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?

I don't believe for a moment that grammars are 'free independents'. What's laughable is to think that that would sell them to me. Grammars beat independents because they're meritocratic and open doors which might otherwise stay shut. Please don't make shallow assumptions just because I'm posting on Mumsnet! (I think you may have failed to read my second point).

We wanted a grammar education for ds for many of the reasons that onceamai cites - he is academically bright and not one of the local comprehensives in our borough offered more than one MFL, any Latin or three sciences. He is at a grammar school which takes the top 25% and loves it, it suits him perfectly. But I would have been perfectly happy for him to go to a comprehensive which offers that sort of education for the children who want it. They do exist - we are hoping for a place at one for dd. Unfortunately it's a girls' school so was not an option for ds.

The alternative doesn't have to be and shouldn't be pretty awful.

But this still doesn't explain why the best secondary modern / comprtehensive whatever you want to call it in Kent gets better A level points scores than some of the grammar schools and why so many of the grammar schools in Kent don't get 100% A - C inc maths and English. I don't understand how it can be that even one or two children, let alone maybe a dozen or so children in a particular grammar school cohort can pass the 11+ but still not even scrape a C at GCSE when they get to 16. If the parents over tutored and they weren't really grammar ability then presumably they would have tutored for their child to get an essential GCSE if it was looking ropey for them.

Pluto, the reason some Kent grammar schools get relatively poor results is that the intake for many of those in East Kent includes a lot of children who don't pass but get in on appeal.
Certain ones that I can think of, probably have about third to a quarter of the intake who have failed and are basically the 'best of the rest' but not grammar level by most parts of the County/Countries standards.
Such a pity when those in the west often county are so over subscribed.

Just to pick up on a few of the small flames,

apart from my German Measles Cousin, having been at selective schools in central London from the age of 4, I genuinely never met a diversity of people.
AND
my sister only realised that she was on the same track when she met my post Uni friends.
Please
trust me on this.
Our education policy is being directed by people who have been at selective (money or academe) schools since before their memory
hence why we are in this mess
AND
over Lunch DH asked me to ask You ....

Why do the 11+ and then still do the national curriculum?
He was asked it by a GS teacher

PS my kids will do Russian, Chinese and Japanese at their comp - rather more use than Latin and Greek methinks.
DD wants latin as an option for being a VET...

I wouldn't put it down to the 11+ test only. I know a grammar school that is not doing well in league tables because at A level results they have a "long tale". What I mean is that quite a few results are at C, D and even lower. There are a few fails. One A level boy failed his further maths while he was the only one in the school to take it. I can't believe this is because he was not good with maths. This is because of poor nurturing in IMHO at the finishing line. It could be down to exam panic. Maybe those kids need more practice, some reassurance. Maybe they feel anxieties, aren't sure about something, but don't feel they could talk to anyone. The idea that if kids are capable you just put them on the running belt and watch who keeps up is absurd. They have individual needs. At the A level school shouldn't watch pupils fail, it should help them to succeed.

Tell your DH they are state schools therefore have to follow national curriculum.

I don't understand the point about your German Measles cousin but think you missed my point that most grammar school pupils have never been privately educated and therefore spend 7 years mixing non-selectively at school. In our London Borough we have huge cultural diversity and many economic backgrounds for example we have one of the largest council estates in the UK and residents are well represented.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this but I have been through the system so possibly am biased in favour. No flaming from me, I just think to say pupils at selective schools have never been part of the real world is madness, I came to grammar school myself as part of a so-called "broken home"...in fact it was nice to get there and form friendships with two other girls with divorced parents! I'd been the only one in my (state) middle school

jalapeno
I was private right the way through
I never met state school kids - where I lived, every kid was at private, I did not even know the names of the state schools
I am unusual but not unique
people I know who are 'advisers' to the government on education policy took the same route I did
WITHOUT the 15 years of reality and my own children to follow it.

But to get to my DH point, why select and then teach the same thing?

But that's my point, your experience of selective schools is completely different to the experience a state school offers.

They have to teach the same thing, it's the law. The difference is the extras really, the NC stuff is sorted much quicker for most sets and they can do other things. The teaching can involve greater literary reference, more debate, whatever. It is also about being with peers and people that think alike. My school wasn't all about being academic, more about discussion, encouragement to read around subjects and and extra activities. It was also a fantastic introduction to feminism

Talkin, I suppose because they teach at a higher level from the start. It's assumed that kids starting Yr7 round here are achieving level 5s. The subjects taught are more traditional, languages compulsory to GCSE, single sciences available, very few vocational courses.

It's the system in which I have to educate my DCs, I have to go with whatever I feel will suit them best. With my oldest two very academic, grammar will be their route. Given the courses on offer at the alternative schools, I don't have much choice.

Believe me, I do what I can to change the system but in an utterly entrenched Tory council, there's very little hope of that happening.

well judging by some of the kids that I know of who got into bournemouth grammars - not that bright

@ onaceamai,

"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!)."

YES!

What you are describing could almost be, word for word, our experience with my son's primary school in London, which was one reason we decided to seek out a grammar for secondary. Basically every parents' evening, every attempt to engage with the teachers about anything, was met with "he's above average in everything, so don't worry about it".

It's not a question of "worrying about it" you idiots - it's that he's supposed to be getting, you know - an education?

This is so common in schools with large numbers of struggling kids due to family background issues or anything else. The whole focus of government targets and league tables is how many of THOSE kids are dragged up to "just OK". It's the same at secondary - it's always "how many got five A-Cs at GCSE?" Which means for a kid who can comfortably get 7-8 As and Bs without doing any work, the school has no incentive to invest time and resources in making the difference between him doing that, and getting 10 As because he was really engaged and interested and worked hard.

Not that I see it mainly in terms of grades - I don't. I just find it offensive that the system takes advantage in this way of brighter pupils who are more engaged in the educational process already. Rather than valuing what they can do and making the most of it, schools see them as easy money because they know they'll get the grades anyway, without any real input of teacher time or curriculum focus.

That's why TalkinPeace2's dream of the "fairness" of the comp system is exactly that - a dream. It works in some areas, for some people, and I'm all for that. But let's not pretend that it's offering a quality education to everyone, because it simply isn't.

@ TalkinPeace2,

Clearly we'll have to agree to differ. I admire your ability to admit the disadvantages of your sheltered upbringing and to do things differently with your own kids, and your willingness to stick to you principles in doing so.

I also agree with other posters though that you may be attributing too much of that to selection per se, and not enough to the specific TYPE of selection - ie, private school selection by wealth. One factor you might be forgetting is that most of the kids going to grammar schools will have been to mixed state primaries - at least around here. My son has mixed with all kinds of different kids through his primary education and I'm actually really glad of that. Unfortunately there does come a time when I want him to actually learn something as well though. :)

Just to add my ten peneth....I agree with what the earlier poster said about if you'd don't get into the grammar make sure your are happy with the secondary modern your child will be going to. Around here it's under 10% who get into the grammar schools, but sadly it's not always the brightest, and I can assure you some very bright kids end up in secondary moderns these days (not like when I attended a secondary modern, lol)

I feel very fortunate that I've been able to by-pass the system, as although DC1 is very able, DC2 and DC3 wouldn't have passed the 11+ with out heavy tutoring, and I had to make the decision weather to tutor from Y£ or not. I decided not, but as I say, I'm lucky to be able to by pass the system, as the snob in me won't allow them to attend a secondary modern.

TalkinPeace2 - local comps don't offer Japanese, Arabic, Mandarin - never mind Latin.
You do realise your good fortune in having a comprehensive nearby that offers anything more than French OR Spanish OR German, I hope.

I Do,
that is why I am so pleased that DD (and hopefully DS if the letter comes tomorrow) is at a comp that does French, German, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Japanese and Latin
as well as triple sciences and the rest.
It happens to be a "language college" and DD wants to do Latin as she wants to be a vet
but I could not give a stuff about learning Greek, and for many people, Latin is irrelevant too as the economically powerful languages no longer derive from it.

What depresses me is that the schools round here show what CAN be done with comps
and therefore how dire many others are.

I also have the advantage that DH goes to so many schools he can spot a good one within seconds.

Oops. Had to go abroad suddenly on business for a week and when I came back forgot completely about the thread.

Thanks very much for all the replies ... i'll start reading through them right now!

Only read Op so apologies if repetetive.

In my area of London - extremely bright and almost certainly tutored.

Will say, though, that although the very brightest kids in the sixth form of the comp school I work in may not be as cultured as the kids in the local grammar sixth form, they are as bright if not ore so. Very few have had tutoring, yet they are still predicted As and Bs at A Level and we are getting more and more of them in to highly competitive courses at Russell group universities. I love these kids .

"As and Bs at A Level and we are getting more and more of them in to highly competitive courses at Russell group universities. "
I'm sure you are, but then the A level system is currently broken. It's some years now since choosing our undergrads (at an RG university) became a bit of a lottery because they were all achieving the top grades.

Hi completelydazed
We're near to Tiffin Grammar in Kingston and DC made it in this year, which we're really pleased about. RE the brightness vs tutoring thing:

DC level 5b in year 6 SATs and did well in year 2 SATs, is in extension group for Maths and English at school, reads a lot everyday and quite complex books like Lord of the Rings(reading/ grasp of grammar is v important for verbal reasoning part of the exam).

By year 4 we'd got DC on a tutors list (astounded to hear we should have done it in year 2!!!) started tutoring Christmas year 5 with a good tutor(sadly now retired), going once a week for around 1.5 hours and had around 1 hours homework in Non Verbal Reasoning (NVR) and in Verbal Reasoning VR. Most weeks DC got an average score 90% but sometimes as low as 75%. We did very few extra practise papers until last few weeks before the exam in Jan, when DC did around 10 papers over and above the homework. We did not want DC over-tutored, a years worth was more than enough we felt, and did not want DC struggling if got in.

Our back-up school was a fab comprehensive where all friends were going and we quite honestly felt DC would have done well there too. It was much closer to travel to too, so we thought long and hard about the GS before filing out the CAF form come and putting the GS down first at options time in Oct.

If you have a bright DC doing well, talk to the teachers and say you're thinking of grammar school see what they say and listen to their estimation of your DC's abilities. Have a good back-up school too if that's possible. Many people DIY it to get into GS and dont use a tutor at all, it's not impossible. The proces though is a real commitment. Time-wise the tutor was 20 min drive away and in awkward location for me to occupy self, money wise spent £25 week on tutoring + cost of practise books petrol etc, workwise there's the commitment of you and your DC working together they do need supervision throughout and it can be a bit of strain, DC almost gave up at one point.

It is all doable if your child is bright and recognised a such by their school. We maintained a 'it doesn't matter if you make it or not' attitude to the whole thing, but DC was very focussed and really wanted it. I hope this helps, and best of luck