BIG DECISION - Outstanding grammar v grammar stream in non G

[neurotic kent mum]

It has to be what is right for your DS. But both ds and I loved the gs you are considering despite the buildings. My dd was at a grammar school with old buildings and felt that the heart went from it when it was replaced with new shiny surroundings. All comments I have from around here regarding the GS are highly positive. Excellent pastoral care and boys thrive. And if I am honest most is positive about your non grammar school option! So not much help here - except I suppose that it is positive to have a choice between them both.

[pheasantchick]

Thanks for all your replies. They are been helpful.

Tonbridge mum - it's a non ss, and considered the less academic of the two Gs ( although still gets good results)

Ginx - your observations are interesting. I've just done a quick search for result. The Gs are obviously a lot better. I can't find results for the non Gs grammar stream on its own, so it's difficult to compare that section. Possibly the grammar stream is quite new, so they haven't seen it all the way through yet.

Dc 2 is my non- academic of the two children. He's bright but not academic.

Nkm - you have basically summarised the situation. Ie. Gs is good, but Non Gs is okay, and like you said, 'most is good'.

We're erring towards the Gs for the following reasons.
- good results
- smaller school
- easier to change to non Gs at a later date, then vice versus
- good reptutation
- exams not taken early

Part of me thinks (or hopes) that when dc starts school, he'll settle in quickly, and will be happy. Hopefully, he won't wish he'd gone to the other school.

[mystery]

I think you are probably right in the way you are erring at the moment - in som situations the non grammar could be as strong or better a contender. However, I think though in Kent there are only a certain number of non-selectives that are up to the standard of comprehensives in areas with no grammars or just a few "superselectives". So, unless your local non-selective is none of these few extremely good "almost comprehensives" in Kent I'd take the grammar offer while you can. As you say, if it turns out to be a disastrous decision (which is unlikely) your son can move to the other school.

What does the non-selective offer (all round) that the grammar school doesn't? You mentioned higher up the thread that your DS prefers the high school. What are the reasons for this?

[sherry_d]

I ran a mile from the comps here With that choice, gs anytime. 9% is the highest ebac of any local high school. Is it really hard getting ebac? I wouldn't gamble and I think I know the school you are talking about, personally I would run and run very fast from it. The gs stream would not convince me one jot, its new and an experiment and you don't know how it will turn out in the end.

If only we had proper comps but with 4 grammars within a radius of about 2 miles from each other, that really leaves the high schools struggling to even scrap 5% ebac.

By the way, congrats on your successful appeal.

[Amber]

I ran a mile from the comps here With that choice, gs anytime. 9% is the highest ebac of any local high school. Is it really hard getting ebac?.
.

The EBACC is a government measurement applied (retrospectively in the early days) to schools. It has no teeth whatsoever and many schools (including my sons' grammar school) take no notice of it at all and therefore do not encourage children to do it. I believe it has now been abandoned anyway, like so many of Gove's nonsense initiatives. I certainly would not make that a factor in choosing a school.

Hope you're well sherry_d

[mystery]

Things I would look out for are the actual results subject by subject grade by grade at GCSE at the school, and also at how the high achievers in the school do - i.e. what percentage of children who are "high achievers" - i.e. went in with level 5s, made expected progress up to 16 in maths and english (i.e. achieved a B or more).

You will find this information out from the dfe performance tables 2012 ks4 and from the school itself for the subject by subject grade by grade stuff. Of course, the cohorts that have been through GCSE started at the school quite some time ago and things could have improved or declined since.

[sherry_d]

Isn't ebacc maths, english, science, a language and a humanity. Surely is that too much to ask?

What subjects are the kids taking if they aren't even achieving 5% ebacc? Now ebacc will be useless as school are manipulating it and so I understand it being removed now but I think for the last years (the retrospectively done ones) it gave a rough guide. I am not saying they should get 100%, far from it but 5% is just too low.

I just think the 5 A-C measure on it's own is meaningless because it doesn't show the subjects the children are taking. All grammars get nearly 100% and when you drill down by ebacc you begin to see the difference. The ones that have higher ebacc tend to have higher A/A* and more traditional subjects choice in 6th form etc. There are a few schools here that get over 50% A-C (incl maths and eng) yet 0% ebacc. What subjects are they studying and passing beyond maths and english, I am puzzled by that and would really want to know the answer.

I know most teachers hate the ebacc but Amber what really is so wrong about it? Yes it will be heavily manipulated now and will perhaps be meaningless but the concept behind it was ok though not perfect.

[Amber]

I don't want to derail Pheasantchick's thread with a discussion on the merits of Ebacc. There is lots below the line on it.

In brief - I think it was disliked in the profession as it was applied retrospectively to results of exams which had already been sat and was based on Michael Gove's own personal ideas about what constituted a Good Education - with no consultation with just about anyone. So, nonsensically, RE was not counted as a humanity, nor was music, and there was no recognition of less traditional subjects which many children do choose - technology, computer science etc. I was discussing the narrowness of the curriculum with my own children yesterday - they wondered why they had never heard of many university courses, and of course it is partly because they are not taught or even mentioned in school.

My own objection to Ebacc is severalfold: I deplore the degeneration of discussions on what is valuable in education into what we can measure ('Measure what we value, or value what we measure?'); I deplore the narrowness of the curriculum and anything which narrows it further is bad in my view; and I deplore the way that every time Michael Gove opens his mouth it is to announce another stick with which to beat teachers while at the same time supposedly giving parents more 'choice'.

Other objections are available.

[sherry_d]

I deplore the narrowness of the curriculum too. If those non traditional subjects had good content then there would be no problems. The problem is the narrowness of the curriculum and what is covered in these subjects. Of course that applies even to the traditional subjects but having done and looked at a few of the non traditional subject, the syllabus is really bad. Its just painfully awful and it sucked me of the will to live.

Sorry PC, we dragged your post but hopefully you will make a decision. The thing is we really will never know if it was the right decision or not. The decision that gives you peace is the one to go for.

Amber it's nice seeing you again!

I occasionally hoover in the background and come out of my closet here and there.

[Reading Mum]

schools can end up with low ebacc numbers if they do iGCSE in any of the core subjects as these do not count