secondary school question please

milliebear00001

Oh no, I agree that's definitely a factor. It's much easier for schools to get good results if they have nice, well-behaved kids who perform well in exams/tests etc. That's why schools in middle-class areas tend to do better. My point is that there are thousands of kids in tough areas who would do well if they were born in leafy suburbs, but don't through no fault of their own - it's a crying shame! Having said that, there are definitely schools in mixed areas doing very well academically. That can, and should, be the norm.

It would be wonderful if the whole world saw the 11+ like you do, and didn't judge children as successes or failures on the basis of it. I don't think you're in the majority unfortunately (and certainly, that's what most children think if you ask them).

Oldernotwiser

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Is it? I thought they were somewhat opposite in their viewpoint. Not that I'd know really, but have known of Telegraph-Mail as opposed to Guardian-Mail. Totally off topic now.

Guardian to Times in my case!

Oldernotwiser

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Some of your responses have been aimed at me as a person, rather than the situation in schools,

Well, actually my comments have been aimed at your views rather than at you and we all know that "labelling the behaviour not the child" is the way to go these days.

People have been making the same points as you do for many years, at the same time that we have seen our education system descend into anarchy and a culture of low achievement. We're obviously never going to agree on these issues but, if you had a longer perspective to make comparisons, you might have some idea where I'm coming from. Naturally, if you yourself were at school in the nineties, say, you won't be aware of any great changes for the worst and may actually have seen some improvements. If your memory, like your father in law's, went back further you'd have more idea of how low things have sunk.

And, by the way, I'm of the female persuasion and not nearly as old as you think!

Lunar_Eclipse

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Guardian to Times in my case!

I like The Times.

Oldernotwiser

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I like The Times.

Especially the Killer Sudoku!

Woodyrocks

milliebear00001 wrote: »

I accept that comps can also teach to the test, but Grammars survive because of their good academic record, and this has to be maintained at all costs. However much comps have to get their 5 GCESs, Grammars feel that pressure more because they don't tend to have the 'excuse' of behavioural and socio-economic issues that many secondaries have. The narrowing of the curriculum can also be an issue because of the diversity issues Grammars tend to have. They have an overwhelmingly white, middle class intake that may or may not, be an issue for parents. This unavoidably impacts on the kinds of experiences the children are exposed to.

There are of course, many comps doing extremely well academically and ALL schools have 'intelligent, well-motivated children'. These will tend to flourish wherever they go to school because they tend to have enough back up outside.

As a QTS in London, with experience of both state & grammar schools within the London boroughs, I have to say the climate you described is not the norm. With many under local council obligation to offer places to looked after children and with the number of children from single parent household gaining entrance there is undoubtedly socio economic inference. You also failed to acknowledge the % of children from non-Caucasian household gaining entrance, which is comparative in relation to non selective schools within the same catchment.

---

ONW, a Tiffin girl hey

sarymclary

My two eldest children go to a grammar school. I let them choose whether or not they took the 11+ tests. My 10 y/old has recently taken his 11+ tests, and we get his results next week. Again, I gave him the option of whether to sit the tests. I don't believe in lots of home coaching, or private tuition to pass the 11+ because it gives a false reading of a child's ability. If they are naturally bright, then ability will out in the end anyway. A friend of mine got her daughter's 11+ result this week and both she and her daughter are distraught (I do not exaggerate) that she missed out by 3 points, but undeterred she is going to appeal against it. She spent all the summer holidays doing test papers at home with her daughter, and has already started with her younger sister. But she still didn't pass, did she?

The main factor with grammar schools is that they are aimed at taking the top 25% performing students, and then educating them with that in mind. The pace of learning is much faster, they do have a lot of homework, they are expected to concentrate and do well, and there is not much allowance made for children who under-perform. They are there to excell, and are under pressure to do well.

I would far rather a child of mine were able to work at a pace suited to them, and if that means a standard comprehensive caters better for their needs, then so be it. Going to grammar is no guarantee of educational success. For example, my eldest was top of his class at primary school, and was ranked 15th out of his school year on entering grammar. He was always a bright spark, had read all the Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton books and then onto Harry Potter at aged 7 (Y1), much to the delight of his teachers, and performed well in tests. He was top of his year in maths and science, he had a natural interest in sciences, astronomy, chemistry, etc. By the time he had got to the end of his first year at grammar in Y7 he was down to 115th in his school year. The pace of education, the expectation placed on him to perform and do so well, and the amount of homework was far greater than he was able to cope with. He has had a long slog, partly down to his refusal to do his homework after working hard all day in school, but has come out the other side. I think he realised he had to knuckle down in his Y11 and fortunately got excellent GCSE results, but then he should have done well anyway based on his natural abilities displayed throughout primary school. He has chosen to stay on into 6th form, but had to achieve A grades in certain subjects to be accepted to stay on at grammar.

So, if I could offer any advice to you really it would be to support your child's educational needs now, and encourage learning in many different areas in your home life. For example, I subscribed to the discovery channels on TV as a way of broadening their learning even via TV. In fact they love watching them, but then I do too. We have a limited budget so I do cut price breaks to cities, where we visit historical buildings, museums, and places of interest (eg. last year I took them to London and took my youngest, then aged 6/7 to Pudding Lane where the fire of London began, as he had been doing it as his topic at school). I have an annual membership with the National Trust, which gives us entry to stately homes, gardens and nature reserves.

A well rounded individual, with a broad spectrum of learning should continue to be hungry to learn, and see interest in many things.

LillyJ

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

But they are bright comparatively. The range of abilities at a Grammar school will be narrower on the whole, which is easier for teaching and learning.

Imagine the ability spectrum at a local comprehensive where there is no Grammar option. They cover the brighest (G&T) to the least able who usually leave school with no qualifications. There are 9 different streams for Maths & English at our local school, covering what would equate to several years in ability spread.

We live in an area that is not very diverse in terms of the school intake (although I suppose the same could be said for most areas). Most parents are degree educated professionals. Yet given this tiny spectrum, there are still 5 different streams for Maths & Literacy from Reception. They are doing completely different work following the Collins Maths system by Year 3. It's just not possible for the teachers to get it right for all students.

I know, I went to both types of schools (in different counties - one with grammars, one without). Grammar school takes the top 30%, so that means the equivalent of 3 streams only- therefore the comps are doing better in my eyes.

Lunar_Eclipse

Both my daughters are in the top Maths/Lit groups in their class, so whilst they are still of primary school age, I would prefer them to go to Grammar school if the option was there.

A school that has narrowed the ability spectrum (whatever that ability actually is), has a massive teaching advantage IMO. I suppose there is less error that they pitch lessons at the 'wrong level' for the students. It's not that I am pro-Grammar/anti-comp or whatever, I just think it's critical that teaching matches the ability of the children for the majority of their academic learning in the school environment, thus allowing a portion of time for mixed teaching too which also provides benefits to most children.

LillyJ

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Both my daughters are in the top Maths/Lit groups in their class, so whilst they are still of primary school age, I would prefer them to go to Grammar school if the option was there.

A school that has narrowed the ability spectrum (whatever that ability actually is), has a massive teaching advantage IMO. I suppose there is less error that they pitch lessons at the 'wrong level' for the students. It's not that I am pro-Grammar/anti-comp or whatever, I just think it's critical that teaching matches the ability of the children for the majority of their academic learning in the school environment, thus allowing a portion of time for mixed teaching too which also provides benefits to most children.

So do I, I just think that comps provide that. ie my Boyfriend's old school had many sets for everything, my grammar had no sets. Therefore his was tailored to him, mine wasn't, and I was bunched in with people of a much lower ability. If I had been set in a comp, I would have been in the top set with a smaller range of ability in the class.