Selective education, Kent's 11 plus and Grammar School system

[TootingJo]

I moved to Kent unaware of the selective system and found out most of my daughter's friends had 11 plus tutors. We got her a tutor with just a few weeks to go but I feel it was too little too late and she failed the Kent test.

She judged herself a failure, saw all her best friends go to Grammar schools, and went to a school that got closed down after being put into special measures. Her latest school has just had a poor Ofsted rating and disruption in class is a real problem.

I feel that Kent's system is great for those that achieve Grammar school places, but that the quality of teaching suffers in the rest of the schools. I love that my daughter is now in a local school, her Grammar school friends have hours of travel each day while she can walk to school. But as a middle class mum who's seen 'the other side' of local education I would love to have regular comprehensive schools here. I know no education system is perfect, but this one seems to serve the bright 30% at the expense of the 70% who fail at eleven. Looking at Ofsted stats it's clear that the best teaching is in Grammar schools in this county, but surely good teaching should not be reserved for the brightest pupils?

I would love to see a referendum on the school system in Kent, to allow the people here to choose the education system. It could be that I'm a lone voice and everyone else loves it! Any thoughts?

[LilyTucker]

What exactly are kids at grammars getting that comp kids don't then?

[BertrandRussell]

"What exactly are kids at grammars getting that comp kids don't then?"

Education without contact with The Great Unwashed

[LilyTucker]

And that gives them great advantages in life worthy of frothing about because........

[girlgonesouth]

Clavinova, yes, admittedly we are in London, in a borough that bands to ensure a properly comprehensive intake. There are important factors like funding but we're talking here about the best model. A successful comprehensive that's meeting the needs and fullfilling the potential of a wide range of children is surely the best system, unless you believe in social seperation, which from some of the posts here seems to effectively be the situation in Kent, that at its worst could encourage a sense of superiority or entltlement.

[Stillwishihadabs]

Ds is going to a superselective in September. On the open evening the head of year 7 and transition said he was visiting "all the boys, in their prep schools" -tells you everything you need to know IMO

[TootingJo]

What exactly are kids at grammars getting that comp kids don't then?

Schools with less disruption because troublesome kids don't get places.

Schools with much more parental involvement, simply due to the type of parents that send their kids there.

Schools with better teachers because more apply for jobs in the Grammar schools.

Confidence that they're a success not a failure because at 11 they passed a test.

And that gives them great advantages in life worthy of frothing about because........

I don't mind at all that it gives them the advantage of a great education, every school should be as good as Kent Grammar schools.

I mind that it disadvantages the children in the rest of the schools in the county. It means the secondary moderns have a higher proportion of difficult kids, less parental involvement, worse teachers and kids dismissed as educational failures at 11.

[LilyTucker]

Your last paragraph could be describing any school in a non leafy area,really don't see why good/outstanding comps in leafy expensive areas are somehow more worthy and frankly I don't see how non disruptive kids with involved parents should be dictated to as to where they go to school. Last I heard parents were allowed to decide what is best for their DC and act accordingly.

[BertrandRussell]

"Last I heard parents were allowed to decide what is best for their DC and act accordingly"

Not in a selective area you can't.

[MummySparkle]

I went to a grammar school, the pastoral care was shocking.

I've worked in a secondary thats slowly turning around and the student support was fantastic. Student behaviour was challenging. But there was loads of help available. The top students there were doing far better than they would have been as the bottom students in grammar.

I now work in a co-ed grammar and it's so much better than the girls school I went to

[LifeHuh]

LilyTucker, my kids are non disruptive kids with involved parents - we were lucky that they got places in one of the better performing non selective schools, but DD in particular found the low level disruption in classes very hard to cope with. Same comments from DS's non disruptive hard working son in his non- selective school.
Not one of my friends with DCs at grammars have similar comments.

And I agree with BertramRussell (I think) up thread - Kent has been selective forever, I took the 11+ (passed) in 1970. If selection produced better results for all children, there should be statistics to show this, which there aren't.If anyone knows different I'd like to be pointed to the relevant info..,

[LilyTucker]

Why is that the responsibility of kids in grammars?

Shouldn't your beef be with the school and Ofsted,they are responsible for your dc's education.Kids in other schools aren't.

[Millymollymama]

As I said up thread ,Bucks is a grammar county and they gave got very good results. In fact the top shire county. They would be even better without RI schools. Regrettably a few schools do have negative added value, ie no added value at all. So Bucks has room for improvement, especially with the PP children. However hardly any of these are in the grammar schools.

[MummySparkle]

But surely in the non selective counties there is still the low level disruption?

[areyoubeingserviced]

Dd is starting at a grammar school in September. However, dh and I have misgivings about this school as the pastoral care is inadequate.

[Rivercam]

I have two kids in grammars in Kent, one in a superselective They came from state schools. Many local kids do have tutors, but there are lots of resources available in book shops, Internet ( elevenplusexams.co.uk) etc, so many parents tutor their own kids.

I found the biggest influence on whether the child goes to a gs is whether the parent has looked in the local system or not. I know a lot of parents suddenly thought about the 11+ exam too late, and so didn't prepare their child for the exam.

There is nothing wrong n tutoring your child for the exam( whether parent. -tutored, or hiring a tutor). The Ntional curricuulm doesn't cover the exam contents, and you need to prepare them for sitting an exam. You wouldn't take a driving test without taking lessons beforehand, so the principle is exactly the same.

People assume on this thread that gs has the best teachers. both docs have had rubbish teachers in their gs, and I know there's good teachers in non-.ds.

I grew up in a comprehensive area. We were fortunate in that all three senior schools were good. The house prices reflected this. Although there wasn't an eleven plus system, there was selection by parental income. I always wondered why we needed up living there, as my parents job and income didn't match the local economy ( scientist v accountants, city people etc)

[GadgetWoman]

We moved to Kent in order to get eldest child into a grammar. In retrospect I have mixed feelings about it.

I strongly agree with Lily's comment above. I don't get why, when non-grammar schools suffer problems with disaffected students, classroom disruption, lack of parental involvement etc, that's it's somehow the responsibility of grammar school kids and their parents to come and "save" them. We made the move because DD1 had had such a miserable waste of early years in a primary school that seemed to care about nothing but getting the mediocre children up to level 4 for their SATs. We figured it was her turn to actually have an education appropriate to her.

If kids are disruptive, then they need to not be disruptive. If parents are not involved, then they need to be more involved. Those things are the responsibility of the people concerned, not my or my DD's responsibility.

OTOH, I've also seen the downside of it for many families, with siblings being broken up, children being built up to pass and then failing etc. On balance, I'd probably rather live in a non-selective system. But only on the proviso of being able to offer good quality schools to all children and somehow solve the problems that compromise many secondary moderns and comprehensives. And that's not going to happen any time soon.

[areyoubeingserviced]

Totally agree Camel.
Supportive parents is the key to academic attainment

[TootingJo]

"I don't get why, when non-grammar schools suffer problems with disaffected students, classroom disruption, lack of parental involvement etc, that's it's somehow the responsibility of grammar school kids and their parents to come and "save" them."

If there were a healthcare system that gave 20% of the healthiest people the best doctors and the fastest emergency care, it would mean worse doctors and slower ambulances for the rest. Only I don't think people would accept it if we administrated our health system this way.

Yes, in an ideal world Kent's community schools would be on a par with the Grammar schools, but practically speaking it helps to have more balance in mixed schools, rather than each area having one good school that unlucky kids can't go to. As comprehensive education has not been shown to harm the bright kids I think it would be kind and sharing of the top 20% to give up their perfect school system to benefit kids who can't afford tutors.

[BertrandRussell]

""I don't get why, when non-grammar schools suffer problems with disaffected students, classroom disruption, lack of parental involvement etc, that's it's somehow the responsibility of grammar school kids and their parents to come and "save" them."

Nobody's saying that- and indeed the statement is predicated on the assumption that somehow the grammar school cohort will become different or suffer in some way if they become the top sets of a comprehensive school.

[LilyTucker]

But grammar schools don't have "the best" of anything. If anything they get less funding,one of the schools in our area is a hideous 60s block. The all singing comp down the road has far better facilities. I know of several teachers who have taught in both sectors.

Totally agree with camel et al in that what they do have are hard working kids and supportive parents which time after time will make the most difference.And sorry I agree- why should such parents and kids do the job heads,gov and Ofsted should be doing? If shoving a few extra kids in will turn a school round so easily then frankly there is a huge problem.That said there will be hoards of proactive parents in grammar alternative schools.Like many I'll probably have kids in both,I won't be less proactive for one.The standard is so high these days those that miss out do so by very little so plenty of very able kids go to the alternative schools.

Going by the argument of some,all those cosy comps in leafy areas should be losing some of their kids and parents too.Perhaps it should be a total lottery for all.As always on these threads the ones who Hoover up the best comp places via property, which is far harder for the less fortunate to do, just go unnoticed.

[Stillwishihadabs]

Tooting jo a health care system for the healthiest 20% would need very few ambulances, it would centre around preventative measures and health advice. It would be completely unsuitable for the unhealthiest 20%. Similarly the type of education offered by a gs (big classes, self sufficiency, lots of homework) wouldn't suit children who need more help and support.

[BertrandRussell]

"And sorry I agree- why should such parents and kids do the job heads,gov and Ofsted should be doing? If shoving a few extra kids in will turn a school round so easily then frankly there is a huge problem."

Depends what sort of grammar school we're talking about. If we're talking super selective then you may have a point about it being a few kids. If we're talking "traditional" 75:25 grammar it's an entire ability cohort. And it's not just the presence of those kids that will make a difference- although a surge of active involved parents would be q good thing. It's the ending of the socially divisive, "sheep and goats" culture that is so damaging to kids and to communities.

[LilyTucker]

Yep Still in our area the grammar we're looking at has masseeeve classes over 30 but the comp down the round try to keep them to 24 particularly in core subjects.For the less able they're even smaller. Pastoral care at the comp is amazing,but shite by all accounts at the grammar.We're in a quandary re our dd.Recently I know of two teachers who have swopped between the 2. The grammar my other two go to is in an academy with the alternative non grammar so they share resources.