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.

Getting rid of grammars or at least making them really hard to access would also have the effect of reducing the need for private education. Private schooling in some areas is effectively being propped up by a mixture of crammer-for-grammar prep schools, and private secondaries aimed at “kids from middle class families who didn’t pass the 11 plus.” Comprehensive the whole system and quite a few of these preps will go to the wall within 10 years - and rightly so. There is something quite unpleasant about grammar schools being full of prep school graduates, yet they most certainly are in many/most 11 plus areas.

Frankly, though, grammars shouldn’t exist. We should have comprehensives, and state-funded schools for kids with significant special needs who will not be able to cope well or learn much in mainstream.

I agree with this. I have to say though that tutoring is not always necessary, both my nephews got onto grammar school without tutoring, they practiced the tests a few times and that's it. They had always been working beyond age related expectations in maths and English and didn't struggle with the test or the school at all.

If Bucks didn’t have catchments, how far would DC travel to get in? In a largely rural county, you need catchments. We have had them for decades. We don’t want more traffic and more fuel used do we? Or ludicrously king journeys to school.

Parents are pragmatic about schools in Bucks. They do understand the system. Fortunately many of the secondary moderns (non grammars) are superb schools with over 30% high achievers with 6th forms and many DC going to university. People are sensible enough to understand many of these schools are better than a lot of comps. There isn’t much sense of failure. If parents are positive, DC achieve really well. The top of a secondary is no different to the bottom of the grammar. Some Dc prefer being top of the secondary and not be competing with the highest achievers. Plus they prefer a slightly slower pace. Few seek to move once settled at a secondary. I’ve seen a few move to grammars at 12. None did well and it was more about parental boasting than pupil needs!

But what's the point of having a selective system but then bright pupils still go to the same school as those failed the 11 plus? Why should a school suffer because bright pupils are elsewhere?Surely the comprehensive just educates whoever attends? It probably needs more staff and funding to get the best from the more challenging pupils which may not be forthcoming of course.
But really your argument makes no sense - if some bright pupils need to attend comprehensive schools to prop them up, why should all the bright pupils not do the same?

It’s quite a large catchment though - several miles I think and that’s only 200 places between the two girls schools so don’t think it really impacts it too much.

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

There are no comprehensive schools in Kent,it is a completely different system.

The grammar system needs to be fully scrapped. It wasn't until I came in Mumsnet that I realised it still existed. 11 is far too young to write kids off.

I'd like to add my two penneth worth to this discussion as our personal experiences have helped us see the pros and cons of both systems.

Background: our eldest DC is very bright, quirky and an anxious child by nature. She's excelled academically, but is slower to thrive socially. Our youngest is bright, but not as academic as DC1 and is one of those 'will thrive anywhere' children.

Where we used to live, the only comprehensive school that our DCs could get into was huge, had 'inadequate' Ofsted reports and very poor results. We were 20mins drive from the nearest grammar school, but their catchment area extended in the opposite direction, meaning our DCs could score the highest mark in the test, but still not get in based on catchment criteria. We could not afford a house within catchment.

We moved. We now live next door to a super-selective grammar and a comprehensive school.

The comprehensive school utilises a fair banding assessment that is taken before pupils know their 11+ results to set what proportion of children they will let in of each 'band'. Children are let into each band based on distance, but as some of the 'top band' end up going to the grammar, the reality is that you can get in from further away if you are top band. This seems unfair to the pupils in lower bands, as they can live a mere mile away and not get a place, whereas a top band child may live 20 miles away and get a place. It does keep the school truly mixed ability though.

The grammar is super selective and therefore children are tutored extensively and travel from long distances to take the exam. This has meant that very bright pupils, who live right near the grammar, have not secured a place as they've just missed out when competing with the very brightest/most heavily tutored from a huge geographic area.

The local area is crazy at pickup/drop off as many parents drive their children long distances - I'm sure the environmental footprint of the school is large.

DC1 has a place at the super-selective and, as we are starting with transitions, we are realising that, even though we live in walking distance, DC1 may have no local friends.

I think the most sensible option (if we are keeping grammar schools at all) is to have some sort of halfway system where rankings and catchment are taken into account.

Ultimately, the system will always be unfair when people can move closer to better schools (bumping up house prices), pay for tutors/private education etc.

Interesting thread, with some very thoughtful contributions. Just wanted to clarify a couple of things.

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.
@StressedaboutUni it may be little known, but anyone in England can sit an 11+ exam, so a DC in, say, Manchester can take the Kent 11+ exam with a view to attending one of that county's super-selective grammar schools. This is a right enshrined in law via The Greenwich Judgment of 1990. The issue, as you rightly point out, is that you still have to be able to actually get to the school on a daily basis. A few families might take the test with a view to moving if their DC passes, but of course you do then have to take into account jobs, family, other children etc etc.

A child in Manchester could also take the Bucks 11+ exam, but as the grammar schools in Bucks are catchment-area schools, doing fantastically well in the test is only one part of the equation – you also have to live locally. Obviously in this case it would be pointless to take the Bucks 11+ exam, I am merely pointing out that you do have the right to do so.

The issue I personally have with grammar schools is that I think 10 is too young to make lasting judgments on children as to their ability. All the pedagogic research data indicates that the vast majority DCs have peaks and troughs in academic achievement – for a wide range of social and environmental reasons, as well as schooling, too long to go into here. So the 'brightest' and best-performing at 10 are often not the brightest and best-performing at 16, or 18, or 21/22…

They usually have different pass marks

Trafford has different pass marks depending on where you live. For Alty Girls and Boys, the ‘normal’ pass mark has to come from WA14, WA15 , M33. Of course, that means everyone rents for year in area and house prices are through the roof

No different pass marks in Gloucestershire!

"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."

I don't see any casual relationship on QE boys vs local Barnet school doing above average here. QE boys is not a local school nor does it being superselective improve the level or Barnet local schools.

It is a moot point.

So... You'd still be fine with non local kids getting into the school at the cost of your child's place?

I thought that was the case. I know somebody whose child was traveling 1.5h to a grammar during the first year, then they moved on the second year

Yes, if they are capable of scoring 20 marks higher than her then they deserve the place more. I would not feel the same if the pass mark was the same. Btw this is not hypothetical- I am currently in the process with one of my children.

Of course you'd be happy having to get your kid to a school 10 miles away instead of the one ½ a mile away....

No she’s have to go to the local comp. I’d prefer her to go to grammar but if another kid does better than her then so be it. Outside places are very few and far between anyway (because of a higher pass mark) this year, of the 220 places offered and our first choice of grammar, 9 were from outside of catchment. There are far more pressing issues than outside of catchment places!

QE boys does give boys living closer a higher weighting if they have the highest score and it’s the same as others. So, if like many years, 180 pupils get 250 the boys who got 250 and live closer will get priority.

I don't get the obsession with grammar schools. I'd abolish them all, in this day and age with the wealth of educational resource online, bright children can easily be stretched. I'd save all the fuss, hassle and expense of the 11+ process and put that money towards decent comprehensives - which isn't generally a problem in non grammar areas. I'd also include the exam results of privately educated children in the results for their catchment state school, as it's highly likely they'd have done just as well there, at the moment comprehensive schools are made to look worse than they are because in most areas they're missing about 30-75 bright pupils per year group who've been moved out to private/state.

That wouldn’t be necessary at DS’s northern grammar school. There are enough spaces for all boys who pass the 11+ in the very big catchment area in including the whole city, attached town and surrounding rural areas (and there’s the girls’ equivalent too). Then the spaces left over go mainly to children from the next city. Any wider and travel would not be possible but there are boarding places on top of that. A lot of the boys from the next city went to prep schools to prepare whilst our city has no private schools at all so that would hardly make things more equal.

A truly progressive society would pick the most behind 30% at 11 and give them a bells and whistles education to help level the playing field for them.

This scenario is impossible because QE score is age standardized. So even all the boys get full mark , it will rank by birth month first not distance. Also QE's objective is to select the best scoring students not the closest one. So the school exam is designed to be time pressure to make sure the boys not getting full marks. So in reality the score tight break and by distance only apply to the last few places.

I think in Kent it’s not the catchment area that is the problem, the problem is that the grammars aren’t super selective. They’ve therefore got an old fashioned grammar/secondary modern system, the comprehensives aren’t really comprehensive at all. They should definitely do away with that, some of the grammars should probably become comprehensives.

Is this right? I had the impression that private school kids move state 6th form in order to be counted as a state school pupil and get into the top universities? Do universities really just look at GCSE?