BBC news Kent 11+

[Startail]

stopping coaching

I am confused how does making the 11+ maths and English based reduce the value of paying for tutors.

Surely it increases the value of paying a current teacher to tutor your child to the very very top of the primary curriculum. Well of parents are still not going to leave it to chance that their DCs class teachers have.

I'd be quite happy to buy a few bond Verbal and non verbal reasoning books and tutor my own DDs (I'm not Kent and in the end DD2 decided not to try for our grammar which is a very long day).

DD1 gets 131 on non verbal reasoning without having ever practiced at all, she just likes them.

English on the other hand I certainly would need to pay someone, I've tried marking SATs practice papers the mark scheme is in gobbledygook teacher speak. It's not simply right or wrong like maths or VR/NVR

The attitudes on this thread about children who have to go to local schools because they didn't pass the 11+ or they chose not to take it are one of the reasons i sighed quite loudly with relief when we passed through the tunnel on the way out saying goodbye to Kent and saying goodbye to the foaming at the mouth mummies who are desperate to get their children into grammar. I refuse to believe that children should be written off as average or below at 11, it's absolutely ridiculous

seeker, I used to interview for a large firm in Kent, mainly school leavers and those in sixth form college and I think you might be surprised how similar the results were from both grammar and the academys. I certainly couldn't see much difference (and I saw hundreds of application forms)

Owllady - am very jealous of your passing through the tunnel - i sometimes wish i could do that too

well there was a rather long queue and I am sure our removals lorry overtook us at one stage

"Only the children that fit at a grammar and not at a comp! Maybe only a few. Not all comps stream or set, there are lots in mumsnet threads on that. Selective education may not be idealogically for everyone, but it is a huge relief for some children."

Is that a good reason to have an unfair and divisive system for all children, though?

I am puzzled as well? so what is the problem? you hate the exams and testing then do not enroll your child rather than wanting everything to be just the way you want it.

My question was "if selective education is so fantastic, why do wholly selective LEAs like Kent not have significantly better results than wholly comprehensive LEAs. I thought your post was intending to answer that question. Was I wrong?

i answered you seeker, maybe I shouldn't have as you are hell bent on your views. If you think your child is a failure because they did not get into a GM then you have only yourself to blame.

the 'you' in my post is plural by the way. not directed at any particular person.

Socareless- am I misunderstanding you? You seem to be saying that the children currently in grammar schools would get the same results if they were in a comprehensive area. If you are saying this, then what is the advantage of having grammar schools?

did not say that seeker. you can refer to my particular post so i can clarify.

"If selective education was so fantastic, Kent would have GcSE and A level results stratospheric ally higher than other LEAs with similar demographics but with no selective schools. But it doesn't. "

I think this is a fair and imoprtant system. if a system based on grammar schools and high schools is superior, the overall combined achievement should be better than in a comparable LEA which educates in comps.

It is also relevant to the thread as a discussion about how to make admission within a selective system fair and equable. Ensuring fair and equable access to state funded resources is surely of crucial importance> Sorry to see snide comments in response to wanting things to be fair.

If there is no way to make the selection method fair, and if there is no uplift of overall achievement in a selective county system, then why not simpoly abandon the selective system?

And ensure that all pupils are fully challenged and supported to reach full potential in a proper comp?

"seeker because Kent doesn't have 100% grammar schools. the SM 's will be akin to mid/bottom set in a comp area."

This is what you said as an explanation of why selective leas don't get better results than non selective. I think. Or am I wrong ?

Sorry, 'fair and important question' not system.

did not say that seeker. you can refer to my particular post so i can clarify.

not sure how what i said in that post equates to GM Students achieving same if in comp. But my guess is you are not interested with any views different from yours. by the way i do not live in Kent and the comps in my area are appalling. wish i had a choice to choose something free but different rather than going private.

Which ever way you look at it neither grammar nor the present comprehensive system get it right for all DCs.

We need comps that set ALL subjects, includingArt, DT, music and PE from Xmas of Y7, so those DCs who want to work are separated from those who don't. This would hugely reduce the square peg problems and bullying.

We need an acceptance that some children aren't academic and they deserve a proper education too. At present they become disengaged and disruptive.

We need regular reviews of DCs progress to ensure they are in the right groups.

"not sure how what i said in that post equates to GM Students achieving same if in comp. But my guess is you are not interested with any views different from yours"

Yes I am. You said you had answered my question of why the results in selective areas are not better than the results in comprehensive areas, and I didn't understand your answer. Please could you tell me again?

And it's interesting that it's the square pegs who people think would be getter off in a grammar school that seem worth of consideration- but not the equally square pegs in grammar schools and secondary moderns who might be better off in a comprehensive.

Startail - but setting is not done on the basis of behaviour, work ethic and concentration levels. There are plenty of well-behaved middle ability children who work hard, behave well and do their best, just as there are top stream and Grammar students who piss about or bully people.

there are plenty of well behaved middle ability children who leave school go onto further study, get a first class degrees and masters/msc and have really great careers too :)!

(own DP, not OwlMan)

And plenty of scholarship students in competitive academic schools who pissed about a great deal, put lolly sticks in the ventilation thing in the classroom window to make a huge racket and disturb class, got a mediocre degree and a very low paid career.

I do wonder why Kent insists on keeping this antiquated system.

Blu :o

Mintyy, it's an old boys thing innit