Signs to understand a child could be ok in grammar school....

[Thejokeisover]

I dont know if i am asking something completely stupid, but i wonder if there is an age when we can understand a child could be "grammar school material". And if so, which signs do they show?
Is it always the teachers that can suggest that?

Ickle - how do you know that a comp wouldn't push you?

DS had a choice of two schools. A boys grammar with average value added or a good comp with good value added. He would do well at either but the comp seemed to push them a bit more

We knew DD was grammar school material when she was still at nursery. At 3.5 she already had a real affinity for numbers and maths. The nursery staff commented on it.

When she started Reception she could only read a few words but by Easter she could read fluently. At 6 she was reading Harry Potter.

You only ever had to tell/show her something the once and she would never forget it. Her memory is eidetic. She also has impressive powers of concentration.

But also she 'wants' to learn. She wants to know everything and how everything works. Her mind processes much more quickly than most.

She sat the 11+ last September. She finished both the papers in just over half the time but still scored 268 (maximum score is 280).

She takes her SATs next week and is taking all Level 6s. The Maths and SPAG papers are already in the bag. Reading might be slightly trickier.

My friend is a very experienced primary teacher. She says she can predict with a high level of accuracy which children will pass the 11+ when they're still in Yr 2. She's rarely wrong.

There are several factors which will determine a child's ability to pass the 11+
How easily the child learns. (ie their intelligence)
What education they have had at school. (Generally private schools, with smaller classes and more emphasis on academic achievement, are better for this)
What education they get at home.
Whether they get tutored to pass the test (Either privately or by their parents)

It is not a level playing field and it is not set in stone at birth.
There will always be anecdotal evidence of it not working, but IME those who get in have the ability to fit in there, because the same sort of influences which got them in continue once there. The drop out rate from grammars is very low.

I've got three boys. The eldest is nearly 12 and I pretty much knew he would not make it through the 11 plus. He has dyslexia, processing issues...his IQ is very high, but his writing is slow and laborious and very untidy, he panics easily in tests, and he can't think clearly - a typical test paper would involve him sitting drumming on the table, rocking his chair, falling off a few times, playing with the toddler and wanting something to eat, while staring and staring at the page unable to absorb the words written on it.
If I explained a question to him, he could do it very quickly. But sadly that isn't good enough.

Ds2 OTOH has a superbly organised brain and is already streets ahead of ds1, at the age of 7.

There is no doubt he will fly through it. He isn't necessarily more clever. He's just got a scaffold, a visual grid in his mind where he can pin information and refer to it later. Unlike ds1 who has to grab a number out of the ether in his brain.

Ds1 did an entrance exam last week. His CAT scores (all on the computer) were 99th, 95th and 78th centiles. His written papers were appalling, so he didn't get in.

I've known since ds2 was about 3 or 4 that he would be like he is, and the same with ds1, though he does tend to get there in the end - just a couple of years after his peers.

It's a very divisive system and I hate it. Ds1 currently home schooled, ds2 going merrily through the system.

To the op just go for it. Grammars are the best.

Ds1 was borderline da material and is flourishing in Y7.

Ds2 is y5 and was bottom set and bottom table child. He has dragged himself up and has fair chance of joining his brother. Whatever the school the dc will adapt.

Ps I hope the Tories now drive the introduction of new grammar schools. Please.

I don't. If you have grammar schools, the most able/supported children all go there, leaving the rest in a right old state.

Kent is awful. There were four co-ed (using this term as I don't know the correct one) non selective schools in our town, and three grammars (one co-ed, one each single sex).

If you're fortunate enough to pass, you just go to the grammar you prefer. Great. If you don't, you have a choice now of three co-ed schools, as one was put in special measures a few years back and finally closed down.

All of them are horrible. Yes they have good facilities at one of them but the behaviour is terrible; the other two don't even have good facilities.

Ds was in one of these, and the staff were great and tried to help but he could not cope with the constant low level bullying,

There is no other option but to HE and for a lot of people that's not even possible. Children have utterly miserable lives at these schools, while those at the grammars have a lovely time (I know - I went to one of them).

If all the schools took all the children, and streamed them inside the school, rather than segregating into 'elite' and 'ghetto', it would be so much better. It's not fair. And I say this with another child who probably will get into the super selective.

I think that generally speaking your child's Yr4/5 teacher will have a very accurate idea of whether your child will be suitable grammar school material. It's worth asking them for an honest opinion.

I also think you need to be honest with yourself. If your child is making very heavy work of the 11+ practice papers, or their tutor is having to cover the same ground with them over and over, you need to recognise that.

A grammar school is not a suitable leaning environment for a child who doesn't absorb and process information quickly, or who needs something explaining to them more than twice. A grammar school just isn't geared up to support struggling children, and the teachers aren't particularly interested in helping.

They are used to, and expect, very intelligent children who can grasp concepts quickly and process new information fast.

Our eldest DD is just finishing her first year at grammar school. Like most of her new friends she's a clever girl who thrives on the hard work and the assessments. But she knows a couple of girls in her form who are already really struggling. They're only predicted Level 4a in English and Maths by the end of Yr 7. They never manage to finish any of the assessments in time, and only answer half the questions. One girl often cries after a test

Suffice to say, they are not enjoying school at all.

I don't know what on Earth their parents were thinking? Obviously these girls passed the 11+ somehow, but they're clearly not really academic and just can't keep up. Their parents must have known they were only on Level 4s in Yr 6 at primary school. And while Level 4s in Yr 6 are the national average, they're just not good enough for a grammar school environment.

I'd be interested to know how a level 4 child in year 6 could pass a level 5/6 paper.

That said a lot of the stuff in the 11+ isn't focused on in school so levels are a bit of a pointless exercise to focus on anyway.

Also unless you get all kids that are uniform all rounders in everything which we know isn't the norm in kids( you may get a gifted quick thinking mathematician shite at writing etc) then I'd don't buy that most grammars won't have a fair few stragglers in each subject.

And sorry my DC's teachers wouldn't have a clue re the 11+,why should they?

If you're primary school is in a grammar area, then I would think most experienced teachers would have a grasp of which type of child they're teaching goes on to pass the 11+?

Presumably, the reason that a level 4 child managed to pass the 11+ is down to some pretty intense tutoring for quite a long time. It does happen, and it does work initially, insofar that the very average child will perhaps pass the 11+.

But then once actually at the grammar school they very quickly start to struggle. They're up against children who didn't need to do that much prep for the 11+ and who left primary with good Level 5s or even Level 6s.

These children aren't struggling at all. And in actual fact they are generally very good all-rounders, academically pretty strong in most subjects. That's why they're thriving at a grammar school.

My friend teaches at our grammar, and every year there are always a handful who passed the 11+ but really shouldn't be there. They would fair far better, and be more comfortable in the top set at the local secondary modern.

But I don't get how you can be level 5/6 in Sep of year 6 when you take the 11+ then go down to level 4 in May when you take the Sats.

You have to be pretty able to access the tutoring in the first place as the course content is hard eg to be able to read an 11+ comp and answer the questions quickly requires a high level of comprehension and reading in the first place.

There is so much competition the days of scraping in on and wing and a prayer are over.Also there won't be much between those who get places and those at the top of the appeals list.

They never were Level 5/6. My point was that with enough intense tuition, for a very long time, even a very average child only predicted Level 4s in Yr 6 can sometimes pass the 11+.

But once at a grammar, they will be up against lots of children who did leave primary school with high Level 5s or even Level 6s.

I disagree that you have to be pretty able to access the tutoring. You can very able, have a bit of tutoring/prep and breeze through and get a very high score in the 11+.

Or you can be only averagely able, struggle heavily with the tutoring/prep for over 2 years, and only scrape a pass.

I do agree there's not much between those who just make the cut, and those going through appeals. Just a bare few points. But there's world of difference between a child who was very heavily tutored for more than 2 years and only gets a bare pass, and the child who got a top score just with a little bit of tutoring/prep.

But the majority of the children at a grammar sit comfortably between the two extremes.

we are next door to a super selective area.
ds took 11+ and now travels to grammar school. He loves it and it was definitely best choice for him.

In year 2 I was concerned about his reading, he only took off once in year 3. He was always verbally interesting, full of questions and lateral thinking, amazing general knowledge, but on paper he was very average, late developer.

To me the verbal side is the more important in judging potential. Boys in particular are often late developers.

Ds finally started to take off all round in year 5, and then got level 6 maths in year 6 (and was put in for the level 6 English papers). He does love to read and has read loads and loads, which I think has really helped.

I disagree with over tutoring, ds did enough to be familiar with the paper and practise working to time. He only just got in, but by October when they split them for maths he was in the top group.

But you don't just drop down like a stone.Once you get to that level you've got it and mastered several skills to achieve it.I work with children who have SEN. They have had a lot of input but once they get that level it's just as valid as anybody else's.

My son was predicted 4s I guess waaaay back in year 2 going by his SATs.He too is sitting level 6 in everything.His twin must have been predicted 5s going by his Sats.There is sfa between them and actually I'd say in some areas the one who got 2bs in Sats is further ahead. You can't dictate what kids are going to get by some test which doesn't even test the same things done 4 years previously.Kids change hugely.They mature at different rates.My DS couldn't give a hoot re writing in year 2,he has since matured and so has his writing hence his doing level6 for SPAG and writing.Some kids will go to weaker primaries,why should they be written off at 7?

But yes both are avid readers and were free readers in rec/ early year 1. They have read masses over the years.

That said there will be bright children who won't have had the advantages mine had and the access to vast amounts of books whose vocabulary won't be as wide.I don't think they should be deemed any less worthy of a place.

I don't think you're reading me correctly. I was citing the two girls in my DD's form. They could only have finished Yr 6 on Level 4s (at best) because they are only predicted to attain Level 4a in English and Maths at the end of Yr 7 at the grammar.

The vast majority of DD's new friends at the grammar finished Yr 6 on Level 5s or 6s. They're predicted high Level 5s or Level 6s at the end of Yr 7.

Those two girls are at least a whole level below the rest of their year. Consequently they are really struggling, just 8 months into the first term, and they really shouldn't be there.

My dd is clever enough to get into a grammar school but I don't feel she's self motivated enough. She has a scholarship to a good private school. I think they put on the pressure that she needs.

A child who will push themselves is a good candidate for a grammar IMO.

1. they will have sat and passed level 5/6 papers to get into grammar.I don't buy that you can plummet down to a 4 a few months later in the Sats tests.

2. how do you know so much about their levels?

Yes, they might have got through the Level 5/6 aspects of the 11+ paper. but only with shed loads of prep and graft. Some children are tutored for over 2 years to pass the 11+. It's madness.

Once at the grammar, they don't have the luxury of taking ages to process all the new information. They aren't given several chances to 'have a go at it'. Teachers aren't remotely interested in explaining themselves more than twice at most. Why should they when the vast majority of their pupils simply don't need things explaining more than twice, and so the lesson moves quickly on and on.

I know about their levels because DD is friends with them both, and they have openly talked about it. So no real need for the face, there's no sinister conspiracy or breach of top level confidentiality.

If they have the tenacity to put in a shed load of graft then of course they should be there. It will probably stand them in better stead than someone who has breezed through primary.

But after 2 years of extra prep and access to the NC aiming at a 4 at school along with passing a level 5/6 paper you will be higher than a 4. If you can spot imagery you can spot imagery.If you can write a level 5/6 essay with that level of Spag you are higher than a 4.You don't suddenly lose the ability to use more complex punctuation,excellent vocabulary etc. Ditto with maths.

At our school my dc hadn't covered half the maths content so we had to teach it ie tutor them.They haven't forgotten how to do probability,column addition etc having learnt it out of school. In fact they then did it after the exam thus reinforcing it.Teaching level 5/6 content to a child not capable won't work as they simply won't have the skills to learn it,process it and use it.

And yes yes to Richmal.My G&T kid who has never had to work hard for anything I suspect is going to have a bit of a wake up call at grammar( part of the reason we sent him there) His twin who thinks more coped far better in the run up to 11+ and friends of mine with older bright kids say it gets to a point when sailing through effortlessly stops.

JustRichmal If they have the tenacity to put in a shed load of graft then of course they should be there. It will probably stand them in better stead than someone who has breezed through primary.

Totally agree. The only child in DSs year who passed the 11+ that hasn't been in top streams since Y2 (yes his school streams children from Y1) had four tutors for a year and no social life, and as well as getting the highest score in the school in the 11+ is now in the L6 work groups.

Again to the OP. Stop procrastinating and just f@@@in do it

People always told me DS1 was bright and he was always on the top table. We had him independently assessed at the end if year 2 and his scores were 133 putting him in the top 3-4%. We were advised he was super selective material, I disagree but he's in the top set of a top comp, sits just above the middle of the top set without too much effort and is predicted mid to high 6's across the board in everything apart from French and art at the end of year 7. I suspect that if we were in a general grammar area he would have passed.