People who are in favour of grammar schools....

[BertrandRussell]

....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?

So it said on the article I was reading that academies would be enouraged to convert to Grammar. At least two of our local schools are academies. Say the both convert. The 'clever' kids go to these schools. The kids who aren't academic or who are clever but don't fit round pegged into a square hole like mentioned above with spatial problems end up travelling further to crap schools (the other local schools are crap here) but that doesn't matter because they aren't A* students so they don't matter as much.

BertrandRussell I bet I would! Academic ability was by no means the only- or the most important- criterion.

Interesting that you think you would have been able to spot my DCs potential when my DCs teachers failed to do so. Do bear in mind that much of the work in reception and yr1 is based around the basics of reading and writing, I'd be interested to know how you identify a child is just a slow starter rather than academically average.

alwayssurprised Fri 09-Sep-16 12:02:07 There also should ideally be interviews

A number of my local selectives used to do this. Unfortunately the interviews were geared more around the wealth and commitment of the family supporting the DC rather than the ability, potential and eagerness to learn of the DC themselves.

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/09/greening-struggles-to-produce-evidence-to-back-grammar-schools

Note the comments made by Dr Sarah Wollaston who is a Tory MP. If she is allowed to vote with her conscience and not whipped into a vote, then Theresa May might start to think about her slender majority.

David Cameron says his piece against selection too, but he is the man who was going to stay on if Leave won, but then promptly resigned, so I don't think we need to take much notice of what he says.

You miss my point- or rather, I express myself badly.

Picking out 11+ passers at the age of 5 is very little to do with assessing their academic ability.

Mum Maybe the separate queue and fixed quota on FSM or low income family will help to address that.

MumTrying - I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but ds really wasn't reading at all until year 3.

I had concerns all through year 1 and 2 and kept raising them with the school. They kept telling me he was fine. Then they would say how full of interesting facts he is, and how good he was at understanding science, and how expressive he was, pity he couldn't write any of it down.
I did say (more than once) that the gap between his verbal skills and his reading skills would indicate there may be a problem with his reading. Apparently not.
Then he got into year 3. Amazing teacher, penny dropped and he started to take off. Finished year 6 with level 6 SATS and a grammar school place.

So, actually, there are clues, and there are lots of reasons which I won't go into as to why those teachers didn't get it. But also many boys do lag behind with reading and writing skills until they hit 7+. The clue as to whether they are just slow starters is in their verbal skills.

Maybe you should express it the other way round Bertrand in that you can pick out in Reception the children who have almost zero chance of passing an 11+.

Bloom - We have a local grammar that you can't be tutored to pass the tests so children get in entirely on merit.

How does that work, then?? What do they test dc on?

Treetopchallenger Fri 09-Sep-16 10:08:36 I'm pro grammar schools and would send my children to one of they passed their 11+. I think if your are exceptionally bright then you do better with a similar cohort of children. I can't see the problem really with children who don't get in.

Of course you can't see the problem, you're not in that situation. Perhaps move to Bucks or Kent and then tell us all how great the Grammar system is.

To answer the OP, the honest truth is probably I would do my damndest to get my children into the grammar school. If they got in, I wouldn't care about the ones who didn't.

In theory, I care about all the children and want everyone to have the best chances blah blah blah. In reality, I only actually care about my own children, even if that means disadvantaging others.

Which is terrible, but the truth.

bloomburger Fri 09-Sep-16 11:16:39 We have a local grammar that you can't be tutored to pass the tests so children get in entirely on merit.

Really. So which of the areas listed on this website do you live in?

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewforum.php?f=64

I think you will find that kids are being tutored for the 11 plus in every single area of the Country that has access to Grammar schools.

No, the schools won't be the exact same make up, just the same as parents sending their children to single sex schools changes the make up of surrounding schools etc, but it would still be mixed ability if that is what you want for your child/ what suits them.

Round here most of the schools have had decades to get their acts together and start providing good quality comprehensive education, but it just isn't happening. Whether it is too difficult for the teachers to differentiate for the wide range of abilities within classes, or there is just not the desire in some children to do well in exams, or there are children working in ways not suited to their abilities and/or way of learning... I don't know. But, something is not working, and I don't think offering a more tailored approach to educating at least a small group of children would be a negative change.

"children get in entirely on merit"

yuck

I hate that phrase

But Bertrand freely admits she didn't predict her own DCs' 11+ results correctly so I'm not sure I'd set too much store by her predictions of other people's DCs in Reception.

TheBogInn Fri 09-Sep-16 12:49:53 But, something is not working, and I don't think offering a more tailored approach to educating at least a small group of children would be a negative change.

Really, so you think it quite right that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Whilst I agree that the education system needs improving, I don't think the "something, anything, it's got to be better" is the right way of going about it.

"and I don't think offering a more tailored approach to educating at least a small group of children would be a negative change."

Ok - so instead of offering separate schools for the children who are at present succeeding best in all education sectors, why not offer a separate school for the lowest achieving children, and focus on improving educational outcomes for them?

Middle and high achievers could carry on as they are. High achievers are doing the best of all - as evidenced by the fact that they are high achievers in education.

Why separate schools for the highest achievers instead of the lowest?

goodbyestranger Fri 09-Sep-16 13:00:09 But Bertrand freely admits she didn't predict her own DCs' 11+ results correctly so I'm not sure I'd set too much store by her predictions of other people's DCs in Reception.

To be fair, I know a number of children who scored much lower than expected in the test. When you are being herded into a building with 2000 other children the reality of what they are faced with can suddenly hit them.

Well, here there are not very many rich people. And those who do have money and academic children, send their kids to the great, but expensive, private schools in the next town. A local grammar would not provide the same kudos, so I suspect there wouldn't be a big shift in the private school pupils taking the grammar places. How is providing a more fast-paced academic environment, for those not rich but academic and motivated children, wanting the rich to get rich and the poorer get poorer? How is it elitist to want a grammar in this situation?

I am a bit of a hypocrite since I and my children have/are benefitting from the grammar school system, but I do feel uncomfortable with a system that divides children from their siblings and friends and brands 75 % of them a failure at 10 years old.
Primary schools should be allowed to do a bit of practice with all the children so that they are all familiar with the style of questions befor e the big day.In our area they do VR & NVR only and have 2 bashes at each -only the best score being taken.I also believe it should be opt out not opt in and taken during the normal school day either at their primary, or with transport arranged from their primary to the testing centre..I think these measures would even out the playing field considerably as lots of parents are simply not 'in the know' or think they cannot prepeare their DC .
Children definitely do not need tutors but they do need a bit of practice to build up the required speed..Out of DC4 s year group the 4 children that passed only one had a tutor.

minifingerz the stigma attached to these well intented schools will be hundred times more than the secondary moderns

"How is providing a more fast-paced academic environment, for those not rich but academic and motivated children, wanting the rich to get rich and the poorer get poorer"

Because the act of testing and dividing children into separate schools at 11 results in polarised social and learning environments and this compounds underachievement in poor children (who are disproportionately represented in non-selective schools).

You have to remember that schools are communities made up primarily of children and families. What happens in communities deprived of the most able, energetic and ambitious individuals? You only have to look at big council estates to work that one out. Mixed communities are better for deprived children.

In the US they found that of all the interventions which made a difference to the likelihood of poor children achieving, the most effective was putting the lowest achieving children into schools where there were higher numbers of able children. Fewer poor children dropped out of school early and overall levels of attainment were higher. Obviously this is good for society as well as those particular children!

"minifingerz the stigma attached to these well intented schools will be hundred times more than the secondary moderns"

I'm not recommending this is done. I'm asking why we are focusing on the needs of the highest achieving children at the expense of other children when it's the lowest attaining we ought to be most worried about.

But nobody seems to give a shit!