Grammar Schools (given green light by Theresa May part 3)

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

Maybe we could have sports schools for elite athletes that selects its intake on the basis of a hundred yard dash?
Maybe that's the answer, to have selection for specific subjects. A maths grammar, an English grammar, a science grammar etc

EddieStobbart The point to one school per city is because I am arguing that grammar should only be for truly 'gifted' children, a 'SEN' school.

In terms of my DC at school, not being stretched is an understatement. They will almost certainly be Oxbridge Phd (or equivalent) but that doesn't validate the comprehensive school system. They are only there to get the certificates, maybe pick up a bit of general knowledge on the way. I am not putting down the school (or trying to boast), it just can't cater for gifted children. What a waste of 7 years of their life!

In DC's school (1400 admission) there must be, at most maybe, half a dozen children I would classify as gifted. Zero cost solution: Self teaching in any subject they excel in, all they need is a quiet room and a book. As long as they pass all tests to prove standards some DC are just wasting their time in a lot of subjects. And its not just about higher levels or qualifications, its also about breadth. I would estimate in a majority of subjects 80% of the time nothing productive is done by gifted pupils.

We had sets for Maths and English which were the only complusory subjects in terms of exams. I didn't feel the other subjects suffered for not having set groups. We had some restrictions in studying sciences - if a certain standard hadn't been achieved in the two years before then you were recommended not to choose physics and chemistry as exam subjects so I suppose that was a form of setting.

As long as they pass all tests to prove standards some DC are just wasting their time in a lot of subjects. And its not just about higher levels or qualifications, its also about breadth. I would estimate in a majority of subjects 80% of the time nothing productive is done by gifted pupils.

I don't understand this, what do you mean?

It sounds like you are not arguing for a major change to the school system but greater support for the very small percentage who are gifted and talented? I would support that but I still think it should be within the mainstream school system.

I'm not an educationalist, so I can't back this up but I do know there are experts who say that mixed ability teaching is best for high ability kids, however counter intuitive that sounds.

DS got an A for maths at A level so I fail to see how he could have been 'stretched' further.

Before someone jumps in to say 'it wasn't an A*' -that hadn't been introduced. It was introduced because there were too many As. Since 90% go to a comprehensive they must be doing something right! If private and grammar schools were the only ones doing well it wouldn't have been a problem.

No further reasons for not having my sons in the same school. I wasn't too impressed with the reason for it is to shut my lesser ability son off from the best teachers!

EddieStobbart, yes, I am not arguing for a major change to the school system. Only support for G&T. Unfortunately most comprehensives don't/can't provide this. So I am left hoping Grammars could provide this by concentration of numbers.

If someone came out with a credible way to implement and provide this in comprehensives then I would support that. I have no interest in segregating my DC from other pupils of all backgrounds. And because of my situation I know a lot of parents of gifted children feel the same. Being allowed to self teach is the minimal we want, obviously we would love to actually be given proper teacher support but accept that wont happen in our lifetime.

FreshHorizons getting an A for maths at A level is a real achievement, congrats to DC. For some (a minority) DC if they got that it would be the equivalent of their cycling proficiency. For the gifted SEN its 7 years wasted.

DS's friend that year got one of the 2 best A level results in the country that year- from a comprehensive!
He wasn't a special case.
The maths prodigy that I mentioned earlier was, and he was at the same primary school and comprehensive. If he had to be a special case when my DSs friend wasn't then you can be sure he was way out of the ordinary. He was treated accordingly and not just accelerated up the years and then allowed to get bored- which was suggested.

There were quite a lot in his class who got an A - prefectly normal for the maths ALevel class - it is what they were all aiming for! They would after all have been in a grammar school, but there wasn't one (thankfully).

What I've read is that the research on mixed ability teaching is very poor, so it's not really possible to draw any serious conclusions from it. (Sadly, this is not unusual with educational research.) However, one thing most people concede is that it is much more difficult to do well, and puts much more of a strain on the teacher, than teaching to a narrower ability range. Which is, in itself, a problem in a system with large numbers of inexperienced teachers.

I do get so fed up with this idea that a comprehensive child has somehow beaten the odds if they should manage to do well!
90% go to a comprehensive- therefore far more get top universities and top results than the tiny percentage that get to go a grammar school!
Their parents have chosen the school- they are highly aspirational and so are the children. Anyone would think that about half a dozen managed a top university per year!

Comprehensive DOES NOT equal mixed ability teaching.

fresh that simply isn't true of all comprehensive areas though. The creaming off round here isn't to private or grammar, it is purely religion and postcode.

If gifted children can achieve great things in spite of their education, imagine how much they could achieve if they weren't bored at school and actually learn something new for 7-14 years.

If gifted children can achieve great things in spite of their education

How insulting. So if a kid does well at a grammar it's because of their education but if they do well at a comp it's in spite of it?

Mathsmum, I would support that. I agree that the needs for a child prodigy may be so different that they need targeted support although I'm not comfortable with using it as a basis for changing the whole school system. I know someone whose DC was given an award for the highest national mark in one of their exam subjects by an associated institution. She describes her DC as very intelligent but not as G&T, I think that is on a completely different level.

So what is it then fresh at a comprehensive where there aren't 30 kids of the usual top set ability?

I hear some strange things on MN but the fact that getting a top grade in maths A'level is like getting their cycling proficiency to some children just about takes the I would suggest that if they feel like that they could make a special effort and get the top mark in the country!

Why would they be bored in the comprehensive? They have to work jolly hard to keep up with the highest achievers.

There was only one religious school in my area- with a good reputation - but very few went to it and they would have had to have been very involved with the church since birth and paid a considerable fare to travel daily.

If you have a good comprehensive in an area without grammar schools you are bound to have far, far more than 30 pupils in the top ability sets.
You all seem to equate comprehensive schools with inner city or what you have seen on TV.

noblegiraffe "If gifted children can achieve great things in spite of their education. How insulting. "

That is NOT what I am saying and I think your just showing entrenched views. Its not the comp's fault it cant provide for a gifted pupil. Having a concentration of gifted pupils could enable another school to provide for very high end learners. Its not one verses the other. Its a win win for children and the country. If every comp can provide for that level, then bring it on, but so far they haven't managed to square that circle, the numbers just dont add up.

Why would places like Keswick, Harrowgate, Horsham, Ascot - to name just a few - not have comprehensives with a large top end of high ability?
A lot of the church schools are comprehensive. (Are there church grammar schools?) Maybe all the church schools are comprehensive.

I have just explained how the comprehensive provided for a gifted maths pupil but it was disregarded. ( it was a lot better than the grammar school who just said 'all our boys are clever' - when he was way beyond that)
However - maybe it was a point if a maths A level is 'just like getting you cycling proficiency'!!

FreshHorizons Yes achieving in areas like maths is THAT easy for some children, FACT. And I note you bring it back to results. ITs NOT about the results.

They can and do get bored off at school, frequently, they dont have to work jolly hard to keep up with the highest achievers, they are the highest achievers.

I am not equating my DCs comprehensive school with ANYTHING on TV. Its a good school in a good city, but all the 'clever' (and I say that tongue in cheek, either go private, religious, or millionaires catchment. There is at most 6 children of a level in my comprehensive that are wasting their talent because school cant provide.

Just for the record, I support and defend my DC school, I work jolly hard in the PTA, help with school trips, give free foreign language practice and in many other ways to make it the best school possible. The teachers are great and they do a wonderful job with what they have.

I teach in a comp that is perfectly able to cater for the gifted pupil (or at least the very bright, I've only taught one DC in 10 years who was that exceptional that they couldn't be catered for within the classroom).

If there are comps that don't have enough bright kids to provide adequately for them, that is usually because there is some other school in the area taking a lot of the bright kids. Adding more schools into the mix that cream off the brightest will only create more schools who can't cater for the bright kids in their intake. And there will always be bright kids in the non-grammar schools. But screw them, eh?

The numbers add up to me in that 90% of our children go to one and are doing very well.
Having seen friend's children from babies to aged 40 yrs I would say they are doing very well indeed.