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.

"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"

No i'm not. Yellowtip said that her children's results from a superselective would have been "blue moon" results in the comprehensives in the area. I was trying to find an explanation, because a superselective, I thought, took so few children from such a wide area that it would have little or no impact on the surrounding schools.

To be fair, yellowtip, you did say "almost unheard of" and use the expression"blue moon"!

I suppose the thing I'm struggling with a little from Yellowtip's argument is that, statistically, her children ARE 'blue moon' children if they go to superselectives. If it is the only grammar for a very large distance, then it probably takes children from within the top 1% of ability.

It seems a little inconsistent to say that these are 'not overtly boffiny' children who would not get very good results from a comprehensive, yet are in that tiny minority who go to a superselective.

Seeker - the surrounding schools aren't great. They have more than a smattering of high achievers (as defined) and they seem to undercook them a bit. The grammar is a better school. It doesn't just have the 'best' (as in most likely to do well) pupils. It gives added value.

To be honest I am appalled at a school where only 88% of high achievers get 5 A*-C grades.

Alma, well, as I said, it isn't a great school - until last year, lowest in its county, in and out of Special Measures. But even that school had 3 children get 10 A-A*s, which was the point that I was making (and tbh the 88% isn't as terrible as some, especially given that the school has such a tiny proportion of high achievers that the difference between 88% and 100% maybe be only a couple of children)

*Piprabbit, I have two DC at GS who have many friends at SM/comps.

THE SMs do really well for mid and lower ability DC but not always for those who are 11+ 'near misses', due to the quest for the magic 5 A*-C. In at least two SMs near us, this equates to 5Cs, even if the child is capable of much higher.
DC take gcses in year 9/10 and if they get the magic C, they are not allowed to retake, even if they get a B in year 9 (equates to A* in yr 11, I think) as friends DC did. So DC are getting lower grades than they should, at a locally-praised SM. It is especially annoying as at GS, she would have to resist as would not have met her personal target. So you need to ask when exams will be taken and school policy on retakes, hopefully this may be illegal under the new terminal exam system in the future? Also need to make sure you compare schools using '5 A- C Inc. Eng and Maths' to get a comparison of academic subjects.

It seems bizarre to get children who find exams harder to take them early, as surely they would get a higher grade and it would be better for their confidence than getting low grades in yr 9? After all, the DC with Es in year 9 should get Cs in yr 11 but the DC I know who got these marks thinks he failed. Is there any educational reason for doing this, apart from pursuit of C grades? One that benefits the child?

Benefits of GS, as mostly stated before: Less disruption, learning at pace suited to child, good discipline and, most importantly, high aspirations for all DC and high target grades. Excellent enrichment opportunities.
Downsides: need to want to work (but not overly hard!), May not be easy for those towards the bottom but many DC blossom when they get there so hard to tell in advance.

Sorry, long, but I feel this is unfair!

I think the point, alma, is that even the worst schools in the most difficult circumstances usually get a few kids who do very well, so it seems a bit odd that none of the ones round yellowtip's way do, and she is so very sure that her obviously super bright children would not have done well in a different school.

Russians, I think in such discussions we have to be careful about generalising by sector.

Of course, some grammars ARE great schools - not just because on paper they get good results, but because they are fantastic places of inspirational teaching and independent learning.

But other grammars are NOT good schools, and get good results only due to having a selected cohort.

Equally with comprehensives - some can be powerhouses of ecellent progress for children of all abilities.

Some can excel for some groups and be relatively poor for others.

Others can be dire - and amongst those 'dire' ones are ones that appear to have good results, but coast given their cohort.

It would be foolish for me - as a supporter of comps - to deny that poor comps exist. They do - though they aren't always the ones that look worst on paper / from their results. Equally, it would be foolish for me to deny that some grammars are excellent scholls 'in the round', not just because of their results. It just isn't as simple as 'grammars good / comps less good', especially when we got into the equation that grammars + sec moderns = comprehensives, so there is no overall benefit of a grammar school system to counteract its obvious disadvantages.

"THE SMs do really well for mid and lower ability DC but not always for those who are 11+ 'near misses', due to the quest for the magic 5 A*-C. In at least two SMs near us, this equates to 5Cs, even if the child is capable of much higher. "

It is impossible for schools to get away with this any more, now that the expected progress of different cohorts is monitored. A school would be considered to have failed its high achievers if they only got Cs.

seeker, bizarrely it is going on now. The year 9 exams were taken last June, appealing be allowed to retake still going on at great length. I can't see how it benefits the school either but they won't budge.

Teacher, I'm not generalising, I'm talking about the specific school my DD1 attends.

Exactly, Russian.

What do you mean, 'exactly'? You just called me out for what you thought was generalising and I explained that I was not generalising, I was talking about the specific school Seeker was asking about.

I do think there are two separate discussions going on. One about individual schools and individual children- one about the education system as a whole. Particular children might do better in a grammar school, but children as a whole do better in a comprehensive system.

I went to a Grammar school on an assisted place. It was selective and fee paying and I spent the time feeling like a poor relation tbh. Academically my results were great, and there was no shame in being a bit fo a swot, which there was at the comp I went to for a year. And it looks great on my CV, got me into a great university and raised my prospects without a doubt. But the whole experience left me feeling wanting, which is my own failing really. In a school packed with dc who go skiing, off on tropical holidays, do every kind of outdoor sport going, I was never going to feel anything but an outsider. It's left me unsure of my place in the world, my family frequently refer to me as a snob as I have been educated beyond our working class background if that makes any sense. There was also a massively unhealthy emphasis on perfection on all levels, eating disorders were absolutely rife. But even with all that, I wouldn't have turned down the opportunity. If your dd loves learning, then by all means let her sit the test. But keep up a dialogue with her. If she's unhappy there then make sure she tells you.

I thought I was talking about the schools where yellowtip lives- am I getting confused?

piprabbit - I went to one of the Essex single-sex super-selective grammars, and I loved it. I was from a relatively rough area, bullied at primary school for being a "swot", and acutely conscious that if I made the most of my time there and worked like billy-o, my grammar school opened up amazing opportunities to me for university and beyond.

It was a hothouse - right up my alley, but that kind of environment doesn't suit everyone, so it is certainly something to consider. That said, the pastoral care was outstanding too.

If your daughter's teachers think she is in with a chance, I'd put her forward for it - if they think she is in the top 2%, that's amazing!

Even results in the range of 6A/6A is almost unheard of seeker, let alone 12 or 11A (the local papers publish the individual top results every year).

teacher I don't want to do a dissection of the individual idiosyncrasies of my DC but in many respects they don't appear to resemble the many DC referred to on these threads as eye wateringly high achieving 11yr olds or obvious academic stars from reception age or small versions of Einstein. As such I think almost all of them (a couple of the boys in particular) would have followed, or been assumed into, the crowd. Academic stuff would have been significantly more marginalised than it is at their school and though clearly capable of stellar results, I can't see any of them having achieved them at any school where it's so far from the norm.

Gosh - this thread has developed a lot since I last checked in. Thank you for continuing to post and comment. This sort of discussion simply doesn't happen where I live, people keep their views on 11+ close to their chests and no one talks about the pros and cons because no one will admit to putting their child in for the 11+. So I appreciate the openness and honesty.

Tufty - thanks for your point about finding out about policies on resitting once a C has been achieved - even if the child should be capable of more. Not something I was aware of at all, even as a possibility.

Apologies, I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't 'calling you out', as you describe it, I was (or was attempting to) 'chat around your point with more detail, to expand it in the context of the debate' - ie that whether a school was a grammar was entirely separable from whether it was a good school or not.

So my 'exactly' was a further 'yes, I know, I'm still agreeing with you' kind of comment, but I can quite see that if you had seen my first point as one contradicting you, it would have come across entirely differently. Apologies

Sweetie, there are about 4 different discussions going on!

If I wanted to get into the 'as a whole' argument, which I don't really because I'm neither the mother nor the employer of people 'as a whole' but of individuals, I would perhaps put forward the view that it's not necessarily good for society as a whole to condemn its high fliers either to failing to reach their potential or to go off to be educated with the poshos.

Seeker - it's the same school.

My kids are still young, so I'm not speaking from any of that sort of experience. But I just wanted to share an experience of a friend's...

Her son didn't pass/sit the 11+ test and ended up at the 'best' non-grammar in the city. In our city, we have 3 grammar schools (of course, you can travel and go beyond the city... ). 2 single sex schools and 1 mixed.

He's currently in his second year of secondary school and he recently recorded a class lesson on his phone (as he was previously complaining that he couldn't concentrate, focus, learn...) and it turns out that it was like a zoo, with the teacher doing nothing more than crowd control.

His parents are now considering private ed. He's not the most academic, but he's very much talented in other things (sports, music etc). I don't really know what his options really are, but I thought, when I heard this story, that the system's somehow failed him and his parents...

I guess what I'm taking away from this is that going to grammar school does not mean you automatically get to do medicine at Oxbridge, but going to grammar school could significantly enhance your chances because the environment that you study in is perhaps more geared towards learning (a combination of course, of the school curriculum, teachers, headteacher's leadership, other students and their attitudes....etc). Of course, I'm talking with reference to one case example.... I can't comment on others.

If I were you, I would encourage my child to sit the 11+ and go for the grammar school.

Russians, I suppose the secondary moderns / comprehensives where I live are examples of why those are NOT the only two options available - they are examples of how high fliers can reach their potential in a comprehensive system...