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

[BertrandRussell]

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

Some one up thread said
new CEM test is tutor proof

This just makes me role round on the floor laughing. 2 of mine are at grammar school. I tutored both of them myself, one under the old tests (VR) and one under the new. (CEM)
The old test was much easier to tutor for as there was less to cover. The new test requires you to know all the maths and English at a high level, so it is much more ground to cover.

Pretty much 50% of the English is down to vocabulary. Find the synonym for... which word is the antonym to...

she learnt 200-300 new words over year 5. She also needed to learn lots of maths facts to have them at her finger tips in a way that most year 5 kids don't. Eg internal angles of a triangle add up to 180%. The meaning of mean, median and mode.
Then you get them doing examples, and teach them how to work faster and faster.

Very few would pass the CEM tests without some prep. It is easy to tutor a child up for it so they pass, if they are reasonable bright.
Our area is not bad in terms of no. of kids sitting v. places. Unlike parts of London.

I am not (despite the above) a fan of grammar schools per se, rather I have made use of the options open to us. In another local town there are 2 excellent comps. If we lived there, ds and dd would have gone there.

We have a local grammar that you can't be tutored to pass the tests so children get in entirely on merit. All grammar school should do this as the kids that get in to the other grammars are tutored for years beforehand at a cost of thousands to ensure they get in, so the kids from more well off families are more likely to get in.

It's been 20 years. It hasn't improved yet...

And that's because those who can afford to move into the good camps catchment or go private. So at the moment, it's selection by parental wealth (or "religion") .

A true comprehensive would be wonderful, but unless you abolish private school and make all houses cost the same, this won't happen.

I'd rather it was selection by ability than selection by wealth.

In Grammer areas (ie Kent) do normal primary schools teach the children how to do the 11+?

BurnTheBlackSuit Fri 09-Sep-16 11:16:44 It's been 20 years. It hasn't improved yet...

And that's because those who can afford to move into the good camps catchment or go private. So at the moment, it's selection by parental wealth (or "religion") .

I'd rather it was selection by ability than selection by wealth.

Perhaps you can explain how a investing money in extending the Grammar system will change the selection by wealth?

As it currently stands, the Grammar system is selection by wealth and ability. How is that better?

To me there is a huge elephant in the room when it comes to poor kids and grammar entrance.

Take 2 children who are bright. Raise one in a household where there is loads of conversation, complex vocabulary, lots of reading, both books being read aloud and models of adult reading. Throw in dinner table discussion about politics, the world, life the universe and everything. Give the child opportunities to visit places on holiday, museums etc etc etc.
Take the second child, and put them in a very low income household with parents who have low educational attainment themselves, and where no-one really reads for pleasure beyond magazines.

Guess which one will have the verbal skills and vocab to pass the 11+

If you want to improve the number of kids on FSM entering grammar school, you need to give them access to wider educational opportunites earlier, like at age 7.

(yes I know that is a stereotype. My kids are on FSM and got in, and I am articulate etc etc. But when I look at the other bright kids in dd1s class, who could have potentially passed the 11+, they were from families like that, and they would not have passed, and it would not have occurred to their parents to enter them either, but they had the potential)

"In Grammer areas (ie Kent) do normal primary schools teach the children how to do the 11+?"

Nope. They are actually forbidden to, and could have the exam nullified if they are caught doing it. Lots do, though.

But it's a tricky issue. Not everyone takes the exam, so time spent teaching the test to those that will is an unfair use of resources. And anyway, those already being tutored will just get a bit more, and those who aren't probably won't get enough...........

Burntheblacksuit, the schools round here were similar, so years failing, but it can be done as it has been around here.

bloom, I don't think any system can ever be tutor proof. What steppemum says sounds spot on to me.

Steppe mum- I said on another thread that as a volunteer in Reception I could pick out the 11+ passers on day 1.......

BurnTheBlackSuit Fri 09-Sep-16 11:18:40 In Grammer areas (ie Kent) do normal primary schools teach the children how to do the 11+

Why would primary schools teach children how to do the 11 plus. Gaining a place at secondary school has nothing to do with teaching the primary NC.

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

How? as I said up thread, I coudl improev any child's chances by doing extra english and maths with them.
No-one has invented a tutor proof tests.
The only advantage is that the english and maths you learn will be useful in the classroom.

Where we live (fairly deprived area in general, although pockets of relative affluence) the top two state school select on religion. Fully comprehensive admission in terms of ability from the feeder schools (but when all religious places are filled, selection is most definitely on grounds of ability), and fab results. There is also a tiny private school which also gets good results, but no idea how, or if, they select. In the neighbouring towns there are a couple of excellent independent schools which select on ability, and of course wealth. Everyone else goes to the various other comprehensive schools in the area. Results are not great. There is already selection by faith, wealth and, to a small degree, ability. Why would a grammar school not benefit the town?

You can pick out children who are most likely to pass the 11+ certainly at age 7, although there is the occasional one who 'fails'. It doesn't happen often the other way round.

If Theresa May was really interested in promoting a fairer education system, she would invest in more Sure Start centres and work with parents of small children. But she isn't interested - her words on the steps of No 10 were just cheap soundbites.

BertrandRussell Fri 09-Sep-16 11:23:22 Steppe mum- I said on another thread that as a volunteer in Reception I could pick out the 11+ passers on day 1

You would not have picked out my DC as they were considered academically average at the end of reception and year 1. Mind you as he was not a keen reader, hated to write (still does), was very quiet and shy. It wasn't until mid way through year 2 that they realised his maths ability and by the beginning of year 3 they identified his ability in literacy.

Interestly the star performer in his class (the DC who set the standard for everyone else in reception, yr1 & yr2) had dropped behind significantly by the beginning of yr 4 and was being given extra support in maths.

My DC was not unique in this respect. The top 5 performers in his year group, in terms of SATs and 11 plus score, didn't really come into their own until yr 3 / yr 4 and one of them in yr 5.

I do think the current system is failing the children who got the best ability and get stuck in a so so comp because they live in the wrong place. They won't fail if they have enough ambition in them, but they can do so much more. That's why we have so few comp children in OxBridge. They simply is not competitive enough at the end of their secondary schooling. Yeah they are "doing well" for a lot of people on this thread, but not the best they can achieve. They will not have efficient use of resources directed at them because they are not the majority and not the piority. Their learning will not have the synergy that can happen with a critical mass of talented motivated children around them, instead of that little niche set. Not exactly fair to them if their role is to sit in a comp to inspire others, but they can be ignored because they are "doing well". Won't give you prime ministers of the future, but if the middle of the road kids get half a grade higher at 2 GCSEs that's all jolly good results on paper, and social mobility prevails, in theory.

Grammars are not a fab system but cheap to implement. I don't really like it or think it is the best the government can do, but I understand the desire for it. At least there is a chance there to compete. Poor london immigrant parents who value education above all won't hesitate to apply for their children.

The question is how to make secondary moderns better.

TheBogInn Fri 09-Sep-16 11:30:31 There is also a tiny private school which also gets good results, but no idea how, or if, they select.

They select by wealth as you have to be able to afford the fees.

"You would not have picked out my DC as they were considered academically average at the end of reception and year 1"

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

*Perhaps you can explain how a investing money in extending the Grammar system will change the selection by wealth?

As it currently stands, the Grammar system is selection by wealth and ability. How is that better?*

If all children were taught how to sit the 11+, or if selection to Grammer was based on year 6 SATS, then selection by wealth would mostly be eliminated surely? People are only tutoring because otherwise their children wouldn't have a clue how to answer a verbal/non-verbal reasoning test. If you teach everyone how to do it, then it would level the wealth playing field.

Agree with Burn, and possibly state primary children has piority over those from preps.

TheBogInn
In your town the grammar school will fill up with the top 20% of children whose parents would have previously chosen to jump through the hoops to access 1 of the 2 faith schools, plus the brightest from the private school whose parents wanted to save on school fees. Children who would have previously attended one of the 'not great' comps will probably be able to access one of the faith schools, but since their brightest pupils will now be in a different school their results will drop and they will no longer be the best schools.
Who do you think will benefit most in this scenario, I doubt it will be the pupils destined for the ordinary comps in your area?

I can't see the Tories going down the route of giving priority to state school educated children over preps. It would be a vote loser for them. The hidden agenda here is that a lot of middle class voters are feeling the pinch and would love to save the £12K or so on school fees.

BurnTheBlackSuit Fri 09-Sep-16 11:46:25 If all children were taught how to sit the 11+, or if selection to Grammer was based on year 6 SATS, then selection by wealth would mostly be eliminated surely?

In an ideal world yes, in reality - dream on.

Parents will still pay for additional tution pushing the qualifying pass mark up even higher.

My local secondary schools would not touch the SATs results with a barge pole. As one headmaster pointed out - children with L5 SATs from one school sometimes don't even come close to children with L5 SATs from other schools. They even said that the primary schools with the inflated SATs results are very easy to identify.

Burn - not true. It isn't about knowing how to answer a VR or NVR question. So much of it is about passive and active vocabulary. That can be taight, and it is also true that many of our MC kids would have abetter vocab than their FSM counterparts, due to exposure at home.

But the issue isn't the grammar schools. Actually it has never been the grammar school. The issue has always been, as the title of the thread suggests, what about everyone else?

How do you structure the 'rest' schools? Hiw do you ensure that those who just failed, still get a good education? How do you ensure that there are multiple opportunities.

Actually I think one of our problems in this country has been the emphasis on university education. 50% of kids going to uni is ridiculous. We would do much netter to cap uni at, say, 20% and then change the rest of the tertiary education we expect. Bring in proper apprentices again. Get in work training schemes for those who don't want to study, but do want to advance. Get a system of qualifications that are job based and job related.
get engineers in day release at 16 alongside their studying. etc etc

Dh is dutch and they have a more streamed system than a comp, a bit like a school with a grammar within, then a tech stream within and so on. It was all on one site, and you could move from one stream to the other if you were a late developer. It wasn't ideal. But it was very different ot our idea of a comp.

There also should ideally be interviews or more test looking for creative thinking and curiosity after passing first stage of competence testing on national curriculum covered up to the testing period. Allow selection not based on one exam.

To answer the OP's question - the children who don't get into the grammar school at 11, would go to the school they would have gone to if the grammar didn't exist. Parents wouldn't have to send their children to the grammar, if they were ideologically against it. There would still be a range of abilities at the comprehensive, just presumably fewer at the higher ability end.

I think we need to get rid of the snobbery that being academic is the only path of value in life. I have no idea if my children will be academic enough to pass the 11plus (in theory, as it doesn't exist here), as they are too young at the moment. But if not, then a grammar environment would have been wrong for them anyway. I think all children should have an education appropriate to them and their abilities, be that special school, grammar school, comprehensive school, secondary modern etc.