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?

My DD goes to a state school with a performing arts specialism. They offer 15 places by audition but otherwise the spaces are on catchment. We are very lucky and it is an excellent school but I would definitely have applied to a grammar, had one existed when she was originally making her application. In fact we did even research it and consider looking for a private school with an 100% scholarship. I definitely can see why parents whose children wouldn't/don't get in to grammar would be opposing it.

"A good comprehensive school would be able to deal with this. There were some extremely gifted mathematicians at DD's school. Some of them took GCSE maths at the end of year 9 and achieved A*s. They then went on to do other subjects in year 10 because it opened up a free option for them."

A tiny minority of primary school children are capable of getting an a* GCSE or even A level before they leave primary. Such children are rare and without do have special educational needs. Most Grammar schools would struggle to cater for the spectularly gifted. They don't have university lecturers on hand.

The only child I met who I have met in real life who is incredibly mathematically gifted also has autism. His literacy skills are weak.

We're talking about high attainers again!

It's almost as if nobody else really matters.........

What happens if your child's academic ability at 11 isn't quite what it was at 13? Do they get kicked out of the grammar school?

I don't think intellectual ability alone is enough to base a school's ethos on. Surely we want rounded individuals who have, yes been stretched academically (although it's not often you get people who are gifted across the board on all subjects), but have broader skills?

Grammars were seen as the working mans shot at a private education. Private education isn't just focussed on academic ability - it covers sport and other things too.

We should aim for all schools to provide a decent all round education, not exam factories for those who can ace tests.

A tiny minority of primary school children are capable of getting an a GCSE or even A level before they leave primary.*

I would agree, for subjects apart from maths.

A bright mathematician who can easily get A stars in GCSE and A level could probably do so at any age. Personally I wouldn't choose to have my DC pushed ahead in the maths curriculum to this extent but some parents do choose to teach ahead in maths. Many of those who end up doing university degrees in maths could do GCSE/A level years early but it is not in their best interests to do so and I wouldn't call most of them so "spectacularly gifted" that secondary school can't deal with them.

I agree with you however that grammars don't have any particular advantage in dealing with such kids over comprehensives. In fact a number of the existing grammars are considered by academics to be rather poor at dealing with extremely high ability kids.

We have a very well regarded (and oversubscribed) 'comprehensive' (it's an academy) school near us who's Exec Head is VERY vocal in the local press about how much he despises selection by academic ability and how it's very existence damages every other non selective school in the area (we live in a region where there are still a fair few grammar schools) And yet his school allows 20% admission based on MUSICAL ability. I am yet to hear the cacophony of voices decrying 'trumpet blowing, bagpipe squeezing, elitist barstewards' that manage to get their kids in to this school on that basis. No that's all fine and dandy. And as if that's not bad enough, his school, though a 'comprehensive' has an entrance test and a grammar stream! You mustn't call them that though, god no, he'd have an attack of the vapours. No no, they're a 'banding assessment' (split 33% from the top 33% from the middle and 33% from the bottom) and an 'accelerated learning stream'! And the purpose of this is definitely not to make sure he gets 33% of the most intelligent kids in (regardless of how far away they live) to help boost his exam results, no definitely not, it's to make it 'fair' so it's not just those who can afford to live across the road that get in. Massive hypocrite.

Dc1 has the ability to do his GCSE at the end of y9 and get an A*, that's seen the level he finished at at the end of Y7 without doing any work at all or being stretched in any shape or form.
Will be 'allowed' to pass his maths GCSE in Y9? I doubt it, not in his state secondary where he is already so far ahead.
Woukd that be good for him to do so? Well not if it means he does no maths fur the next two years to them start again to prepare his Alevels (that's what happens with MFL in his school btw)

Does it mean he is well cared for his in school? Nope, not whatsoever.
Woukd be better served in a grammar school? Maybe. At least I would hope that the outlook and the wish of doing well and enjoying maths/science being a good thing would help him feel at ease.

And I wouldn't t say he is particularly gifted either. No more than I was and I dint see myself that way above everyone else.
But the current system is certainly failing him.

So my question would be more, if there are some more grammar schools, what will be different about them that will make the difference (aka just putting together the first 20% wouldn't make a difference as such fur the really able)

I know many families in the local grammar, generally if parents want their child to go there, the child is tutored.
In the last few years I don't personally know any child who wasn't tutored.

In essence I think I might agree with the grammar school system (but would need to put a lot more thought to it), but the system as it stands is corrupt and only benefits those whose parents can afford it.

I was there over twenty years ago and was tutored then, at a time before verbal and non-verbal reasoning, we had an English comprehension and maths exam. Most of my peers were tutored and paid by parents to pass their exams.

Obviously my posts refer to my local grammar school, I can't speak for all of them.

"My sister lives in a grammar area in the north east. People tutor."
There aren't any in the north east aer there? Closest is ripon.

Must be Ripon Stealth, if someone's down south it might appear to be North East.

Lincolnshire

MammouthTask Fri 09-Sep-16 20:50:11 Woukd be better served in a grammar school? Maybe.

Oh please, which grammar school would this be?

Maybe not true "north east" but it's not "posh south" either.

Pah, tis down south to me :o

Sorry Stealth - crap geography. Blame the comp I went to

OP
Here is a map of part of Hampshire
www3.hants.gov.uk/schooldetails?dfes=4129#catchment
Where would you put each of your specialist schools ?
bearing in mind
that only one decent sized school covers the area at present

zzzzz Fri 09-Sep-16 20:50:45 If you have children who are very able I do think it is better for them not to be the one bright child in the class. Similarly if you have a child who just misses grammar school, surely being the top of the top set would be a positive.

Erm, wouldn't that make them the one bright child in the class?

Probably not the best point to mention that as a child leeds was down south to me

OP, I am not in support of establishing new grammars.
I have a high ability child predicted to get A*/A or equivalent in GCSE across every subject including Further Maths.
He is also a very good musician and plays in a nationally supported ensemble as well as in a couple of local bands.

He does all this from the top set of an ordinary good quality local comp. He is not in a rarified minority as a clever kid, nor as a musician, the school orchestra is excellent and there are better musicians than him.
This happens in a comp. He gets the teaching and attention suited to his ability. Some of his talented musical friends in the orchestra and jazz ensemble are not in top sets. So in selective education, where should he go? A musical school or a grammar? Either way he would miss out on some of one lot of peers.

Also, at 10 (young in year) I doubt he would have got into a super selective, he was just too immature in his confidence and his thinking. He blossomed at the end of Yr 7 and throughout 8. By this time he was part of the school community: what would he have done in a selective system? Left his friends behind saying 'Byee, off to a different school, too clever for you now!"?

Likewise kids get moved down sets and find they can't keep up. Should they be leaving friends at 13 to go to the less academic school? Would parents be in constant fear of their child being kicked out of selective? Having to buy a new uniform?

I see no need whatsoever to place bright kids behind a different fence. No need for my kid to be bussed out.

Better to put resources into under performing comps and ensure that every child has every chance to excel within their own potential, including moving from set to set.

DS Got 4 x A* , 7 x A and 1 x B : he did not come in the top 15 high achievers at his comp.
DD got 3 x A*, 10 x A : she was not in the top 20 at her comp
same school, different years
catchment includes deprivation areas 1 to 7
intake includes deprivation areas 1 - 10 (where I live)

with a bit of effort I can cross match the deprivation areas to the Hampshire comps and show that "leafy comps" are just a London myth"
and thius that Grammars solve a non existent problem.