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!

I refer the Honourable Members to my earlier replies!

Agree with Seeker. We are in a London Borough that has 1 boys and 1 girl's selective school. Not known as grammar schools, but as the "superselectives"

Fortunately for us, there are also some pretty good comprehensive schools.

However, I do resent the fact that we pay taxes towards the selective schools, and for them to provide school transport (within an urban borough). In the same way as I am anti faith schools, I feel that education provided by the state should be comprehensive and non-religious.

And just in case nobody want to trawl through looking for my ramblings, what happens in an area with selection at 11 is that the top 23% of children, which includes a disproportionate number of hard working, talented, motivated children and motivated and supportive families are creamed off an put in a separate school. The high school has the rest, without the leaven of the top group that true comprehensives have. This means that the high schools are unlikely to hit government targets for a-cs at gcse and will therefore be perceived as failing, regardless of how well they serve the cohort they have. And remember that the cohort concerned have all been told, very publicly and officially that they are failures at the age of 11. So you have children who see themselves as failures in a school that everybody else sees as failing. Not a recipe for success. And to add insult to injury, the grammar schools always come top of everything - sports, music competitions - everything. Apart from when they are beaten by independents.

I generalize hugely of course. But it's still true.

not here seeker... Although outside the boys grammar girls grammar and v good mixed comp... Are 2-3 schools in dire straits indeed.
but only if you screw up your selections do you miss out on the good comp.

And fwiw ds1 was brought by me, single parent for 6.5 years. Went to primary school in special measures from age 5.
we moved here to grammar area in lincs ( I met dp when ds 6.5) when ds1 was yr6 ( now yr9)

No coaching, just one very gifted child needing good education with patents who could not afford private schooling, infact we never considered it. Ok we had to move and were lucky to be able to, but where we live is not middle class, high income area. Tis semi rural town in lincs!
appreciate issues in high demand areas though

I think it's an appalling system that brands children at an age where they are unformed and vulnerable. I would imagine it just promotes class divide.

At 11 I had such a horrible home life that I often got no sleep and couldn't concentrate at school. If you had made me sit an 11+ exam I may well have failed and been deemed 'not bright'. I went on to be expelled at 16 with none of my teachers picking up on the link between my behaviour/under-achievement and my alcoholic father. It was only after leaving home that I could focus on my education, getting my highers (Scotland) and finally getting an Honours degree and PG Dip...

My point is that there are many children with potential who don't have parents to coach them to pass an exam and attend a better equipped and staffed school. Even if you're not academic at all and haver little potential, you don't necessarily deserve to go to a shittier school.

I also believe that an enormously important part of school is mixing kids from different backgrounds, classes, religions etc. This diversity gives kids a broad range of experiences to draw from when they leave school and will allow them to be able to socialise more freely and adapt to different situations.

If you had sat the 11+ it's quite possible that you would have passed, gone to grammar and seen a different way of life to the one you were stuck in and maybe not gone on to be expelled etc. No guarantees of course. But you can't look back and decide that the 11+ for you would have been a bad thing as it's something that wasn't available to you and you can only guess at the effect of it.

And as piffle has said not all children who pass the 11+ are coached.

In our area we only have a few grammers so they only take about 3% of the children. This obviously leaves a lot of bright children in the comprehensive system and the comprehensives get reasonably good results.

juuule- my 'way of life' had nothing to do with the type of school I attended...I grew up in a a fairly middle class area with professional parents. On of them happened to be an alcoholic who made life a misery...my point is more that at that age, many things can dictate the way a child behaves and achieves at school so for such a monumental decision to be made at that time seems ridiculous, short-sighted and unfair.

KM1- that's interesting...what's the point in having the grammar system at all then if they're leaving high achieving pupils in the comp, surely streaming at comp would serve same purpose.

No grammers here, but 5 schools in the town.
The boys school and the girls school, whilst technically not selective, do in real terms cream off the top performing chd in the area. They don't expel under-achievers, but some chd are "encouraged" to move to the other schools.
The 3 remaining schools are in more deprived areas of town and have all been named in the recent govt list of "failing" schools (despite not being in OFSTED's special measures). Now it is being proposed that these 3 schools will be closed and replaced with 2 Academies. Privatising education, to all intents and purposes.
Morale is appalling in the 3 schools. Staff work damn hard to provide their best for the chd, but these kids often feel left behind by the time they are 11. Our local paper does not support them to the same level as the single sex schools, so every week the town hears how terrible these schools are and how wonderful it is to be a pupils in X & Y schools.
nfk said earlier "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?"
If a schools overall grades are better, moral is higher and expectations are greater. If a teacher's job is easier (especiallyin regards to behavioural issues) then they can actually focus on TEACHING, not crowd control or hitting pointless govt targets and endless paperwork.

MrsMacaroon - it is odd. We did the rounds of all the schools last year (my dd is in Y6) and most of the comprehensives only stream for a few subjects and often only when they get into Y9. Our favourite comp was one that streamed for everything, including PE and DT etc. I'm not a teacher but I would have thought it would be easier to teach children in ability level groups and try and ensure that each child fulfils their potential.

PS I do know how to spell "grammar" school! It must have been too early on a Saturday morning for me

jacobsprincess- you've hit the nail on't head.

How has it hit the nail on the head? jacobsprincess also highlights that there is a sort of selection process even without grammar schools.

The downside for bright pupils is that some of them can't get on with things because of others who are constantly fooling around. By putting the bright pupils in the school, it doesn't necessarilly follow that the teacher is freed from crowd control.

I think one of the main effects of selective education is the "behavioural confirmation" effect.

However it is spun by parents & education chiefs etc if you pass the 11+ you have succeeded. You know you are a success. You know you are clever. You know you will succeed.

And if you fail? Well then - you know you have failed. You know you were not good enough. You know are not clever.

So when faced by teachers who know whether you have failed or succeeded it is not hard to see that learning outcomes match expectation and that children in grammar schools do well and those is secondary moderns do not do so well.

There are some exceptions...but..

Not just 11+. Happens with SATs, too.
I agree that a change should happen where children are not viewed or deemed to have failed just because they didn't pass a certain test at a certain age. Education and learning is ongoing and all children don't all reach the same stage at the same age.

What really gets me is the "comprehensive" not too far from us that has an entrance exam for selection (HT very vocal in anti-11+ lobby). Oversized school with bullying and a very high opinion of itself.

Not all children are tutored for 11+ at ds/dd2's primary by any means but results are excellent - nearly 70% of class passed last year, and nearly 60% this year. Probably because we're in a middle class area and parents are confident enough/have educational background to help the children themselves.

It's a tricky one. Gagarin's post is actually the one I fundamentally disagree with:

"So when faced by teachers who know whether you have failed or succeeded it is not hard to see that learning outcomes match expectation and that children in grammar schools do well and those is secondary moderns do not do so well."

The children who do not do so well are by and large those who are not as bright. It's not fashionable to say so but it is largely true. There are differences in abilities and at some stage this does need to be recognised. This "all shall have great exam results and all shall have prizes" mentality is just so wrong on so many levels.

Of course all children should have opportunities and all children should have opportunities to feel rounded and successful. But to pretend that all children are equal is poor preparation for real life, because in real life there are those who are more attractive than others, wealthier than others, sportier than others, more musical than others and yes goddamnit brighter than others.

I agree with Quatro's post.

I agree with the point that RL isn't fair, but children who do not do so well should still be given the opportunities to excel at something. Too much money and kudos is spent on over-achieving children. Chd from deprived areas will never have the impetus to improve their lot in life if they are told it's not worth the bother. DH teaches at a comp in a very deprived area (bottom 5% of country) and regularly hears the kids trot out what mum/dad has told them "Don't bother with school, you'll never get a job anyway."

there are two issues-

the class divide

how best to measure intelligence and nurture potential

Certainly in our area it is true that the children who pass the 11+ are bright - that is a given. But there are a lot of bright children who don't - because their parents don't have the knowledge, confidence, ability or inclination to help them. And you need help - it's not an exam that you can sit cold without practice. Well, you can, but you won't do as well as someone who has practiced and knows what to expect. In one paper, for example, you have to answer 50 (I think) questions in 45 minutes. If you haven't at least had a go at doing that sort of thing you are at a massive disadvantage.

When I was at school, we practiced 11+ papers in school. Probably much the same way as Sats are practiced today.

Schools are specifically instructed not to do any preparation except one set of practice papers a day or two before the test. That is another unfairness, some schools stick to the letter of the law, some ignore it and do lots of practice.

I think the answer is to wipe selective schools and private schools.

Faced with being FORCED to send their children to the local school, parents will get off their arses and spend some time and money on improving it. The way it is now, rich and intelligent children's parents (who, mostly, are rich and intelligent themselves) couldn't give a shit about the failing school at the end of their lane because Jemima and Archie won't be going there anyway. You can bet your backside if Jemima and Archie were going to be going to Maggot Towers, Polly and Jeremy would be donating to the raffle and attending the school fetes.