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

[BertrandRussell]

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

a7mints Why are secondary moderns so scary? Is it bad teaching? Limitation of academic subjects delivered? Or the risk of damaging the confidence of those who prefer not to be there?

How can non grammars to be made better so that it provides a good education to those who go there? With history and hindsights why can the "secondary moderns" be made good? Shouldn't it be easier to make a secondary moderns good than making a comprehensive good as the range of ability is smaller?

alwayssurprised Fri 09-Sep-16 14:33:02 How can non grammars to be made better so that it provides a good education to those who go there? With history and hindsights why can the "secondary moderns" be made good? Shouldn't it be easier to make a secondary moderns good than making a comprehensive good as the range of ability is smaller?

Don't you think the answers to these questions should be found before a large scale move to a grammar system?

I would create, alongside grammars, technical schools in the style of those in Germany.

Next question?

No because you've already shown those kids that they've failed, at age 11. This does not encourage a good attitude to their education.

Comprehensive education for 11-16 with setting in all academic subjects, a tiered exam system to cater for all abilities, then the choice between academic or vocational qualifications post-16. What is wrong with that? What does a grammar school provide for able pupils which that system doesn't? Aside from social segregation.

Sorry, the 'no' was in answer to alwayssurprised 's last line.

Eolian Fri 09-Sep-16 14:42:10 What does a grammar school provide for able pupils which that system doesn't? Aside from social segregation.

Elitism

Some secondary moderns can be very good. Holmer Green in Bucks gets better results for High Achievers than a few of the Kent grammars. The trouble is that the best ones are those most like comps - they have a higher % of the more able than other secondary moderns.

This is from memory but something like 57% of Lincolnshire SMs have 5 A-Cs rates in the twenties and thirties. Even accounting for the fact that they've lost high achievers to the grammars that's pretty dreadful. In Oldham and Rochdale combined I think only about 10% of the comps achieve as badly as that. All from memory so happy to be corrected if someone wants to look it up.

On a personal level its striking how often my DD will say "I got the same mark as X on a test" in a tone of pride. The presence of higher achievers does seem to inspire. I think there are lots of imaginative ways we could make sure that X doesn't lose out.

Exactly. Bright pupils must be allowed to achieve their potential, but so must everyone else.

Eolian there should be much more mobility to switch from non grammars to grammars maybe extra intake at 13 so that a fail in 11 doesn't mean you will fail again in 13, a failure at 13 doesn't mean you can't do well in GCSEs and changed at sixth form. Then not getting in at 11 will not be the end of the world.

People lauding the German system should be aware that it also receives criticism in that it entrenches existing inequalities.

Eolian Fri 09-Sep-16 14:47:21 Exactly. Bright pupils must be allowed to achieve their potential,

Even in Grammar schools some pupils will not achieve their full potential as those schools follow a NC and exams are capped at A** (soon to be level 9). Also bear in mind a DC can only study a subject if the school offers it and there are sufficient numbers to make it viable.

If its possible to make all comps good, then why is it not possible to make a school good if you remove 30 brainiac kids?

I hate the way posters who support comprehensives say anyone who fails their 11+ is a failure in life.

Just because a DC gets 10xA's at GCSE does not mean a school has given gifted academic children a good education. Getting an A is pretty easy for gifted children, they could learn so much more. That is one reason why we need grammars.

The figures I have closest to hand are the 2012/13 figures. At that time 79.6% of NI children got 5 or more GCSEs A*-C. Grammar school pupils had a 97.3% pass rate at this level. 67.2% of non grammar pupils had a pass rate at this level.

IIRC, the pass rate for non grammars in NI was similar or slightly higher than the overall pass rate in England.

Two of my friends failed the 11+, went on to get firsts in languages at oxford. I came to the conclusion that the 11+ was utter bollocks and I have heard nothing since to alter my view. Where on earth did we get the idea that it is more important to develop the potential of an arbitrarily selected portion of the population than all the rest? It's absurd.

alwayssurprised Fri 09-Sep-16 14:49:12 Eolian there should be much more mobility to switch from non grammars to grammars maybe extra intake at 13 so that a fail in 11 doesn't mean you will fail again in 13, a failure at 13 doesn't mean you can't do well in GCSEs and changed at sixth form. Then not getting in at 11 will not be the end of the world.

I believe that Bucks offers a 12 plus and 13 plus. However, success is subject to places being available so there is no guarantee it will work. For schools to do what you propose they would need to have a surplace of school places which goes against current school planning guidelines.

If there is a need to offer 12 plus and 13 plus exams it demonstrates that the Grammar system is flawed and all selective schools may as well just move to a 13 plus.

High achievers should be stretched themselves and not sacrificed to drag up others' performance. Likewise, a child who is struggling to keep up academically might be better off focusing on other areas of education.

A child who isn't academically gifted hasn't failed. The only problem with grammars, as this thread neatly points out, is that the children who don't get in end up in substandard schools. So, have different schools for different abilities which will allow all children to make the most of those different abilities.

After all, throughout the rest of life selection is made on the basis of ability for practical reasons. It's a nonsense to apply different rationale to children just because they're children.

A* will soon be history, to be replaced by grade 9s. For those children who find getting top marks easy, I imagine they will still get the grade 8s and 9s. So how will more grammars help - will they have a different scale and be able to award grades up to 12?

LaPharisienne Fri 09-Sep-16 14:56:47 High achievers should be stretched themselves I would imagine many high achievers are quite capable of stretching themselves, they shouldn't need a specialists school for this to happen.

My DC has been quite happy teaching himself web page design, photoshop and many other things that have caught his interest. I really don't get the idea that academically able children need to be held by the hand and spoon fed.

maths exactly, 10 A* is hardly the height of achievement a truly talented kid can get. There should be a clear route for able kids from any background to move all the way to the very top. They should be exposed to much more, not just yearly top set trip to Oxford to have a look.

Fully Selective areas Bordering non selective areas GCSE results 5A* -C including Maths/English .

Wirral 61.9% Cheshire West 58.3% Wirral + 3.6%
Trafford 70.7% Cheshire East 63.3% Trafford + 7.4%
Southend 64.7% Essex 58.4% Southend + 6.3% Selective 65.6% Non Selective 60..0% Average + 5.7% Selective

Here are three fully selective areas that out perform their similar social economically demographic neighbouring area !

In the case of Essex with the exception of Chelmsford/Colchester Essex is largely a Comprehensive County.

Cheshire West is similar in demographics to Wirral ,

Cheshire East is more 'affluent' overall than Trafford.

It proves that when comparing Non Selective areas with Fully Selective areas their are disparities in attaining whether their are more successful or less successful ! The three selective areas chosen show an average of 5.7% increase on their non selective bordering areas.

Though people point out that Kent does worse in GCSE results than Sussex West/East.

Dionne . Is Northern Ireland keeping grades by letters for GCSE !

Why are we all so convinced that comps are failing the highest achievers? How are all these people getting into Oxbridge from comps if they've been failed? And if they can get A* fairly easily then great. They'll have plenty of energy left for extra-curricular activities, writing novels, volunteering to teach other students,, getting involved in politics, practising a sport. volunteering with a charity. Wouldn't these give them more valuable life skills than getting to degree level five years early?

Of course they are not failures if they don't pass the 11+. But many of them may feel that they are, and that does not encourage them to try hard in future.

Why can't the '30 brainiac kids' just be put in a top set (or even stream) in a comprehensive school? Why do they need to actually be in a whole separate establishment? What do grammar schools actually offer that a comprehensive school top set doesn't?

Mum Maybe if someone in school notice his talents and interest he can be put in touch with entrepreneurs in the field to see the industry in action? Be put in touch with others in the school who share the same interest so can create projects to hone their skills? Something along that line anyway.

Just that little extra lift can accelerate learning and open children's eyes to possibilities. Won't happen without resources and critical mass.

If the comps are so great there should be proportionally way more OxBridge entrants from them compared to success rate from grammars and private? Some comps are great but most are only good enough.