Come and tell me some of the benefits for children in going to a grammar school

[piprabbit]

DD's school have suggested that she should sit the 11+ as she has the potential ability to go to a grammar school.

DH is not convinced that going to a grammar school will be especially beneficial for DD. I tend to think that it would probably be a Good Thing, but I don't have a cogent argument as to why it is a Good Thing.

Neither DH or I went to a grammar school, so it's all outside our experience.

Please can you tell me why going to grammar school is a Good Thing (assuming DD is capable of keeping up academically).

Thanks.

Why do you think that, yellowtip?

seeker in terms of raw grades their grades are almost unheard of at the local comps, or comps. Given that our superselective doesn't have the capacity to cream off the entire top of even the nearest comps, the grammar must have done something different, or extra, to produce those results. None of my DC are single minded boffiny types and on the whole they wouldn't be so far ahead of the rest that they'd stand out from the crowd. Nevertheless their results, compared to the comps' results, do stand out from the crowd.

at the local comp, or comps.

So they got all A*s and nobody at the comprehensive school they would otherwise have gone to did?

What a rubbish post : doesn't have the capacity to cream off the entire top set (etc).

I'm not sure I've said all six got all A*s but even the results of my lower achievers would be very unusual indeed at any of the local comps.

Sorry- I was being simplistic with the all A*s thing.

Presumably the grammar school took most of the very high achievers, though? And some others went to other selective or private schools?

It would be possible to argue - and of course, I don't know the figures- that the few very high achievers who went to the comprehensive maybe didn't achieve as highly because there were only a couple of them? And if they had all gone there, there would have been enough of them to create a critical mass? The figures do show that overall the high achievers do very slightly less well in comprehensives. Which in my opinion is a price worth paying for the sake of the middle and low achievers.

It would be nice if one could be similarly simplistic on the UCAS form seeker:)

There is no other selective state school in our area and it's not a huge school and of course some parents won't want to send their kids there anyhow, however clever they are. So I'm not convinced that there are only a few high achievers at the local comp: plenty of bright local kids who apply don't get a place at the grammar, precisely by virtue of it being a superselective.

I don't agree with sacrificing any child's potential tbh.

Yellowtip - you commented that on a micro level your DC did better at their Gramamr than they would at the local comp. I responded by saying that on a micro level my DSs have done as well at the comp as they would have done at a grammar school - quoting 2 sets of cousins (with some shared DNA!) to qualify why I think that.

If I took the raw stats for (say) KE and compared them to the raw statas for comp then obv KE would be higher - as you wuld expect. BUT not all DC get get all A* at GCSE, even less at A level, mine didnt.
But neither did either set of cousins.

The elder ones (all now at Uni) are on comparable science courses at comparable unis with A*AA standard entries.

So are you saying that nobody at the comprehensive gets all As?

I don't believe in sacrificing anyone's potential, either. But if there is a choice to be made.............

Yellowtip, are you sure that nobody got all As / A*s?

I was looking at information from a comprehensive in a very challenging comprehensive recently. only goes up to 16, in and out of special measures, historically the worst school in the county in terms of results. Still below the government floor target (mostly because of the very low entry levels in Year 7 - the progress figures are extremely good). However, there were still 3 children last year who got 10 As / A*s in GCSEs. And that isn't a 'normal' comprehensive, but one that is in speciafically challenging circumstances, so I would expect that most 'normal' comprehsives would have a group of children - however small - who achieved that type of results.

One of the well known tricks to raise grade averages is simply not to enter students who are at risk of failing into the exams at all. It's not something done in comprehensives but I've encountered (in my career as a FE Lecturer) many a student from grammar or fee paying schools who suddenly found themselves in need of a place that will let them sit exams.

Two children got all A*s at my ds's secondary modern with only 8% high achievers.....

Similar to the school I referred to, seeker - small percentage of high achievers, well over 50% 'disadvantaged', but 88% of high achievers got 5 A-C including English and Maths, 3 with 10 A / As.

(Just checked our local comprehensive - one similar to Yellowtip's, in the sense that there are still superselective grammars locally so it is technically a secondary modern. Nearly 40% of all GCSE results were As or A*s. It would seem to suggest that 'good results being unheard of' is perhaps an exaggeration)

Both my dc are at a mixed grammar. IME, having come from a school where they were "clever" "geeks" etc etc, not a huge detail but made them feel different, they are now in an environment where there are a comfortable cohort of similar children. There are a few superduper bright, and some not-so, but they fit in and are very happy. The general ethos is that one works hard and behaves well and there are loads of extra curricular things too, and lots of art and music. They have a wide variety of friends, which they lacked before, as while bright kids may indeed do well anywhere, they may have a much smaller friendship pool.

That said, I would in an ideal world, have all schools the same, no private/grammar/academies/faith etc.

Hmmm 2 at grammar and 1 at uni post grammar here.

All very academically able (not boasting, think it's fair comment if they are getting academic prizes in a superselective environment) .

Don't think any of my 3 suffer grammar pressure/stresses because they can cope with it fine. DD2 stresses herself, that's different LOL.

IMHO the comps round here are very different than comps in non selective areas. The teaching is clearly (due to the removal of most of the academically able kids) skewed to BTEC etc. Even the girls that were at primary with DD1, went to comp then back to grammar with her for 6th form got 5A* at GCSE (and were applauded on school websites and the " success board" at the comp- I know because this was the year DD2 was applying).

Other areas with less/no grammars clearly have comps that can teach the whole ability range - in the local comps if you have 1 or 2 kids in a year that could get a full A* range you may not have the resources/time to teach them to that level?

As an all round school choice it seems to have been the right one for my kids, but it is child dependent. Ds is another slight "odd ball" who had a miserable time at primary as the boys weren't " like him" but the grammar was instant happiness. Sports/music/drama etc are also very well taught, supported etc. The kids all do lots of extracurricular stuff as well as the academic.

Ethnically the 2 schools are very mixed (

seeker You keep talking aout top sets at 'the local comp' but you continue to view things through the prism of Kent, and that model just doesnt apply in other places. Dd1s, school, for example, serves a massive area. There are far more posh school places available than GS places, for the area served. The distribution of the kids at the GS is that for any given comp they wouldn't make one viable top set. Not even, I think, at the comp closest to the school. Because there are kids there from more than a 50 mile radius. In DD1s year, if the GS didn't exist, there would be four of Dd1s cohort at the comp DS attends. If none of them went private instead (and I think two of them might have done). How do I know this? Because the city operates a feeder school system. There are probably 4 or 5 other kids at the comp who would have done well at the grammar if they hadn't had on off day on the test day. That doesn't even add up to one full top set.

But that's actually not the main reason why I was very glad DD1 didn't end up going to a comp I'm more than happy for DS to attend - the sheer size of the place, and her SEN issues, would have made it a hell on earth for her even if she had been destined for mid table (which is where she is in most subjects at the grammar).

DD1 has had a very difficult year (involving serious (well, serious in the context of her life plan, and in the context of being about to do GCSEs, not serious in a life threatenening way) injury and also illness). She is not going to get results like Yellow's kids do. But that doesn't mean she isn't at the right school for her, and I have no doubt that her various SEN related challenges would have made it very difficult for her to access an appropriate te education at her brother's school even if it was there to be accessed (which is debatable in some but not all subjects).

seeker I wasn't referring to As but A*s with maybe some As, those sorts of results.

And teacher I didn't say 'good results are unheard of' so that's you exaggerating what I said, rather than me exaggerating downwards the level of results. And ours is by no stretch an area with secondary moderns. There is a single, isolated grammar. The next nearest selective schools (all of which are independent, so inaccessible to the vast majority of parents) are 20 miles distant. Our comps are comps.

Of course some kids do well at my designated comp - they're bound to, especially since it's a decent comp. I'm merely making the point that knowing my DC as I do and where they were in the global pecking order aged 11 and how none was overtly boffiny with no particularly glaring talent and given how hands off I am by inclination with the detail of their education there is no chance whatever that they would have blossomed as they've done and turned out the results they did because it only happens in a blue moon at the comp and they aren't blue moon children.

Teacher - one superselective in a > 50 mile radius doesn't turn the comps into sec mods. There are no comps that I am aware of in this LEA that get 40%+ GCSEs at A/A*. I think maybe you live somewhere with much better schools than the county in which I live. Which doesn't surprise me. My old school - a comp - gets amazing results. Sadly, it's about 180 miles away from where I live now so not much hope of my kids ever going there (plus, one of my kids is a DS and it's a girls' school )

Russians, without giving away entirely where I live, there are 5 grammars within a 5-10 mile radius (1 very superselective, others merely highly so), and several more within commutable distance.

And yes, I agree that I am in an area that is lucky with its school - one of those areas that Xenia doubts exist, where even some of the comps, let alone the grammars, are better than the local independents.

Teacher - then clearly your comps are basically sec mods and they must therefore be excellent schools. They certainly appear to outperform the true comps where I live. Although maybe the overall picture is different - our comps do a great job for everyone as a whole but a poor job, it seems to me, for the high achievers. But the percentage of kids leaving with 5 proper academic GCSEs is good.

Teacher I grew up in such an area, and I went to the comp (formerly grammar) that was better (in every way) than all the posh schools. And now Dd1 goes to a grammar that is better (in terms of results anyway) than the local posh schools. So I know that such situations exist!

I agree with your comment on overall picture. Our local comp is excellent for high achievers - has a very high percentage of them (despite being technically a secondary modern, it has a very good catchment) and over 95% of them make at least expected progress in English and Maths as well as nearly 100% getting 5A* to C including English and Maths (I tend to look at progress and attainment together, apologies for stats overload)

As a parent of a high achiever, I am therefore happy that DS can achieve as well there as he might in any school, whether selective or not. However, if I was a parent of one of the (relatively few) low achievers, I would look elsewhere, as results for those children are lower than for the other schools in the area.