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!

colditz - no, they'd be paying for loads of private tutors...

So let them pay for the private tutors. The children would still have to go to the school and the parents would still have a vested interest in improving it.

I agree colditz. There is a prep school near us whose whole raison d'etre is to get kids into the grammar schools. It has very nearly a 100% pass rate. Parents pay - so they don't "have" (as they see it) to pay for private secondary.

I don't agree Colditz. You're addressing two symptoms without looking at the root causes.

You haven't considered the overall effect of wealth. We already have a situation where houses in the catchment areas of good schools are overpriced. All that would happen in my case (and believe you me I am pretty typical) is that we would invest the amounts we currently invest into school fees into a more expensive property in the catchment area of a desirable school.

Imagine though- Jemima and Archie might not get specialist care and one-on-one attention to hone their oh-so-special talents! They might get nits, end up speakin common, drink buckfast and leave school with no specific aspiration.

Faith schools can go too. And I don't think that having an objection to the current "One size fits all but not you or you or you, you're Catholic, you're very bright and you're parents are rich, so you're going to get a better standard of education than the poor thick sods who could actually really use it" system is particularly muddled, although of course I don't know enough about this country's system to have a clear view.

Quattrocento- horse/cart... how do we 'work on improving the worse school' when moneyed and/or parents of high achievers have no faith in them. While there are private/selective schools, the attitude of the rich/better off shall remain the same and their children shall continue to be filtered off.
I can guarantee that most of the current government's MPs children attend selective or private schools, regardless of their politics. This is for the same reason that people get their knickers in such a twist over their kids passing the 11plus...

quattro - but i don't think children are equal in intelligence etc etc! Of course some children are brighter than others. And children know it from the minute they enter education.

I just think that to take all the clever kids and stick them in a school together and take all the dim kids and stick them in a school together is not a very good education system!

Plus, Quat, a catchment area is only so big. Eventually parents will have to get their child into their local because there will be no more houses around the 'desired' school.

I feel strongly about this.

My local primary got dire sats results for year 6 in 2007. What they DON'T print in the paper is that 63% of the children taking those exams had SEN.

Parents bus their children out of the area, to another school near by, which despite the ongoing bullying problem only has 11% SEN in year 6 and therefore much better SATS results.

If the parents couldn't bus their children out of the area, the percentage of children with SEN at my local would be lower, there would be less strain on the teachers because there would be more of them because there would be more pupils, the SATS results would improve and the school generally would have a higher morale.

But while the option to bus offspring to a different school continues (for whatever reason and by whatever means), parents will do it, and schools will continue to sink without support.

colditz - when I'm Prime Minister I'm thinking of introducing a law that forbids people to move house if they have children between the ages of 3 and 6 and 9 and 12. There will also be a law banning all house building until the houses we've got already are full. I am thinking of another one saying that children are not allowed to travel in cars between the hours of 8 and 9 in the morning and 3 and 5 in the afternoon. What do you think?

Quattro, the children who don't do well are by and large the poor. The clever poor child does less well than the clever rich child. And the not so clever rich child does pretty well compared with the not so clever poor child.

Absolutely, nfk. This is highlighted in 11+ areas by the fact that the percentage of children entitled to free school meals is vanishingly small in the grammar schools.

nkf - then the clever poor child needs proper support. With proper support, they might be able to get a place a grammar school.

Seeker - I find it strange that the primary schools are forbidden to practice 11+ papers.

Colditz - They could pay for private tutors and not go to school at all.

Mrsmacaroon - "They might get nits, end up speakin common, drink buckfast and leave school with no specific aspiration"
You paint a lovely picture of state secondaries. Hardly surprising from that description that people will do whatever they can to avoid them. "leave school with no specific aspiration"

Juule - nevertheless it is true. The idea is that all children take the test on a level playing field - having only done a couple of practice papers each. This is, of course, bullshit!

There aren't enough grammar schools and there never have been.

Anyway, doing well isn't just about raw intelligence. It's also about proper support and an environent that encourages learning. That's why dim children from middle class backgrounds get the qualifications they need for a middle class lifestyle.

And it's clear that even though the 11+ might have been designed to sort out "raw intelligence" children can be trained to pass.

In our area there is one v highly selective grammar school, takes top 3% I should think. My DCs all went/go there. I tutored them myselves. They were all the only child or one of two to come from their primary school. I tried to help other parents, encourage to practice etc. and was, I am sure, regarded as patronising etc. However the local comprehensives are excellent and have brilliant results BUT, and here is the big BUT, the houses in the catchment areas are some of the most expensive in the town, so only the middle class children get to go there. What is fair about that? In the meantime my remaining DS at the grammar school has one friend who lives in multi million (I should think) house in one of the most sought after villages in the county and another who lives in run down area in town, certainly not within the catchment area of any of the decent comps. And the whole school is a mixture of these children.So actually the grammar school has a far bigger social mix than the high achieving comps (also many more different ethnic groups than are seen in the whole of this town). The education system isn't fair, I wholly agree, but it is not as 'black and white' as would first seem. Certainly not round here.

juule- i was being sarcastic...i went to a comp, never got nits, have never sampled buckfast, dinnae speak common.

I did however leave school with no specific aspiration which I thank god for because the 5 years I spent buggering around before deciding were rather, em 'colourful'.

Okay- missed the sarcasm

Out of interest, bagsforlife, what's the percentage of children entitled to free school meals at your grammar school?

In Kent, for example, 13% of all secondary school children are entitled to free school meals - 3% of those in grammar schools are.

I don't know, not very many on free school meals I am sure, but not very many at the decent comps either. I live in a pretty affluent area. Do the children in Kent HAVE to take the 11+ or is it a choice (it is a choice round here, a few families with bright children choose not to take it). Another point is the actual 'value added' at the grammar schools, they are taking the top percentage therefore should achieve the very high levels without much teaching! DS1 actually underperformed at GCSE as wasn't taught particularly well and was lazy (but had a fab time there and made lovely friends...)so its not all about results, but that's another can of worms to open. There may be much better teaching at some of the underperforming schools but the core intelligence at a grammar school (sorry to say this....) is going to be at a higher level GENERALLY than at a non selective school, although there will always be exceptions. As far as I can see however good the teachers are, there will still be an element of pupils who are not as bright as others. And there can, of course, be terrible teachers in grammar schools too!

You don't have to take the 11+ - I think about half do - and of that half a bit less than half pass. I agree - it would be shameful if a school where practically every child starts with 3 level 5s at KS2 doesn't produce brilliant GCSE results - a fact that is conveniently forgotten by the grammar school supporters. And, also that non-grammar schools in grammar school areas are likely to have less good results at GCSE than those in non selective area. ANother fact conveniently forgotten..... etc

bagsforlife the 11+ is optional in Kent. In fact if they don't think your child will pass you are "encouraged" not to enter them. So it is not true to say these children have failed the 11+ because they didn't actually take it.

seeker from what you've said you disagree with grammar schools yet your children attend one. Is that right? How hypocritical is that?

With no grammar schools a bright child needs to be in the right catchment. So you need to be able to afford the £20k premium for a house in the right area.

The powers that be know what makes a good school. Instead of attacking grammar, faith and independent schools why don't they concentrate on improving the failing schools?

As a perfect example; I went to a fantastic grammar school that was turned into a comprehensive while I was there. The GCE results for that school for 2007 were 16%. That is a wide-ability comprehensive school in an area with no selection. Just under 32% SEN.

The school my DS went to- High school for those not taking the 11+, therefore one with all the achievers creamed off to grammar got 17% for the same period. Just over 33% SEN.

So how is being in an area with grammar schools worse for under achievers, using that real-life example?

Vert hypocritical indeed. And a very uncomfortable decision to have made. And congratulations on making the first personal remark in an otherwise interesting discussion!

At my dd's school this year there were 62 in year 6, 40 took the Kent test and 13 passed. So 27 actively failed and of the remaining 22 several would have had the experience of being told, however nicely, that it wasn't worth them trying. How exactly is that not labelling children as failures?