Are grammar schools better for above average children?

[celticclan]

I'm talking about your bog standard Grammar in somewhere such as Bucks not Kent (not super-selective schools). Are they better for the top 30% than comprehensive schools? In what way?

I'm personally not keen on the Grammar school system but lots of people are and I'm interested to find out why.

Hi, RussiansOnTheSpree!

DS, as reported upthread, didn't have a particularly sparkling report but he specifically reported back that his form tutor had told him he was still in the top 5% of pupils on the Country! That is not the type of thing that DS would have absorbed anywhere else.....

But might you not think that the Pauline or Paulinas (given how fiercely academic they are) would be in the top 0.5%??? And much more likely to have been educated privately all the way thro' so academically pushed from the age of 5, whereas many of the children at superselectives will have come thro' the state school system and not been pushed to achieve their maximum potential (DS most certainly wasn't!).....

DS certainly has boy in his year who was offered a scholarship to Westminster but because of where they live (further out than a London Borough) opted for a grammar school instead...And this boy is SERIOUSLY smart!

Gazz I'm sure the Tiffin and Sutton schools are great but ultimately, while they are incredibly competitive to get into, they don't then find themselves at the top of the tables for GCSEs or A levels. The competition from the many posh schools in London (which offer bursaries galore of course) must have an impact that isn't felt by, for example, CRGS. Or Pates (which my iPad just autocorrected to Pâtés ). But you're right, even in London the SSs probably are coming in at top 10% or lower (higher?) of the available kids because there are so many kids in London. The SS that DD1 attends says consistently that kids in top 25% will be suitable for an education there. Like many parents I believe the reality is that it's a 5-10% school, too - but they don't claim that in the info for prospective parents.

I agree entirely......

One would have to be deluded to think that the grammars in London can necessarily compete with the most fiercely academic public day schools (or even the boarding ones). However there will undoubtedly be children at the super-selectives who would merit places at these public schools had they applied.

Personally I am totally against public school education and would not consider it for our DCs,whether they were deemed bright enough or not. I am pretty sure there are plenty of other people like me who for ideological reasons would not consider places such as St Paul's or Westminster. So it is quite possible that some of the children attending super-selectives are part of the same academically distinguished cohort as the Paulines and Paulinas.....

Round here it seems that it is rare to turn down a grammar place in favour of an independent place ( not london). In fact several kids I know ( incl my DD2 but in cohorts with all 3 kids) have turned down bursaries at independents in favour of grammar schools.

Where I live the independents are decidedly inferior to the SSGS. In terms of results. Not in terms of built environment.

"So it is quite possible that some of the children attending super-selectives are part of the same academically distinguished cohort as the Paulines and Paulinas....."

Just to pick up on this point, in areas without Grammar schools, it is also probable that some of the top 5-10% nationally, are also to be found in Comprehensive schools.

NewFairy Of course it is. However it is unlikely that there will be many of them in any given comp. That's the problem. You can have a top set but it will never work for the outliers - they will still be outliers. That's why grammar schools are needed for them.

Gazzalw, I would question whether there is a difference in the academic quality of the intake at London Independents and Grammars. I think differences in results are due to factors such as resources - chiefly class sizes and teacher/pupil ratio so that individual teachers are spread less thinly in terms of time.

The grammars also tend to have a larger number in the year group so might have a few children at the lower end who wouldn't quite have made it into a very selective London school. It takes only a couple of students with a few slightly lower grades to knock a school down the league table, but in addition, it is just harder to stay high in the league tables with a larger cohort as there is more chance of the odd pupil under performing.

I accept there is a tiny no of exceptions. Westminster and the two St Pauls would be the most obvious.

There will also be more likelihood of parents with extra income supplementing their children's study with good tutors at exam time. These can be easily 60 pounds per hour.

There are no comprehensive schools in Canterbury.

thegirlwithnoname, Curlew is correct. Kent is an Entirely Grammar / Sec-Mod county. THere are no comprehensives at all in Kent.

Talkinpeace. There are Comprehensives in Kent because they are non selective and accept all abities.Having said that I do not like Comprehensive Schools one bit because they are no good for anyone who is not middle of the road and i am sure that the top 30% of the abilty range would benefit from a Grammar school education. On other posts it has been explained that a malignant 5% or so destroy the education of the many. If there was a expansion of Grammar Schools places and they took 30% of pupils, the High schools took 50% of pupils the malignant 5%educated in special units permanently not temporary, the pupils educated in the High Schools the mainstream 50% of pupils education would be greater enhanced by not being brought down by the malignant 5% of pupil. The other 15% of pupils who though no fault of their own are struggling for a decent education and need specialist help to achieve a relevant education for them they would be in relevant education whether that be vocational or an other type of education. Until politicians/ teachers and unions accept that the malignant 5% need to be permanently seperated from the mainstream .The education of the many will suffer, Its time as i have said in other posts that these people realise that not everyone should be educated together and surely above average and even average abilty kids would benefit from a Grammar School education. I realise there is absolutely no chance of this happening but nevertheless you can live in hope.

A comprehensive school is one that educates all abilities. There are no comprehensive schools in Canterbury because the "top" 23%!go to grammar schools. So there are no all ability schools.

A comprehensive school admits every child in the locality.
There are no schools like that in Kent because it is a Grammar county.
As is Lincolnshire and Buckinghamshire.

No school in Kent teaches children from all abilities, as the most academic 20-30% are at one school and the rest at another.

Here in Hampshire, all of the state schools are Comprehensives because there is no testing or selection at age 11 at all. Admission is by locality.

TALKINPEACE/CURLEW. Are you saying that in Kent there is nobody who scored over 360 which is the Kent Grammar School pass rate being Educated in a non Selective School in Kent. Assuming(I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PUPILS ) at these non selective schools these pupils in definition would be above average or high abilty pupils. Therefore these non Selective Schools are educating all abilties. I admit there might not be very many in each non selective School and these Schools might not achieve good results and are letting down these kids and other average abilty kids. I know that non selective Schools in selective areas do have a few high abilty kids within them, so in definition there are kids of all abilties been educated within one School. (IN MY IGNORANCE I THOUGHT THE TYPE OF SCHOOL EVEN IF IT HAD 1 HIGH ABILTY PUPIL AND 1 LOW LEVEL ABILTY PUPIL AND OTHER LEVELS OF ABILTY IT WAS A COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL).

BEING EDUCATED WITHIN ONE SCHOOL.

No- you are wrong- and shouting doesn't make you right! A comprehensive school is one that educates all the children in the area, regardless of ability.

"Therefore these non Selective Schools are educating all abilties. I admit there might not be very many in each non selective School and these Schools might not achieve good results and are letting down these kids and other average abilty kids. "

-0andnthisnis a wrong and unwarranted assumption too!

A question for Talkinpeace/Curlew. What type of School is a School that achieves 72% A TOC English Maths thats in a fully selective area. is it 1 A sink School OR 2 A outstanding School. With these oustanding results despite losing 30% of pupils to other Grammar Schools in its L.A . It is not important what label you call a School, surely the only thing thats important is that the School enables its pupils to achieve their potential and not what the definition of what type of School it is called.

beatback
The basic fact of the matter is that any school in Kent is not comprehensive. By definition and by stated policy of Kent County Council.
The fact that some of the non grammars get fantastic results does not take away from the fact that many do not, and the children who have been segregated out of the academic school are not given the same opportunities as those segregated in.

Look at the number of Kent Schools getting under 10% Ebacc
compared with the number of Hampshire Schools

the Secondary Moderns in Kent do NOT give the full range of Comprehensive learning

I think the problem you have is thinking that "high/secondary modern school" and "sink school" are synonyms.

You can have good and bad grammars, comprehensives and secondary moderns/high schools. The school you describe is a obviously a very good high school. Presumably it is either good or outstanding according to OFSTED.

What is your point?

Curlew/Talkinpeace. The school is more than outstanding it has gold medal status or something like that. The point i am trying to say is that it is possible that a non selective school in a selective area can ensure that all students achieve their potential. Unfortunatly High Schools/Secondary Modern Schools have been tainted with the label of failing or sink schools before the School/Schools have been able to demonstrate that they can enable their pupils to achieve their potential when infact in many cases they can. TALKINPEACE. I thought EBACC was not being taken seriously even by Grammar Schools.

The point of the blerdy Ebacc is that it does highlight the schools that stuffed their results with Btec woodworrk and general studies
ie it highlights the number of children being given the right academic grounding to go to top flight Universities and employers

much less of an issue now that the curriculum has changed, but statistically in a comp it should be possible to get 33% EBACC (as per those listings) so any school getting less than that has either had its most academic kids sent elsewhere or has questions to answer.

It is also very much the case that the Kent 11+ has been so mangled by prep schools and tutoring that many bright kids are ending up at the High Schools - seeker's DS as a case in point - and doing rather well
but that is SO SO dependent on the individual school rather than comprehensive opportunities for all.

Talkinpeace. If Seekers DS gets As and Bs in his G.C.S.Es and that enables him to get in to the Grammar School for the 6th form and ultimately University then all Seekers worries will have gone. It is quite possible that the School that Seekers DS is at, realise that he is probably one of their most able students and are teaching him and other high or above average abilty kids in a different and more academic way than other students within their School . An approach like that may enable him to have an equal education to that he may have got at the Grammar School, which is where he should probably be with his academic abilty.