why super selective???
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:59 pm
I am a great fan of grammar schools, however, I completely fail to understand the purpose of Super Selective entry criteria? As far as I can see, there is little of no difference between the results of normal and super selective grammars. We have recently moved from Birmingham (super selective area) to Salisbury (normal grammar). In Birmingham, for entry to King Edwards, Queen Mary or Bishop Vesey’s you need to be in at least the 80th percentile (a friend of ours was told by the school that you really need to be in the at least the 85th percentile to be reasonably confident). In Salisbury, there is a pass mark of 75% for kids within the catchment area. However, when it comes to results the GS in Salisbury is ranked higher than any of the Birmingham Grammars, in fact Bishop Vesey in Sutton Coldfield does not rank particularly highly (below several comps) despite setting ridiculously high entry criteria. I think that the same can be said of Bucks Grammar schools, RGS in High Wycombe (which I attended 20 years ago) and Dr Challeners are 2 of the best schools in the country, even though they are not super selective.
So academically there is no benefit from the selection criteria, so let’s address another argument – why should a child be excluded from a school because they live just outside the catchment area? Approximately 40% of kids at GS in Salisbury are from out of catchment area, so it is not exclusively reserved for local children. A GS which has a simple pass mark places much less pressure on tutoring as naturally bright children will be able to achieve the required level without the need for intensive extra preparation, whilst the real differentiator between most children getting into super selective grammars is the amount of tutoring and preparation – only the very brightest will be able to pass without much additional coaching.
As a result, super selective grammars are the preserve of children from middle class families, children from less well off backgrounds have less chance of gaining a GS place. In addition the schools are no longer local as kids travel from miles away – you regularly hear about children travelling 20+ miles to school (2 school runs per day = 80 miles per day).
I am convinced that GS is the best form of education; however, the current mix of entry standards is wholly unsatisfactory.
So academically there is no benefit from the selection criteria, so let’s address another argument – why should a child be excluded from a school because they live just outside the catchment area? Approximately 40% of kids at GS in Salisbury are from out of catchment area, so it is not exclusively reserved for local children. A GS which has a simple pass mark places much less pressure on tutoring as naturally bright children will be able to achieve the required level without the need for intensive extra preparation, whilst the real differentiator between most children getting into super selective grammars is the amount of tutoring and preparation – only the very brightest will be able to pass without much additional coaching.
As a result, super selective grammars are the preserve of children from middle class families, children from less well off backgrounds have less chance of gaining a GS place. In addition the schools are no longer local as kids travel from miles away – you regularly hear about children travelling 20+ miles to school (2 school runs per day = 80 miles per day).
I am convinced that GS is the best form of education; however, the current mix of entry standards is wholly unsatisfactory.