA that chose to select on the basis of an exam at 10/11. However I believe superselectives do have their place if a majority of the number of places went to children at the local feeder schools. At the moment many private grammar crammers get kids in as they are primed for the rest and therefore they do not represent this utopian idea of moving social classes up. Each primary school should be able to nominate of a group of 3-4 children who show potential after discussion with the parents. S

This would give the chance to every primary school in the area. Not all parents would want their children to go but it would show the parental commitment as well. This should not purely be on levels achieved but on potential, work ethic and attitude. Things any test cannot cover. No interviews. This would be the only way I could see any future for grammar schools being the providers of a decent education for the truly conscientious and intelligent child.

There are over 300 primary schools in our LEA. The grammar serves not just our LEA but bits of three others. If 3 kids were selected from each primary in the radius it would be the biggest school in the country.

Losing it's interesting that you feel the private schools don't skew things. Round here they have a massive negative effect. :(

Mind you if your 'pick the top 3 kids' test was applied to my kids' primary it would give the same results as the test year after year (well ok some years just. 2 get in). But our tests test English and maths as well as VR.

Round here top 3 kids in each primary would not be the same as access to the superselectives. Most schools don't get any in. Agree to 3 may be too many for superselective. Even English and Maths test can be th result of tutoring. Only teachers will know who are the kids with potential who work hard in class but may not be the ones with private tutors and parents doing all the work at home. Teachers can see this. Test results cannot. Atg that puts parents efforts in above the child's ability will not have any impact on shaking up the social classes which grammar schools were designed for. Maybe the places should all be selected by the primary schools on a focus of those kids who are intelligent but go the least parental input. The big families, the disruptive home life. These are the kids that should be going to a superselective. Certainly this is not the case now. The children with supportive parents and money for tutoring will do just as well in a comp. Maybe more places for those on FSM.