How bright do DCs need to be to get into Grammar school?

[completelydazed]

I'm sure this has been asked a hundred times before so I apologize in advance!

How bright does a child need to be to get a place at a Grammar school and should it be prioritized when deciding where to live?

Reading MN, I get the impression that children have to be either super bright or very well tutored to get in to a Grammar school. If my DCs turn out to be super bright then ok but I'm not sure about having my DCs intensively coached at such an early age. I also worry how they would fare later on if tutoring was the only reason they had been accepted.

My family (DH and two DC's) are currently living in SW London. Changes in my DH's job have opened up the option to move out to the Home counties. We're looking at a number of possible areas; some contain grammar schools and others don't. We're keen to maximize schooling options for our young DCs since we have no idea of their character or aptitude at this age. However, we're also keen not to have to move house for another 10+ years since the whole process of finding a house is incredibly tedious!

If we look at only areas that don't contain Grammar schools, we'd have a much wider range of places to live but be left with only private schools or good state comprehensives. If we look at only areas that contain Grammar schools, we'd reduce our choice of places to live substantially. If our DCs have no chance to get in anyway without heavy tutoring, we'd be back to private schools or comprehensives again.

So how valuable is the Grammar school option when deciding where to live and you have no idea how your DCs will turn out?

Have a look at the populations of Aylesbury, High Wycombe and Chesham and you might find it's not as monocultural as you think Jajas. As for forces, RAF High Command is just outside Wycombe, RAF Halton is near Wendover.

Don't get me wrong, I really dislike the system having just been through it and think it is utterly biased against lower income families - the figures on how many children receiving free school meals get to grammar school are atrocious.

The upper schools where I live do have an extremely mixed intake but also get very respectable GCSE and NVQ results. Personally I'd prefer to have good comps for everyone.

Weblette - if you really think that RAF High Command is anything like Aldershot, Blandford or Bulford, Buckinghamshire is even more rarified than I thought it was!

Talkinpeace I was just trying to make the point that there is some forces activity here, I don't profess any knowledge of the types of service involved.

Weblette,
no hassle. I think the people of Aldershot would LOVE to have RAF high command types rather than bucket loads of low aspiration squaddie kids who move en masse every two years.

The main thing is that every child being schooled out of taxpayer funds should have equal opportunities
and Grammar schools do not fit with that.

Agree completely, I really wish we'd moved somewhere else at times! The more I get to know the system, the more I hate it.

OP - the 'guidance' we had was that if your dc has a reading and spelling age at minimum 2 years ahead of chronological plus predicted high level 5 SATs for the end of Yr 6 they'll be fine at grammar.

As has been pointed out, it's really completely impossible to generalise about "grammar schools".

There are basically two different types of grammar school system in the UK. The first is in Kent and Bucks, where there is a selective system run through most of the county as a whole. In Kent that means the top 25% of kids go to grammar, so you don't have to be spactacularly bright to get in.

The second is in places where there are just one or two grammars left within what is basically a comprehensive system. Example are Tiffins in Surrey, or places like Latymer around the outskirts of London. These are much more competitive, taking only a tiny percentage of each year's cohort, and subject to massive intensive tutoring culture.

You can't possibly generalise about the two situations, they are very different.

I would never move near to somewhere like Tiffin in order to send a kid there - even if they were very bright, it's always subject to what happens on the day and you just can't know. But if you have a kid that is clearly doing well in school and in the top few of the class, you should be pretty safe just moving to a generally selective area.

@ TalkinPeace2,

"I am against state funded selective schools because I believe that my taxes should be used to give every child equal opportunities."

But grammar schools receive no more funding than any other school. In fact, with the pupil premium, they will generally receive less.

Also, does this mean you are against all programs that prioritise funding towards students with particular requirements? Such as special educational needs; specialists for behavioural problems etc? After all, these students are receiving an "unequal" portion of your taxes that should be going equally to everyone.

The problem of course is that all children are different. Trying to address the needs of all children equally is different from treating them as if they are all the same.

Indeed, your very reasoning is one of the strengths of the grammar system - it actually provides bright and motivated children with the opportunity to learn to the level of their potential, like everyone else. Despite the theory, comprehensives very often fail to do this because of a combination of behavioural/social issues and government targets that prioritise getting below average students up to average. Particularly for those of us without the means to live near a nice middle class comprehensive and benefit from selection by postcode.

Confidence

I live in the catchment of an academy that replaced one of the bottom 18 schools in the country.

My problem with selective schools is that there is then no chance for progression by the children who have been excluded from it.
In any comp system, children can move up and down the sets
SEN kids can have access to the best teachers in their best subjects

Grammars "bright motivated children"
Not from what I read on here - and as there are only 164 of them, a fair proportion of parents must be posting.
All I read about is middle class mums spending a fortune on tutoring and cramming.

The big problem with education policy in the UK is that it is made by people who live in central London which has an utterly dysfunctional system with a huge number of tiny LEAS (all employing multiple people on high salaries out of funds that would be better used in schools) each with different entry requirements creating the illusion of choice but actually a strait jacket based on ability to navigate the system.

Out here in the sticks its far simpler - catchment, one other, private - take your pick. Done and dusted.
I chose to get my kids into the feeder for the decent comp school when they were 4. DD sailed in. I hear about DS in three days. Not much choice but a lot less stress and equal opportunities in the long run.

"Particularly for those of us without the means to live near a nice middle class comprehensive and benefit from selection by postcode."

One reads this morning that selection by lottery is being used by an increasing number of local authorities in comprehensive areas. There may not be so many 'nice middle class comprehensives' in future.

Our local comps vary (just checked on the Kent link) from 25% of passes etc blah blah to 42% (the 42% is the one that DD would have gone to)
The grammar - 98%

Living in a grammar area, the grammar schools are much more sought after because the comps just aren't so good.
My friend is in Brighton, no grammars - her kids school is 68% - the range of subjects much better than at our comps and the teaching far better.

So, ummm I dunno

I've just had a look at that Kent link. Some of the teaching at some of the grammars in Kent must be pretty dire. How can it be that a school stuffed full of the most able quartile of children in the county still doesn't have 100% of the cohort achieving 5 A - C including Maths and English? How can it be that the A level points score for the highest performing comp in the county is higher than for some of the selective schools? The CVA for the best comp in the county is much better than for the grammars.

QOD
But your comps are NOT comps - they are Secondary Moderns
a comp includes the top third of pupils
in Kent those are at the grammars, and the remaining schools have the lower 2/3

Pluto
CVA at grammars will always be poorer because the level of cramming to get the kids in means they will not progress as much once they are there
also, at grammars DH has visited, there is a level of complacency not found in comps.

in our primary unless you are averaging a 4b by the end of Y4 and 5c by the end of Y5 you are not really 11+ material.

The grammars around here (West Kent) range from normal grammars ie if you pass they will take you as long as there are places, to the super selectives where you have to pass with a particular score usually around 97%. Its not at all unusual for children to get 100% so competition is very fierce hence all the tutoring. Its not to pass the exam per se, its to outscore your peers

The church schools around here and the girls high school consistently do better than the national average but there are pockets in Kent where the alternative to grammar is rather dire and my advice would be if you aren't 11+ material, or have tons of dosh or go to church, best move somewhere else.

A partial answer to OP's question: the selective schools in the LB of Sutton imply that an overall standard score of 109 (73rd percentile) in the entrance test would indicate "selective ability".

However, those actually offered places will have higher overall scores, at least 115 - 120 (84th to 91st percentiles) is my guess. It's impossible to say for sure, as it depends on the applicants in a particular year.

Can anyone whose offspring tried these tests in the last year or two tell us? Schools sometimes give a clue in the rejection letters, they are unlikely to say what a genius the child is when offering a place.

That's true Talkinpeace - which is why lots of people push for grammar.... our secondary moderns are just not the same standard as non 11+ area schools.

TalkinPeace2,

"My problem with selective schools is that there is then no chance for progression by the children who have been excluded from it."

That really isn't true though. The non-grammar schools still contain a wide range of ability levels and if children sho struggle with a subject in year 7 suddenly get better at it in year 9, that can be catered for.

Also, some kids who go to secondary moderns end up transferring to grammar school for sixth form. So coming out and going to university, they'll be for all intents and purposes like someone who's been at the grammar all along. And some just get good A Levels at their secondary modern and then go to uni.

I think part of the problem is that a lot of what you're saying used to be true: When the system was first devised, failing a kid in their 11+ was largely "writing them off" for any kind of professional future. It isn't really like that any more - it's more just making a judgment about what kind of education is suitable for them now, while acknowledging that anything can happen in the future.

But a lot of parents probably know the system from two or three decades ago, and still think of it like that.

"Grammars "bright motivated children"
Not from what I read on here - and as there are only 164 of them, a fair proportion of parents must be posting.
All I read about is middle class mums spending a fortune on tutoring and cramming."

That is certainly a factor, though again it depends on the area and the number of grammars around. But I can tell you where I am there are certainly children who get into grammar without tutoring.

Besides, even with all the tutoring in the world a child still needs to be reasonably bright to get into a grammar school, and very bright to get into the kind of ultra-competitive ones you've probably read about. So what you say doesn't really negate the fact that those children need an education that is suitable for them too.

"The big problem with education policy in the UK is that it is made by people who live in central London which has an utterly dysfunctional system with a huge number of tiny LEAS (all employing multiple people on high salaries out of funds that would be better used in schools) each with different entry requirements creating the illusion of choice but actually a strait jacket based on ability to navigate the system."

Aye, there's some truth in that.

"Out here in the sticks its far simpler - catchment, one other, private - take your pick. Done and dusted."

So if the solution to not being happy about the local comp is going private, how on Earth is that fairer than state grammar schools? You're rejecting a system based primarily on selection by ability but corrupted somewhat in practice by ability to pay, in favour of one based ENTIRELY on ability to pay.

There's certainly a lot to be said for everyone just sending their kids to the local comp and being done with it. But given the vast differences in wealth and family attitudes in this country, it would be absurd to imagine that that would ensure a fair system with equal educational quality for all.

We live in Sutton where there are 2 girls grammars (one of which is my alma mater) and 3 for boys. I have no idea whether my 2 will get there but I would say a child needs to be obviously bright with a logical, enquiring mind. It was very noticeable at my school the children that had got in through heavy tutoring, an appeal or the sibling rule. They weren't teased or anything, they just didn't flourish in that environment.

The comps (yes they are comps, the 11+ is not compulsory here any more and a lot of parents don't go for the entrance exams) are also very good, this is because with a thriving grammar system there are not many private schools (one girls and one boys almost in Croydon) so there are many very able pupils spread about.

House prices are fairly high and there are some less than desirable areas but that's quite common in the home counties!

Confidence
My DH visits around 100 schools per academic year and sees the kids from another 50.
My kids are in year 6 and year 8
I do not have a historic view of the grammar system.
I expect my kids to excel through their comp.
My local school was made into an academy because Bliar had the stupid idea that "choice" would drive up all standards rather than some standards.
Where there is less "choice" so people go with what there is, you see rows of chelsea tractors outside the comp - as it is the best option ; and the overseas trips every holiday are amazing.
Surely giving every child the opportunity I'm giving my DC's is the aim.
I went to private school.
What my kids are being offered at the comp up the road is far far better academically, socially and extra curricular.
My local academy - least said, soonest closed.
Hampshire's comps are a beacon IMHO
DH is working in 14 counties in the next month and he agrees with me.

I don't think there's anyting wrong with grammar schools as they cater for the more able children in the same way as SEN schools cater for their pupil groups. Where it goes wrong is hte middle ground, the state comprehensives - if they were improved, there wouldn't be this devisive attitude towards grammars. OP it's not clear how old your DCs are - even poorly performing state schools can change over time (we have 2 within walking distance of my house that are so much better that they were 10 years sgo) so I wouldn't focus my house buying solely on the basis of the schools. However, if you are considering schools, I'd look at the best of the worst iyswim - ie what is the worst school your DCs may end up attending. If you can live with that, then you won't have too much to owrry about.

maxpower
but your definition of "more able" is based on a narrow academic exam on a single day.
On of the beauties of the normal distribution of abilities in all fields is that some mature late, some mature early, some excel in one field, some in many.
The 11 plus is GREAT for highly numerate / academic bods like me and my children
but utterly crap for those whose intelligence is masked at the outset by low aspiration parenting
or who are dyslexic, or dyspraxic or aspergers

I went to nice "gels" private schools and then to a Russell group uni.
I never encountered SEN people till I was 22
I never met average intelligence people till I was 22
It meant that when I went into business as a graduate I had utterly unrealistic views of how business worked.
We now have a government where most of them have never in their lives met a 'thick' or 'SEN' person.
No wonder they are making such a cock up of our economy.
My DD and DS are in the top 1% - fact not brag;
but having been at mixed schools they have an empathy and understanding of the reality of the world that I
having done selective education since Age 4
never had - and it took me till I was 35 to learn.
My desire to abolish selective (on faith or academe) state schools is as much for the benefit of the top as the middle / bottom

Talkinpeace 2, think you still have much to learn! ( if your post is for real)

Don't be ridiculous talkinpeace2, we had SEN girls at school and those from all walks of life given the wide range of socioeconomic circumstances in our area. We socialised outside of school, were (mostly) educated in our local primaries, attended dance classes etc. and even had jobs (shock horror!) to help us integrate with the rest of society

I think your memories of selective education do more to promote state grammars tbh, those things you mention are more to do with the private aspect of your schooling I would say than the selective and round here the private system is almost non-existent. (Check Sutton on your league table page!)

A lot of our best politicians went to state grammars from poorer backgrounds, don't really understand your point there!

The comprehensive system can only work if it differentiates for all abilities within it. When therefore the comprehensive system offers Latin, Greek and three separate sciences for all I shall begin to believe it has a place within education. Until then, and one of my children would we believe have made Tiffin but we moved him at 8 because the Ofsted for Tiffin indicated they were weak on languages, thank goodness we can afford to opt out.

The grammar system is not perfect but at least it differentiated for the brightest and that is what the comprehensive system fails to do. We looked at our local flagship comprehensive: no French in Y7, no Latin, no Mandarin, no Greek, no separate sciences, pushing towards NVQs and BTecs. The push was on bringing up the children in Y7 and Y8 who joined with L2's and 3's. When asked about the children who were at L5 and L6 I was brushed aside with a "they are fine already". Notwithstanding the library without many books, and the yelling staff and children - (on a tour day!).

When the comprehensive system drags the bottom up towards the top both academically and socially I shall support it; for as long as it drags to top down towards the lowest common denominator, I will not consider it for my own children.

I am not an educationalist but I had an excellent education and it is what I expect for my own children. I would not contemplate a comprehensive within the boundaries of the London Borough in which I live.

Grammars beat independents any day. Provided those who don't get in or who aren't suited are catered for equally well, but differently.