Is this a reasonable question to ask a Secondary school, and should they be able to give me an answer reasonably quickly?

[seeker]

We like in an all selective area, and 23% of children go to grammar schools.

Would it be reasonable for me to ask the High School what % of their cohort are likely to start year 7 with level 5 SATS?

Not you Quattro it's me. I sent the name of someone who could help... BTW seeker, it would have been polite to say thanks.

You're right, ingles, I should have said thank you. I was actually going to reply properly once I had had a proper look at the person concerned's website. But I should have sent an interim thanks. Sorry.

In our area, there are grammar school places for everyone who passes. There will be nobody at the high school who passed the 11+. There will obviously be near misses.

I am not frightened of the unknown, because the school my son will go to is not unknown to me. And I have made no sweeping generalisations. I know exactly what he is going into and I have repeatedly said he will be fine. It is not a best fit for him academically - in that regard he belongs with the 23%, not the 77% - but he will be fine and it is a good school.

And I'm not sure where calling somebody a dishonest hypocrite is not considered insulting, but I would imagine most people would think it so.

seeker you say there are Grammar school places for everyone who passes.

What happens if there is a particularly bright cohort one year and 27% pass instead 23%. How do the Grammar schools accommodate the extra hundreds of pupils?

I know this can happen from year to year - even at my disadvantaged school, some years 80% of children get Joint Level 4+ at KS2, some years it is less than 60% - nothing to do with the teaching - some year groups are simply brighter than others overall.

The pass mark is slightly differerent every year.

Seeker
You say you have made no sweeping generalisations, he belongs with the 23% who passed, not the 77% who failed.
How many other parents are in the same boat? You expected him to pass, claim he's academically superior to his future classmates, yet something went badly wrong on the day. What are the chances of him being the only one who 'deserved' to pass, but didn't? They mighn't all be dunderheads with unsupportive parents, you know?

I am really really fed up with answering what people think I've said rather than what I've actually said. Show me where I have said that all his future classmates are dunderheads with unsupportive parents and I'll reply.

Seeker, as you said yourself, in your daughter's class the only children who passed were those of white, middle-class, graduate parents. No doubt these parents were clued up about the process and had the time/ability/money to prepare their children, either themselves or by employing a tutor. Some of those children would have passed anyway, others will have been pushed over the line by the tutoring they received.

Other children in that cohort would have been equally bright, or brighter, but did not have parents who were willing or able to tutor and will have ended up at the high school. Others will have had parents who refused to put them in for the 11+ on principle.

So unless you are saying that white middle-class children with parents who support the 11+ are naturally brighter, I think your assertion that your son's academic ability means that he 'belongs' with the 23% who are at grammar school is wrong. It could only be correct if the 11+ was genuinely selecting the brightest children, and you clearly don't believe that is the case.

Or am I missing something?

inlges - the point is that yes, you can opt out of taking the 11+, but then your options are even more limited.
to opt out of taking the exam is basically saying to your child "i don't think you are any good", and "you're going to fail so there's no point trying"
and yes, that's how their peers see it too.
as far as i know, the only kids who don't do the exam are those who have no chance of passing, mostly those with learning difficulties, and they usually go to schools that have good facilities for them.

wrt to that statement made "you're going to fail, don't bother", I come from a comprehensive system, and I was desperate to go to the High School (public school, so fee paying), because of how clever i was. my mum refused to let me take the entrance exam because she said i would fail it and then be really disappointed. It knocked my confidence for 6, and i spent a long time believing i was stupid and less than everyone else (which is probably partly the reason i suck at exams). My mum actually admitted to me when i grew up that she'd refused my taking it because she knew i'd pass and then nag her to go to a school she couldn't afford.

taking the exam and failing is still a better bet than not taking it. you really don't have a choice.
that's why the grammar system sucks - you either take part in it or risk telling your child they're incapable.

Joanna i think you've answered your owm question.

It does disadvantage those children who don't have supportive parents.
a good mixed ability secondary school can bring disadvantaged bright children out of the shadows. it takes time and can't be underlined at 10 years old.

The point is that it's very definitely not a clear cut 23%:77% divide.

Firstly because the test isn't very accurate and because some people have been coached and others haven't probably at least 10% of children will be the wrong side of the cut-off. Now admittedly those wrongly placed will tend be closer to the correct cut-off but by no means all.

Then there are those who don't sit the exam for a whole variety of reasons, health, nerves, personal circumstances, moving at the wrong time, parental ideals or parental disinclination but who should have passed if they had. So another whole raft of kids the wrong side of the cut-off.

So while the secondary moderns are not true comprehensives, they will still be comprehensive to an extent. You will likely have children across the top 50% ability range in the grammar and all abilities in the secondary modern, but with low representation from the top 5%.

Exactly. That's my point gelatinous. By Seekers logic (which I agree with) there just can't be the 23:77 split she keeps referring to.

So given that the high school will be a lot more 'comprehensive' than her recent posts have suggested, and the strength of her antipathy for grammar schools, why have both her DD and DS sat the 11+, and why does her DD attend one?

According to the league tables the high school concerned had 10 high attainers doing GCSEs last year. 186 in the year. Only 1 child took all the EBACC subjects- and that one child didn't pass all of them. There were only 2 A*s at GCSES last year.
No separate sciences
No music to GCSE.
No choir.
It has many strengths. As I keep saying. It is a good school. But it is a school missing it's top set. (did you notice when said there were 10 high attainers taking GCSEs last year?)

And as for my assertion that the selection process stinks. It is skewed towards a particular type of child. There are as many bright children who do not take the exam or who take it and fail, but they fail because they are not as "advanced" academically ( not because they a less bright) and will not start secondary school as ready for traditional secondary education.

haven't read the entire thread but gather you are against private education even though you can afford it?

I fail to understand why you are prepared to send your son to a school where you feel he is not best suited.

when all along you have a choice, yet you have dismissed private on the basis of 3 experiences where it has not been successful.

I would have thought there would be people who could say the same for the high school,

We pay because the high school was not best suited to the dc. Time will tell if it is the right decision, but at the time we chose it because it was in their best interest. you are making a decision on principal which i find odd if you know it may not be the best one.

"They fail because they are not as advanced academically"? Isn't that the reason we all fail exams?

@flogging Of course it is. It also indicates that if some (bright or otherwise) people aren't as ready for traditional secondary school education as others, then they need a different secondary school experience. One size just does not fit all.

seeker as you know I do think it is crap that this has happended to your DC and I hope very much you win your appeal.

However, for fututr reference please brear in mind that there are plenty of so called comprhensives in non-grammar areas with equally poor results and facilities. If those parents, just like you, feel that it's not appropritate for their DC then spare them a thought. If they go private (because there are no grammars to use) then try not to berate them in future...

i think she means advanced as a verb, not a noun.

So are you saying that the 'white middle-class children of graduates' who passed with your daughter thing is a red herring then? And that the relative FSM levels are too? Because you had a right go at a poster on another thread for suggesting something similar. I thought your issue was with clued-up parents being able to help their DC into grammar school when bright, less advantaged children were not getting the same help. Now you're saying that those children are 'less advanced academically'.

I just feel that you bend your argument to suit whatever point you are trying to make at the time.

I don't understand why we can't provide a grammar school style education in comprehensive schools? Or perhaps we are doing just that in some fully comprehensive areas.

I'm sure some comps are fabulous and offer both a grammar stream and good vocational training for the less academic. I'm sure they also offer choirs, music, sports, debating clubs etc etc

But it is an absolute lottery as to whether you will live next to one.

On paper I live near one like you describe but it isn't popular with local prospective parents because they keep comparing the GCSE results with the grammars in the neighbouring county and the local independent selective school. Its very popular with parents whose dc are pupils at the school.

In order to pass the 11+ you have to know stuff. It is not true that it is a test of innate intelligence. That 's what I mean by academically advanced. Bad choice of word- couldn't think of another.

Joqnnapancake- sorry, I don't understand your red herring post.

Wordfqctory- this school does not have poor results. It is a good school. They would be poor results for a comprehensive school, but as I keep saying ad nauseam, it is not a comprehensive school - it is a high school.

There are true comprehensives with similarly low numbers of high achievers, As and ebacc too because they have poor catchment areas. My local true comp has 2% ebacc as I recall and circa 20% 5A-C GCSE inc maths + english recently (think it's improved a little now). Their problems are similar too imo - low expectations - and this is what you need to watch out for seeker. But just because these kids haven't been coached through 11+ doesn't necessarily make them less intelligent innately I think and to talk of a 23:77 split isn't right.

So it's not a test of innate intelligence but instead favours DC who 'know stuff', and that stuff has been fed to them by parents who know the system. There should be plenty of innately intelligent kids at the high school then.

And the high school is a 'good school'.

So why are you appealing?

Either a lottery or purchasing power word.