Should all Grammar Schools be super selective?

[StressedaboutUni]

Rather than offering places based on living in a catchment area, surely grammar schools should simply admit by highest ranking? This would prevent local schools from losing all their bright pupils as some would not get into the grammar of it was purely based on ranking score. For example in Barnet, QE boys purely admits on highest ranking and all the local schools are doing really well compared to the average secondary school in England.
In addition, it would make Grammar schools even more meritocratic as you don’t need to live in the (often expensive) catchment area to get in.

How broad would you make this, OP? Same LA? 10 mile radius? Nationwide?

Isn't that what Grammar schools are though? Selective?

@SheilaFentiman There would be no catchment. Pupils could apply from anywhere, but obviously parents would need to consider if they would need to move before school starts to make the journey feasible.

@Needmorelego Most are not purely selective. You have to pass a certain threshold in the test but you also have to live within a certain area.
Super selective schools just give places based on the rankings of the 11 plus scores irrespective of where someone lives.

@StressedaboutUni I thought that was the case already. I live in South London where we don't have Grammar Schools but I know some children commute to some in Kent/Surrey areas. There obviously isn't a catchment if some kid living in practically central London commutes to Kent everyday. Which already happens.

The Birmingham schools used to do it that way, on highest ranking. They were ridiculously oversubscribed. They now have some sort of catchment system. It's probably less admin (and cost) for them if they cut down the number of applicants. <cynic>

So, when the only school in your local area, is a grammar, and your kid is bright and should get a oakce there. How fucked off are you going to be when 280 kids are bussed in from out of the area as they're even brighter than your kid. And now you/your kid have to schlep 8 miles to get to some outof catchment school?

One of the grammar school's near me has a connection to a London borough, something to do with a brewery and reserves x amount of places for kids in that area.

Ones near me are a mix - the girls ones are a handful Of places for pupil premium that pass minimum score. Then top 100 scores. Then next hundred scores within catchment.

@Needmorelego Yes they do exist (esp. London)must a large amount of areas are grammar schools with a catchment- e.g. Kent. This decimates the local comprehensive schools in these areas as all the bright kids in the area would go to the Grammar.
However, as most grammar schools in London are super selective or close to that, local schools are not affected as much as many bright kids would still go to them, as the Grammar would take kids with higher scores from further away.

In Gloucestershire they are super selective with no catchments

@christmastreefarm Doesn’t this affect local non selective schools within the Catchment area though as a high proportion of bright kids in the area would get into the Grammar as they live in the Catchment ( as 100 places are based on the Catchment).
it also seems unfair on kids who don’t live in a grammar school catchment area, as they have no way of accessing one.

I assume where Grammar schools exist there is always a non-grammar 'catchment' alternative so if your child doesn't go to the local grammar they aren't having to travel for miles to an alternative school. Is that not how it works?
When my home town had Grammar and Secondary Modern schools they were literally next door to each other (so when they combined to become a comprehensive in 1969 it was really easy).

However, as most grammar schools in London are super selective or close to that, local schools are not affected as much as many bright kids would still go to them
Don't forget that London schools get disproportionate amounts of funding. As I said, Birmingham used to have super-selective but that didn't translate into the other schools being hunkydory.

The grammars in the Southend area have an in catchment pass mark and then remaining spaces go to out of catchment children with no consideration of location. The in catchment area is very large and includes many poorer areas and fairly inexpensive housing. The schools would be full of out of catchment children if they didn't give priority to local children. So if you get the catchment area right, there is no issue with it.

I doubt that making all grammars super selective would make them meritocratic. The families that would invest in purchasing a house in the grammar school catchment area will generally be the same families investing money and/or time into the preparation required to pass the super selective entrance exams.

At a standard grammar school the bright child from a family that isn't able to support their education still has a chance of passing, perhaps only scrapping a pass as they've had no preparation, but then has the opportunity to benefit from the grammar school education.

@00100001 Yep that must be Dame Alice Owens. It Is only partly selective though as more than half the places go to siblings, those who live near the school and children of staff. They don’t need to sit a test, so it is quite different to grammar schools where everyone sits a test but osmotic of those places are given to those who live in the catchment.

@StressedaboutUni there aren't Grammar schools in London - unless you mean the ones down in Kingston etc which is pretty much scraping the edges of London.

Birmingham used to do this and was criticised heavily as it discriminated against poor students (hint: poor kids aren’t the ones commuting 1-2 hours each way for school, it’s the rich ones whose parents can afford trains). They were full of students that came out of the private prep industry in Leicestershire.

I actually think State Grammar schools should lower ratings slightly and ONLY admit from State Primaries thus forcing State Primaries to teach 11+ because the type of parents (like me) who send to private primary aren’t doing it just for 11+ prep but because they have kids who need small class sizes or other benefits. But I doubt this will ever happen.

Rubbish for your eco footprint too.

Catchment plus selective entrance I can accept otherwise just local comprehensive is fine. It's a bit depressing if there is zero local community spirit in a school.

A few years ago there was a thread on here with a parent entering their child for Grammar school exams all over the country, with the view of moving close to the one they got into. Exrene example, but it isn't really of the spirit of the idea. Plus, with being based in London, they could apply for 5/6 schools... local children only could apply for three.

I think it would be better if we look at the overall picture of whats the best for children. Hour plus commutes each way really aren't healthy over all for them.

Maybe a Grammar stream in more schools from 13 would be better.

@Needmorelego There are quite a few in London. QE Boys and Henrietta Barnet in Barnet. Latymer in Edmonton. Wilson’s Schools, the ones in Kingston you mentioned. Sutton Grammar, St Michael’s a catholic (though I think the latter is not super selective) and I’m sure there are more.

Can anyone point me to a good source for the history of grammar schools that includes how and why they were abolished in certain areas but not some? Thanks.

@PoliceMouse The eco footprint wouldn’t be too bad as in many super selective, most students take coaches or public transport so the eco footprint per person is not that large.

@StressedaboutUni my mistake. Although those north London ones are quite on the edges too...
I the 'Inner London' boroughs we don't have them.