I knew dd's school was high achieving but....

[seeker]

...I've just discovered that she has been assessed as level 6c at the end of year 7 in maths, and she's in set 4 of 6! That must mean that there are around 75 girls in her year who are at level 6b or higher!

It is a different world isn't it?
It's certainly not like that at our school.

A friend was telling me about their school though. After GCSE results they have a whole staff meeting where they individually discuss every single grade B (or below). The relevant staff member has to justify 'the slippage' to the whole school staff!

Then they have a departmental meeting where they do the same for every grade A (instead of A*).

It confirms me in my absolute belief that the grammar school system is a disaster for all the other schools in the area - no wonder they can't get 30% a-c at gcse if the top 23% of children have been creamed off....grrrrrr!

My dd's in the same boat - middle band for maths and 6B. Teacher says to "achieve a level 7 she needs to actively seek out more challenging work" - yeah right, I can see her doing that! 6b for English and 6A for art but no end of year certificate. Bit sorry for her as her Y9 sis has always been much more academic and always wins prizes. Never mind - such is life. There are lots of bright kids out there.

I agree Seeker. However, having spent most of my teaching life in challenging schools, I'm shallow enough to be hugely relieved that my 3 children who have taken the 11 plus so far have all passed.

Me too, Swedishmum!

But surely your dd's school isn't expecting them to get anything like a level 7 in year 7? At my dd's school they didn't say anything like that - she has a spread of results ranging from a 3a to a 6B, but she's had two commendations and a "star award" for her effort and attitude and there was no suggestion at her parent's evening that she should be doing any more than she has, if you see what I mean. What would your dd have had to do to get a certificate?

Once again, deep sigh of relief that we live in a county free from grammar schools.

Same sort of thing here. DS got 2 Cs in his last lot of orders and the head of year phoned me as Cs aren't really acceptable (they go A to E , but it's not uncommon for kids to get 17 As!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Also top grammar.

ds1 was in group of 3 level 8 in yr7
3 yrs on about to finish yr9... Still an 8
Now there are another 32 boys also level 8
teacher did say there are some insanely clever boys in ds1s yr.
the local comp here benefits as boys grammar and the girls grammar and the comp share 6th form. Plus comp is so good, many kids prefer it to grammar. So works locally here at least.

Seeker, I don't think dd does anything particularly wrong. She's a very good all rounder - but maybe not spectacularly good at anything. There are some scarily good mathematicians out there!

Swedishmum - I wasn't suggesting that she had done anything wrong - I was just and that she hadn't got a certificate, and wondering what you have to do to get a certificate at her school.

Seeker - I'm probably being a bit dense here, but what difference would it make to the children at the non-grammar schools if the top 23% were made to attend.

I realise it would probably make a difference to the a-c results, but what difference to the children already there? If they can't attain the a-c without the 23%, why would they be able to with the 23%?

I meant it would make a difference to the a-c results for the school, just not sure how it would make a difference for the existing students.

Juule -partly because schools are judged by their results and it is demoralizing and depressing to be at a school which is deemed to be substandard because a lot of the a-c people aren't there. And partly because a lot of the creamed off ones are going by definition to be the motivated hard working ones - their absence automatically unbalances a year group.

But if they were in the school, then they would be streamed into the top sets anyway, wouldn't they? So how could that affect the attainment of the other students, apart from moving those who would be in top set, down a set to make room for the 23%?

Generally only streamed for some subjects juules. A school where generally the hardest working, motivated 23% is not there is a very different place to a true comprehensive. And you're also removing a lot of the most involved parents as well.

And not forgetting that the existence of grammar schools means that there are schools where the entire population has been judged and found wanting at the age of 11. They start secondary school having failed big time already. Grim.

I'm really not sure about this one. A cousin of mine went to grammar school. She hadn't passed the 11+ so had to pay. She came out without any qualifications.

A friend did pass the 11+ and went to grammar school. That friend wouldn't have had the opportunity to go to grammar if it hadn't been for the 11+ as the family couldn't have afforded to send privately.

Someone else passed 11+ but parents didn't send to grammar as they didn't think they could afford all the paraphernalia required. So child sent to local secondary.

I'm not sure it's a qood idea to deny a place to able students on the basis that the local secondary school needs them but that those who can afford to pay will go anyway. In that way the able student fails because of the income of the parents.

Perhaps instead of it being decide at 11y through the 11+ maybe have entrance each year to grammar school through an entrance exam.

Truthfully, I'm not really sure what the answer would be. Just musing, I suppose.

The answer, in my opinion is properly funded and resourced true comprehensive schools. And the abolition of private education - but that's another thread (!). The problem is that grammar schools may once have been the way out of disadvantage for clever children from difficult backgrounds - that's why the system was invented. However, they are now a way for middle class parents to avoid paying secondary school fees. My dd went to a very socially mixed primary school. There wasn't a single 11+ success that wasn't the child of a middle class professional family. Advantage breeds advantage, I'm afraid.

So now we have a system where no-one can get a grammar school education unless they can pay privately. What happened in this instance to the 'well if we can help one child' which is the reason given every time someone questions the nannying of the state when it comes to child protection and child welfare. If one child benefitted from 11+ by that argument it would be worth it.

I agree that the existing state secondary system should be better funded. I also think it would be better if they weren't being turned into the huge, impersonal places they seem to be becoming.

In several counties you can get a grammar school education without paying. We live in Kent, which has thriving grammar schools. However, Kent also has more than its fair share of pretty grim high schools - which I think helps make my point.

I think there are some grim secondary schools in a lot of places and whether you are academically able or not you are stuck with them if you don't have the ability to pay privately. Well unless you live somewhere like Kent I thought the assisted places through 11+ had been done away with? I didn't realise it was a regional thing.

Not assisted places - we have the old fashioned grammar/secondary modern system where the children sit an exam in year 6 and are divided into sheep and goats!

Is it just in england that the grammar school system applies? It seems an unfair and ridiculous system to me

Well the ones who pass don't have to go to grammar and the ones who don't pass could still go if they paid.

Where I am, they can only go if they can pay.

No - you can't go to a grammar school if you pay. You can only go if you pass the 11+. These are state grammar schools. I think 6 counties in England still have this shsyem - including Kent which is the biggest LEA in the country.

If these bright kids went to the local comp, how would it improve that school apart from making the overall grades better and the teachers' jobs easier?

That's what I can't fathom, nkf.