Child not clever enough for grammar school- what do you do?

[BurnTheBlackSuit]

Not my situation, but something that cropped up in a conversation with a friend who lives in Kent.

A child who is averagely clever and without intensive tutoring is unlikely to pass the 11+. Many/all of friends at school are doing going to sit 11+.

What do you do? Tell your child they are not clever enough for grammar school or let them sit the test knowing that they will fail?

'Real comps' usually set rather than stream and although some children are in all the top sets, some subjects plus form tutor time are not set, so there isn't the same complete separation.

due to most "real" comps streaming.

No. All comprehensive schools i know of SET - ie you can be top set Maths and bottom set English. None that I know of STREAM (ie keep students in 'bands' across all subjects).

X post - and Peregrina makes an accurate point regarding the majority of subjects. DS has just done his GCSEs, and was only set for Maths, English and sciences - all other subjects were taught in mixed ability groups.

It depends upon how robust the child is. If my dd had taken the 11+ and failed it would have thoroughly rocked her already fragile self esteem and she would have continued to self label herself as a failure. She didn't sit it (she's also dyslexic and that was a factor) and we sent her to a small independent school where she recently sat ICT GCSE a year early and gained an A grade, which bodes well for the remainder of her exams next summer....

My ds is confident bordering on arrogant (but somehow gets away with it). If he had failed the 11+ he would have put it down to a fault with the paper or the examiner, or just a bad day at the office - it couldn't possibly have been anything to do with him and his ability. As it happened he passed, but had he failed it would not have bothered him unduly for more than a day or two

We should all be like your ds @hmcAsWas.
My mum was a grammar school girl, she hated it and wished she had got into the secondary modern with her friend and studied "useful practical things".

Mmm! It's a hard one. It depends on the resilience of the child and how adamant they are in wanting to give it a shot. In many ways it's better to try and then fail than never to try at all BUT they are so young - often 10 rather than 11+ so the child's resilience etc needs to be considered. Friends have had their DC tutored since Yr4 to get into the local grammar. Then required year on year continuous tutoring - several tutors covering a variety of subjects - to get GCSEs - ok grades but I can't help thinking a naturally brighter less well off child maybe should have had his place.

"I don't think it automatically lowers the standard of education for the 75% to have the top 25% educated in a different building - it's unlikely they'd end up educated in the same classes anyway due to most "real" comps streaming."

Hopefully good High Schools do provide a good education that allows 11+ Non-passers to fulfil their potential. Does it do Triple Science? Does it offer more than one MFL? Because plenty of young people who may not have made the Grammar will be good at or interested in these things. Entry into grammar depends on ability across a range of disciplines. Ig your child is a top linguist but not string enough in Maths to get into the Grammar, make sure that the Language offer is good.

Often the High School offers a restricted curriculum.

As for bullying - on the bad old days many Comps did seem to have poor standards and hard for high achievers. Not anymore in the comps around me. Gritty area, (wrongly, as it happens) accused on MN recently of having a bad gang problem, high FSM.... not once have my Dcs mentioned any reaction to being high achievers / in top sets. This applies to their boy friends too. These days being a high achiever is cool. Pressures on young people are different. I know not all comps are good, but they could be.

If I lived in a Grammar area (and couldn't move, because of work or family or something) I would find a good High School as well as a Grammar, big up both, talk to my child about whether they would prefer to go for it, or what.

But in truth, the kids I know who took the test and didn't go to Grammar in Grammar areas were very very upset.

I have one at grammar and one who didn't qualify. Our nearest school is a good comprehensive (not upper) so the youngest is going there and seems happy. Only time will tell if there are any effects.

The hardest thing was simply not having the option for them to go to the same school as their sibling or friends.
Eldest was so set on going to the grammar that how could we have said they couldn't go in case the younger one didn't qualify, you just have to do what is best for them at the time.

"We should all be like your ds @hmcAsWas"

I'm not sure about that Ilikehappy (it can be hard living with a 13 year old who thinks he knows more than his parents), but I know what you mean

Isn't that every teenager hmc?

I'm surprised by how many people are confused by what Comprehensive means.

My understanding is that schools are only truly Comprehensive when they exist in areas where there is no state school selective option at all. This means that the full range of ability in that area will be present in the school.

Traditionally (before 1970s) the top 25% ish in all areas went to Grammar and the rest to Secondary Moderns.

Secondary Modern is an unpopular term these days, having connotations of failure, a lack of academic exams and opportunity, so even in areas where everyone sits the 11* still, the non- Grammars are rarely refereed to as secondary moderns. They are often called Uppers, or in some areas comprehensives.

What complicates the issue is that where most Grammars exist, there isn't a full grammar system with everyone sitting the 11+. In some areas there are a couple of grammars which use distance as a qualifier as well as the exam, which means the places go to local children, but not everyone automatically sits the exam and a good number of high ability kids won't, meaning they are present in the non grammars....but these non grammars couldn't be called true Comps, due to the existence of the grammars nearby.

In some areas with the odd grammar and no distance criteria (super selectives) the places at grammar may be taken by kids from many many miles away. The effect is that the local non grammar schools may have over 90 or 95% of local children, so lots of very clever ones. These non grammars are closer to being comprehensives but again can't truly be called Comps due to the presence of the grammars.

Perhaps the people who are luckiest are those living in the borders of two counties - a grammar county and a non grammar. They sit the exam for the grammar and if they don't get in, they don't go to the secondary modern, but the comp in the neighbouring borough because they get in on distance. Of course, whether these Comps are truly Comps or the intake is distorted by the grammar over the border depends on whether the grammar takes in from outside the borough.

In the end, if there is a possibility to go to a selective state school, the non selectives in an area cannot be considered truly comprehensive. The level of diversity of ability in th non selectives varies wildly, determined by if the areas is a full 11+ area, if the grammars are superselective and of course by the affluence of the area.....it has often been said that the Uppers (secondary moderns) in affluent parts of Bucks perform really well and sometimes better than grammars in other parts of the country, due to parental support and involvement. Likewise, in Cheltenham, Balcarrass school which is non selective in an affluent a area does very well for children of a range of abilities. So it's not just selection that makes the difference, but as everyone knows, the affluence if the catchment too.

OP

How about your friend gets a 11+ tutor to assess her and give an informed verdict on her chances of passing?

Can friend consider schools in an adjoining county? Or Private?

The grammar school system is so wrong

I'll correct that for you - The super-selective grammar school system is so wrong.

PP why do you think the Super Selective GS is worse than regular Grammars? Personally I think creaming off the top 5% impacts other schools far less than taking the top 20-25%.

Non grammar schools are perfectly capable of teaching high ability kids.

If you don't think he will get in explain that there are not enough grammar school places for all the kids who pass (which is true) and that he can try if he likes but will do perfectly well at the non grammar.

It's really not a problem.

but will do perfectly well at the non grammar

No, he MAY do perfectly well, but no guarantee. Not all comps are up to standard - lots are substandard and you have to be careful in chosing one that suits your child, their abilities, their personality etc. Not all comps are the same!

Kassy, you get bad grammar schools too!

Sorry Kazzy

He has the same likelihood of doing well at the grammar as at the non-grammar.
Grammar schools aren't filled with magician teachers that sprinkle A*s on everyone.

There's no guarantee for anything that involves humans.

I would help them to understand that the more pressured academic route doesn't suit everybody and that she may be very unhappy at a grammar if she got a place. Also explain that preparing for the eleven plus would mean a lot of extra work and they need to be committed to that.

Personally I think creaming off the top 5% impacts other schools far less than taking the top 20-25%.

I agree with Logans on that.

I agree too.

In my book, the worst position to be in, is somewhere in the top 25-40% in a fully 11+ area. Those kids end up in schools without the top sets and without the teachers who push the academic, often in schools without sixth forms, which also often attract less academic teachers too. Those schools have ability range 25%-100%.

If you're in the non selective option in superselective area you still probably have 95% of the ability range, which in affluent areas may be higher ability than in a fully comprehensive in a less affluent area. There is no real need to get hyped about not getting into superselective grammar if the alternatives are good quality.....of course, the problem comes when they are not, but increasingly it seems that the nearby schools to super selectives are actually very good and some people are opting to avoid the stress of 11* and just go with the good alternative.

All of this is of course even assuming that you can TELL who the top 25% are.

And that "top" is a meaningful concept that would, if given equal treatment, carry on through out their whole career.

In a fully comprehensive system you might have say 5 sets for English and Maths and Science. Children can be in different sets for different subjects, and can move between them.

Take the kids who would be in top set for all 3, and some of the kids who would be in top set for 2/3, put them in a different building and say "you can never move down", and say to the rest "you can never move up". Does that sound sensible to you? It doesn't to me.

Chocolate, absolutely the worst position to be in in a fully selective county is someone who is top 5% for 1 subject, or a few, but e.g. 50th centile for others,.

In a comprehensive, you can just be in set 1 and set 3/4 ..but what happens when your set is in a different institution?

Dear OP
Move to Hampshire
problem eradicated

If you don't think he will get in explain that there are not enough grammar school places for all the kids who pass (which is true)

This is a nonsensical position though. If you pass for something you should be able to take the place up.