Which is the best Grammar school in the area?

[Analysis]

Looking at the minimum qualifying marks:

King Edward and Stratford Grammar = 335
Alcester = 329
Lawrence Sheriff = 303
Rugby High = 303
Ashlawn Selective Stream = 301

Does anyone know which school takes the children with the highest scores?

I read Cherrypicker's comments, and fair play to him/her.
The discussion was informative and it is clear Lawrence Sheriff is top at GCSE level because of the sheer
number of GCSEs undertaken and that does not really mean it is the best. There is no indication of
grades achieved.

At "A" level, which is more important, Stratford easily beats Lawrence Sheriff (LS), but LS is non-selective by then.

On the basis of 11+ intake, does anyone have any data which school takes the brighest children?
Each boy and girl can enter 4 grammar schools as preferences.
But, I want to list them on the basis of the ones that take the best and brightest on the basis of 11+ results.

I accept all schools are very good,or even outstanding. But what is the order on the basis of 11+ score intake?

Am I correct that for a boy this is:
King Edward > Alcester > Lawrence Sheriff > Ashlawn?

For a girl this is:
Stratford > Alcester > Rugby High > Ashlawn?

I agree with Cherrypicker that the comparison should compare the same number of students.
But with Rugby, it is more complex because of the eastern area split system which means
it is not a straight competition of highest scores. It is skewed because of one area being contained
within another and thus complex.

If anyone has concrete statistics, please post them.

Thanks

[Rugbymum]

Tricky one - the qualifying scores are different because of the number of places available e.g there are less at KES, hence the higher score.

The catchment areas is a complication and I think we have no way of knowing unless these grammar schools are superselective (i,e have no catchment areas).

Does it really matter anyway?

[serendippyty]

The smaller the school - so the ones with the fewest places available - the more selective they will end up being so I guess you could argue that KES and Stratford Grammar are "better" but really they are just smaller and that is the way it works out.

The best schools really, are schools that take on a non selective basis and manage to find individual programs to achieve results with children of all abilities so for the sake of argument, I would say the best schools are non selective but high achieving regular state schools! The grammar system really depends on cherry picking the more able who are likely to be more motivated and come from motivated families and therefore good results are easier to achieve whereas schools that HAVE to take lss able pupils but manage to find ways of encouraging and assisting their learning are probably doing a much harder job.

In terms of Warks Grammar schools though, they all seem to do a good job I think and the miniscule details between them are largely irrelevant. I think they all have their positives and negatives. Actually I think the standard of schooling in Warks is pretty good generally anyway.

[Analysis]

Tricky one - the qualifying scores are different because of the number of places available e.g there are less at KES, hence the higher score.

The catchment areas is a complication and I think we have no way of knowing unless these grammar schools are superselective (i,e have no catchment areas).

Does it really matter anyway?

It doesn't matter, but some people would like to know.
There is no harm in analysis!
We can analyse if marks of all qualifying children were released.

On the basis of your logic, wouldn't Ashlawn have the highest qualifying marks?
I understand it has a selective stream and 30 places.
But, then again, I assume it has takes 15 boys and 15 girls.
This must be complicated as do boys out peform girls, or is it the other away around at age 10-11, or
are they equal?

I would assume Ashlawn has the weakest intake interms of scoress, and is more popular with those who want mixed gender education, which I favour.

I live like in Herts. We do the Bucks 11+ and get our results within weeks.
But only VR is tested. Some people claim this discriminates against "immigrants" whose first language is not
English. I appreciate the point and somewhat agree. I think Warwickshire 11+ covers wider areas, which is good.
But there is more pressure on the child. I know as I compare what my son did to my brother's son.
4 x the effort and time as there is a wider subject range. Bucks had 99% marks from some children.

But, parents need results before school applications. I would favour offers made on the basis of a
Year 5 SATS test, so everything is based on curriculum. Children of poorer, less educated parents would then not
be at such a disadvantage. In my area, £30 an hour tuition is the norm - totally unfair to poorer parents.

[Sally-Anne]

I live like in Herts. We do the Bucks 11+ and get our results within weeks.
But only VR is tested. Some people claim this discriminates against "immigrants" whose first language is not
English. I appreciate the point and somewhat agree.

This is a point that frequently comes up at Bucks appeal hearings. If a child was born in this country and has been schooled in English they are not necessarily at a disadvantage. The difficulty in Bucks is that many children from ethnic minorities attend poorly performing primary schools and have therefore not received a good basic education.

Sally-Anne

[Analysis]

This is a point that frequently comes up at Bucks appeal hearings. If a child was born in this country and has been schooled in English they are not necessarily at a disadvantage. The difficulty in Bucks is that many children from ethnic minorities attend poorly performing primary schools and have therefore not received a good basic education.

Sally-Anne

We are off topic, but....

This is a valid point, but I feel more are at a disadvantage. Athough my son's friend just won a Buck appeal on the basis one parent is German, and the other English. They speak German in the home, thus English is poorer.

What about those who are not born in England, or just moved to Bucks/Herts? In my son's class there is a girl of Chinese origin and her parents' English is very poor. They can hardly speak English. Her reading age is 8/9 (nobody can help her at home), yet she is top of the class in mathematics. Her logic is outstanding. I have no doubt she will excel at English in a few years. Would she pass Bucks 11+? No chance. Warwickshire? Possibly. The Warwickshire 11+ is fairer to other groups.

Edited as post going off topic.
New thread started on tutoring and costs thereof.

[Mr Benn]

I think your touching a sensitive subject there - best move on - as I dont think many would have much sympathy with people who cant speak proper English in our country..... (like wot i can anyway )

To answer the forum question... the best school is without doubt Alcester .... because they chose my child

[ourmaminhavana]

as I dont think many would have much sympathy with people who cant speak proper English in our country.....

I would! I can only assume that you are joking and not intending to make a racist comment?

PS I only discriminate against people who don't use apostrophes.

[hermanmunster]

tricky one isn't it?

If I moved to Italy I wouldn't expect allowance to be made in a selective school exam for my kids lack of Italian. I would either send them to a private english speaking school or make sure they learnt Italian to a satisfactory standard first.

(ooops best check the apostrophes....)

[Mr Benn]

[/quote]

PS I only discriminate against people who don't use apostrophes. [/quote]

Isnt that being spellist ?