When you get your results letter - have a little read here.
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
When you get your results letter - have a little read here.
First off - the majority (up to 3/4) will not get the news that their son or daughter has passed. They will learn that their child has 'not passed' and I use that wording very deliberately.
This is much akin to the hearing tests that your child had when they were about 8m old. A pass meant it was obvious they could hear. Not passing did not mean that they were necessarily deaf, they just failed to demonstrate clearly that they could hear on the day and further tests needed to be done.
This is important. Children who do not pass the tests are NOT branded for life as unintelligent. They are not going to put this on their CV in 10 years time, in much the same way as they will not add their hearing test results either.
OK – so you have your result. Once upon a time this would be trying to identify the 1 or two in every 20 children that would benefit from a slightly different education. I guess that's still the objective BUT, because of the sheer numbers taking the test and the dearth of places, the children who will eventually get places is skewed towards the upper end of this range. The Grammars are now, I suspect, picking up unusually high numbers of very, exceptionally or spectacularly bright children. The sort of child that will always come top in pretty much everything. We've all known them. They usually play every instrument invented, can dance, act, play a multitude of sports and are good looking and all round lovely people too. We'd love to detest them but can't find any good reason to.
So at every test, every exam, every assessment those children will likely come near the top. In most walks of life we'd find one of these people, but at the grammars we're probably finding 10+ in each year group. A child that is still very bright is likely always going to be an 'also ran', and some of them will always linger around the bottom of the year group.
So is a grammar education a 'better' education? Well IMHO both yes and no.
For the bright child who is keen to compete and who needs to go at a faster pace, the answer is almost certainly yes. For the child that is bright but dislikes the attention that being top brings them, then yes too. For the child that is already rearing to go, then yet again probably yes.
For the bright child who enjoys the confidence boost of coming top, or near the top then coming nearer to the middle or bottom all the time is going to be an endless demoraliser. Far far better for them to excel and have their confidence boosted in a school where they will be constantly in the upper part of their year. Let's face it coming near bottom at a Grammar is still almost certainly a darned good result, but it just has to get to you in the end!
For the child that is still coming into their prime, and some just do gather momentum a little slower, then probably no. Dragging them onto the launch pad and then firing them off at warp speed is likely to be a 'G' force too far.
So in summary (at last you say!)
Whatever your result, whether your child passes or does not pass, please celebrate. You have a fantastically useful bit of information in your hands. If your child did not pass then you will possibly also have their mark. Take a long look at this.
Be aware that if they just missed passing they were still quite a way off getting into a Grammar, but they are also pretty blooming bright and they should not be anything but proud of that and encouraged by it. This augers very well for them at their next school. True some kids that are 'late starters' might be missed at this stage by the grammars, but the 'steady eddie's' really do not need to be demoralised for the next 7 years.
Are they likely to do better at the other Grammars? Well I have seen that happen, but to get a place you are not looking for just a mark or two, you are looking for another 8-10. That's perfectly possible if your child just made a pigs ear of it on the day. It happens. I know of one child that did astonishingly badly in one test. I can only assume that there was some sort of transposition error on their multiple choice papers or something equally bizarre. But from experience the tests are surprisingly consistent in their results, kids get pretty much the same result, with a small variation, at all the schools. There will of course be exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.
To those that have sat the tests, congratulations – whatever your result.
For those reading this and planning their offensive for future years, truly consider what it is that you are seeking to achieve for your child.
A grammar education is not a better education, it is a different education and it could be both the making or the ruin of your child.
This is much akin to the hearing tests that your child had when they were about 8m old. A pass meant it was obvious they could hear. Not passing did not mean that they were necessarily deaf, they just failed to demonstrate clearly that they could hear on the day and further tests needed to be done.
This is important. Children who do not pass the tests are NOT branded for life as unintelligent. They are not going to put this on their CV in 10 years time, in much the same way as they will not add their hearing test results either.
OK – so you have your result. Once upon a time this would be trying to identify the 1 or two in every 20 children that would benefit from a slightly different education. I guess that's still the objective BUT, because of the sheer numbers taking the test and the dearth of places, the children who will eventually get places is skewed towards the upper end of this range. The Grammars are now, I suspect, picking up unusually high numbers of very, exceptionally or spectacularly bright children. The sort of child that will always come top in pretty much everything. We've all known them. They usually play every instrument invented, can dance, act, play a multitude of sports and are good looking and all round lovely people too. We'd love to detest them but can't find any good reason to.
So at every test, every exam, every assessment those children will likely come near the top. In most walks of life we'd find one of these people, but at the grammars we're probably finding 10+ in each year group. A child that is still very bright is likely always going to be an 'also ran', and some of them will always linger around the bottom of the year group.
So is a grammar education a 'better' education? Well IMHO both yes and no.
For the bright child who is keen to compete and who needs to go at a faster pace, the answer is almost certainly yes. For the child that is bright but dislikes the attention that being top brings them, then yes too. For the child that is already rearing to go, then yet again probably yes.
For the bright child who enjoys the confidence boost of coming top, or near the top then coming nearer to the middle or bottom all the time is going to be an endless demoraliser. Far far better for them to excel and have their confidence boosted in a school where they will be constantly in the upper part of their year. Let's face it coming near bottom at a Grammar is still almost certainly a darned good result, but it just has to get to you in the end!
For the child that is still coming into their prime, and some just do gather momentum a little slower, then probably no. Dragging them onto the launch pad and then firing them off at warp speed is likely to be a 'G' force too far.
So in summary (at last you say!)
Whatever your result, whether your child passes or does not pass, please celebrate. You have a fantastically useful bit of information in your hands. If your child did not pass then you will possibly also have their mark. Take a long look at this.
Be aware that if they just missed passing they were still quite a way off getting into a Grammar, but they are also pretty blooming bright and they should not be anything but proud of that and encouraged by it. This augers very well for them at their next school. True some kids that are 'late starters' might be missed at this stage by the grammars, but the 'steady eddie's' really do not need to be demoralised for the next 7 years.
Are they likely to do better at the other Grammars? Well I have seen that happen, but to get a place you are not looking for just a mark or two, you are looking for another 8-10. That's perfectly possible if your child just made a pigs ear of it on the day. It happens. I know of one child that did astonishingly badly in one test. I can only assume that there was some sort of transposition error on their multiple choice papers or something equally bizarre. But from experience the tests are surprisingly consistent in their results, kids get pretty much the same result, with a small variation, at all the schools. There will of course be exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.
To those that have sat the tests, congratulations – whatever your result.
For those reading this and planning their offensive for future years, truly consider what it is that you are seeking to achieve for your child.
A grammar education is not a better education, it is a different education and it could be both the making or the ruin of your child.
Re: When you get your results letter - have a little read he
Evidence?A grammar education is not a better education, it is a different education and it could be both the making or the ruin of your child.
I can only remember one or two people in my veeeery long teaching career that might have not benefited from being at a GS - that's a very small percentage.
Personally I always use 'qualify' for a GS as the raw score is different every year.
Re: When you get your results letter - have a little read he
don't agree with "good looking" and "all lovely" bits. Grammar schools are not the beauty pageants. In our local Grammar girls school absolute majority cannot care less about their appearence, and look quite ungroomed.
Re: When you get your results letter - have a little read he
Gosh! That implies a number of rather sad conclusions, amongst which:-Guest55 wrote:I can only remember one or two people in my veeeery long teaching career that might have not benefited from being at a GS - that's a very small percentage.
Personally I always use 'qualify' for a GS as the raw score is different every year.
1. The standard of education offered to the vast majority of our children is therefore sub par as only a very small percentage attend the 'super selective' GS.
2. Education should be offered in a uniform way without regard for a childs individuality or skillset, be that academic, artistic or sporting etc etc.
3. That specialist schools offer an inferior education even when that education is targeted to specifically assist children with specific needs or talents.
4. That the comprehensive system of education has failed.
5. That academic success is to be prized above all other success for all children.
I concur that the Raw scores vary year on year. As I understand it the process of standardisation, which is mysterious for sure, is therefore employed so that the pass mark remains consistent year on year.
