If you're anti grammar schools, then please answer me this:

[Proseccocino]

If your child had a gift for music, then you might send her to a school which excels musically.

If your child had a talent for sport, you might send him to an academy which excels at sport, one where he can really focus and develop in the area in which he is better than his peers.

And so on....!

So, if your child is intelligent, academically gifted... Why is it bad to say you would send her to a selective school where she can study along with other bright students?

If it's OK to separate children according to ability in sport or music or drama or technology, and send them to specialist schools which excel in these areas - why is it a different story if their talent with their academic ability?

Bert

Here we go again, I know this but I was responding to posts about specialist schools.
If I don't post then people won't know how it can work and what a specialist school can offer.
Of course I know it's a different school, but isn't that what we are talking about?
I don't see how the same wouldn't work for the core subjects.

Yes, there are some very, very gifted children who are such outliers that a comprehensive school can't meet their needs. Those child's needs aren't going to be met by a grammar school, either, because a grammar school doesn't magically create geniuses from out of nowhere. Going to a grammar doesn't make you cleverer.

A good comprehensive will send pupils each year to some of the most competitive courses in the country and, indeed, the world.

A good grammar will do the same. No more. Maybe the comprehensive will do a little bit more work with the very cleverest pupils, organising city-wide lectures in partnership with a university to make sure that the very high ability pupils get to talk to and compete against each other. They can have regional competitions, with each school fielding a team. I think events like that add to rather than detract from a child's education.

It seems bizarre to me that we have these grammar schools in areas where apparently the local schools are great, and only a few kids go from a wide area, because their parents just fancy it. I understand parents who want a grammar school in an area where the local school is very poor.

I really hope that the DfE doesn't end up having to waste millions of money opening grammars in areas with good schools just because some parents think their kid might like it, or want the kudos of going to a grammar or because in their head comp = crap.

Our local grammar is 1 mile away. We realise it's highly sought after and that we stand less than 30 per cent chance getting in etc. However, that's more of a chance than the alternatives. We have some outstanding comps similar distance but stand zero chance of getting in sadly.

Our good comprehensive with 68% A*-c is 1 mile
Our outstanding comp with 75% A*-C is 1.2miles
Our outstanding comprehensive with 80% A*-c is 2 miles

Catchment for all is 0.5m and they are vastly oversubscribed so we won't get in

Our RI/SM school with poor results, poor behaviour 2.5 miles has spaces and is two buses away too.

Of course I'm going to try for the best option available.

zzzzz yes, it would be far better to improve the local school rather than offering some kids a golden ticket to a better education.

What I'm saying is I understand the parents who, in that situation, want a shot at the golden ticket (and in fact are fairly confident, perhaps misguidedly so, that they'd get one). Poor schools take time, effort and money to improve. However, it also takes time, effort and a lot of money to build a grammar, so clearly putting that time, money and effort into the poor school would be the better option.

When you say "local school" what do you mean?

How is a test going to accurately pick out kids 'most suited to' a grammar education when it can't even accurately pick out those who are going to do best in their GCSEs?

"Yes, there are some very, very gifted children who are such outliers that a comprehensive school can't meet their needs."

Wrong.

My friend's son has just graduated with a 1st in physics from Cambridge.

He went to the local primary (one with 3 x the average number of children on FSM) then on to a popular comprehensive which also has more than the national average of dc's on FSM. He got A* in all his A Levels.

My friend is a cleaner who left school at 16.

My other friend's son is starting at Oxford this term to study music. Local comp to 17. 10 A*s, and a distinction in grade 8 piano. He did one year at a private school before a levels only because his comp decided to close the 6th form when he was halfway through his A-levels.

Brilliant kids do well with top notch teaching. There are some massively gifted teachers in comprehensives.

"Yes, there are some very, very gifted children who are such outliers that a comprehensive school can't meet their needs."

Why do you think a grammar could?

zzzz what percentage of children does your grammar take.

A super selective Grammar is very differ ever to county grammars. They have less of an impact on surrounding schools and take too 1% from a wide area and the intake are super super bright and tend to have very committed parents who really push them in a 'child genius audition' way.

County grammars take a far bugger intake or normal smart kids, who just happen to be bright. This has a much more severe effect on surrounding schools and also means they are less in need of 'special teaching' that may be needed.

Once again, this is not saying that you don't know what's best for your child. It's saying that shouldn't be the basis for the education of other children who will suffer as a result.

DCs primary school is Ofsted outstanding and in one of the wealthiest areas of town.

About 30 - 40% of his school will pass their 11+. Apart from one boy on the spectrum and a couple with tiger Mums, they are all normal kids. I only know of one boy who has not had a tutor.

The school in the centre of town had one child that passed last year and most don't even get entered.

But at least that 40% won't have to mix with them heh

That's what grammar school gives you. Secretly, that's what everybody is asking for.

"BUT even if you get academic success it doesn't mean school is a good experience or as good as it could be."

Both the boys I know loved their comprehensive schools and had great experiences there and great friendships.

noble surely if you take an 11+ and just take the top X many that's your outliers?

That's your outliers for that test on that day. What is the test actually measuring and who do you actually want in the grammar school? If you take the top 25% results for that test aged 11 and split them off, 1 in 10 will not be in the top 25% GCSE results for that cohort in Y11. That's not from raw data, that's from a statistical analysis of how good a predictor of GCSE outcomes the best tests we have are - you know, like CATs tests to predict GCSE grades.

zzzzzzz- what % go to your grammar?

I was the person who commented in the very gifted children. I wasn't talking about a first in physics from Cambridge level of gifted. Comprehensives deal with kids like that every day. I wa talking about first class degree from Cambridge at the age of 12 levels of gifted. And a child like that would be no better off at a grammar school than they would be at a comprehensive, because a suitable cohort for a child like does not actually exist in the country, let alone within a 45 minute commuting distance.

Surely it would be better to improve the local school in this instance?

Clearly not possible as we've had comps for 40 years now, yet there are still far too many that aren't fit for purpose. Politicians of all parties and the education establishment have been unable to bring all comps up to a decent standard. So, it's not going to happen! So we need to forget the holy grail of outstanding comps for all as it's just a pipedream, so different ideas are needed.