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.

@PuttingDownRoots That does happen but surely grammar schools are about giving the brightest schools in the country a selective education rather than being fortunate enough to be in the Catchment area.

Taking a coach every day is not as good as walking to school, surely?

Do your kids go to grammar or comprehensive @StressedaboutUni and do you have a good experience with your choice?

If grammar schools were evenly distributed across the country, and were treated as ‘Special School for those who cannot efficiently be educated in mainstream due to how far their ability lies from the norm’ with access only by full EHCP in the same way as other Special Schools, then your idea would work.

As none of the above applies - eg Kent has grammar schools for roughly 25% of its pupils whereas other areas have room for 0%, the vast majority of the children in grammars could be efficiently educated in true comprehensives AND access is by coachable and non-reproducible exam that can be ‘gamed’ by those with money, no, it’s not going to work.

You could say that about any type of school though. Is it fair my DDs don't have the chance of single sex education because we don't live in the catchment area of girls school? Or their friend living a few miles away is in a Performing Arts stream at her school.

We have the choice of "normal" or Catholic if we were Catholic. The majority go to their defined catchment school here.

As it stands, the English education system has very different options depending on where you live.

@StressedaboutUni most comprehensive schools have streaming or setting for lessons though.
So does it matter if the smart children are in the same school as the not so smart? They won't be in the same actual lessons.

@PuttingDownRoots Yes that is true, there definitely should be a choice on the type of schools in all areas of the country.
However I am specifically talking about grammars here because local comprehensive schools in areas such as Kent are suffering due to this catchment policy. If these schools turned super selective, local comprehensives would still have bright pupils going to them

How do you define ‘bright’? It can’t be based on just exam results because poor kids often get lower (but still great) results while doing a lot of other shit that rich kids don’t have to think about.

Eg I know of grammar schools who currently accept all kids on free meals who have narrowly failed 11+ because the school recognises that getting a narrow fail while not eating regularly / having more responsibility at home / less access to academic resources makes you much brighter in comparison to a rich kid with all the advantages who’s passed.

And if you open up admissions to all kids of all catchments then you’re basically giving rich London based kids access to all of the grammar schools in the country and this will heavily discriminate against everyone else.

@StressedaboutUni in Kent aren't the non Grammar Schools actually Secondary Moderns rather than comprehensives?

@wenfy Superselectives typically take the top 2-10% of students. Therefore even if they have been tutored, they would not have been able to get on the most part without above average intelligence. Gaming the system through tutoring is much more likely to work in grammar schools that take 25% of applicants due to the Catchement system.

The ones near us are highest ranking only. I just assumed people wouldn't apply from too far away naturally, most people don't want to be moving with a kid at 11 and would have other kids around too who are no doubt settled in their own education.

@StressedaboutUni Sorry yep I meant to call the secondary moderns but that is my point. These schools suffer because all the bright local kids go to the Grammar school. In super selective areas, local schools are still comprehensives as many bright kids go to them, so they do not suffer from lack of aspiration etc. in the same way.

Sorry that was to @Needmorelego

I'm sure this already happens in Trafford.

It's a fucking mess.

“grammar schools are about giving the brightest schools in the country a selective education rather than being fortunate enough to be in the Catchment area.”

No, they aren’t about that.

State School admissions in England are largely based on location. Grammars are state schools. It is therefore not surprising that they have a location element to admission, be that catchment, distance, two lists (like Tiffin - which has inner and outer priority areas, IIRC)

DD goes to a Sutton grammar which is our nearest school. For me I like the entrance criteria. First 100 places based on any score, next 110 or so on a 5km radius and final 30 with a Sutton postcode.

I also think you are wrong about “all the bright kids” going to grammar. Many more meet the pass mark (ie are bright, measured that way) than get in, in every area, I think.

Op, look at the map of Kent, and plot the grammars. Then look at eg Northumberland, Devon or Herefordshire and plot the grammars. Then think about how making Kent grammars catchment- free will enable those children in Northumberland or Devon or Herefordshire so bright they cannot efficiently be educated in a true comprehensive to attend a school ‘appropriate for their ability’….

@SheilaFentiman Perhaps I overgeneralised a bit but a much higher proportion of bright kids go to local non selective schools in super selective areas. Therefore superselectives affect the local schools much less than catchment grammars do.

Op, compare Cheltenham - 1 grammar - with Gloucester - 4. All are superselective but the far greater DENSITY of grammars in Gloucester impacts the ‘other schools’ very much more.

As I keep saying, your idea only works IF grammars are evenly distributed country-wide and IF their admission criteria are genuinely selecting fairly for what you think they are.

(Oh, and if transport is free to all to grammars. Taking away catchment / distance criteria obviously hugely advantages the wealthy as they can afford the transport)

Eg I know of grammar schools who currently accept all kids on free meals who have narrowly failed 11+ because the school recognises that getting a narrow fail while not eating regularly / having more responsibility at home / less access to academic resources makes you much brighter in comparison to a rich kid with all the advantages who’s passed.

I love this and is a first step to levelling the playing field. I also love the sibling rule as siblings who don't sit the test normalise the average and the teaching has to be really up to scratch to meet all students needs, those who excelled at selection and those who happen to attend due to their geography or family.

In the end comprehensive with smartly organised sets and streams is best. Super selective sounds like an nightmare as a very narrow intake.

@cantkeepawayforever Density will also affect local schools- that is true. However ensuring all grammars are superselectives would at least go some way in ensuring that the local area is not affected as much.
In addition, the tests will be fairer in genuinely choosing those with the most academic ability at that point in time as the effectiveness of tutoring will be reduced when a smaller percentage of applicants go to the grammar school.

The boys’ grammar in my town is super selective.

It’s so great our local taxes fund wealthy Londoners’ children’s education and the poor local families who can’t afford tutoring get shafted.
So progressive and helping social mobility.

Apologies for typos on a thread about super selective education, I blame my advice.

In that scenario my dd would qualify. But she is autistic and the idea of her in a State Grammar horrifies me as I’m sure they would happily have let her sit in a room and study her heart out (it’s what she loves). She needed an ‘all rounder’ independant selective school where co-curriculars are just as important as academics - her private school has been invaluable in her treatment as they use subject specialists so we’ve had access to SEN physios / PE teachers from across Europe we would never have known about otherwise.