BBC2 11+ documentary

[ale21279]

It seems it is fashion to talk against selection on ability, while considering grammars good enough for own families.

It also seems fashionable to talk in favour of Grammars whilst living in a comprehensive area. Apparently secondary moderns are an excellent idea - for other peoples DCs.

Schools are either selective or non-selective. There is nothing stopping non-selective schools better funded, better resourced (teachers are almost the same in both schools) or full range of subjects on offer.

Also apparently 'according to knowledgeable people', there are no comprehensive schools in England.

Not strictly true Tiffinboys, the school we want is *partially selective* (approx 1/3 of the intake), it's not a grammar, it's not a secondary modern, it's officially a comprehensive but has a very different status in the area to the other comprehensives. There are not so many Grammar schools in my area.

[tiffinboys]

You are right, ale21279. Yes, there are few partially selective schools as well. The place you probably aiming for is selective if it is for your first DC there and not living close enough to the school. These schools mostly have non-selective places on distance, sibling criteria.

As for being few grammars in your area, most LAs have no grammars at all. I am in favour of at least one grammar school in each borough/LA. There used to be over 1300 grammars and another lot of grant maintained schools - private schools with 25 to 50% selective places, funded by State.

[sandy09]

I am in favour of at least one grammar school in each borough/LA. There used to be over 1300 grammars and another lot of grant maintained schools - private schools with 25 to 50% selective places, funded by State.

Absolutely agree with this Tiffinboys. A balanced education system should give choice to parents wherever they live. They should be able to access a type of school that their children's needs require. I think in a system where each local area has one grammar school which only takes in the top 5-10% of the academic spectrum then the remaining 90-95% would never feel they're failures if they don't make the mark. The non selective schools can still have a significant cohort of high attaining children who will blossom at a later age whilst outperforming selective schools in non-academic matters such as sports and performing arts. Such type of non selective schools would appeal to many parents.

Unfortunately in the current system many areas are oversupplied with GS and in other areas there are absolutely none. It's normal to have GS, it's just a type of school, but it's crazy to have too many and adding more in areas such as Kent because there is no end to demand once the divide is significant enough to label a pass and a fail.

[anotherdad]

I think in a system where each local area has one grammar school which only takes in the top 5-10% of the academic spectrum then the remaining 90-95% would never feel they're failures if they don't make the mark. The non selective schools can still have a significant cohort of high attaining children who will blossom at a later age whilst outperforming selective schools in non-academic matters such as sports and performing arts.

Take that to its logical conclusion and the upper schools in Bucks (which roughly 70% of children attend) should all be churning out children who are outperforming their grammar school peers in sport, yes? After all, the highest attaining 30% are otherwise academically occupied.

Aylesbury High School (girls' grammar school) is one of the country's highest performing schools at sport. It was deemed the top state school for sport in 2014.

Aylesbury Grammar School (boys) is another which is regularly in the top state schools for sport, as are Wycombe High, RGS, Dr Challoners, Beaconsfield High, John Hampden.... All grammars.

Looking through the "Top 100" list of state schools for sports for the last few years, there are six or seven Bucks grammar schools regularly in the top 50, often in the top 30, which puts them in the top 1% of all schools (including independents) for sporting achievement.

Not a single Bucks upper school features in the top 100 in any of the lists since they were first compiled in 2013.

Still, there's always performing arts.

[tiffinboys]

Beside academics, good at Sports too?
So that should be another plus for grammars.

[RedPanda]

Beside academics, good at Sports too?
So that should be another plus for grammars.

As you well know TB , the same pupils who are tutored/supported through their 11+ are the very same pupils tutored/supported through their sporting interests.

That said, tutoring/supporting children through their 11+ (or indeed their broader education/sports/interests) shouldn't necessarily be seen as 'cheating the system'. Most achievements worth their salt require work. Some have to work harder than others, I guess.

[tiffinboys]

I think some one mentioned that the one in the BBC documentary who passed the test, was the one prepared at home. Was there huge and expensive tutoring/coaching?

[turnip08]

Beside academics, good at Sports too?
So that should be another plus for grammars.

As you well know TB , the same pupils who are tutored/supported through their 11+ are the very same pupils tutored/supported through their sporting interests.

That said, tutoring/supporting children through their 11+ (or indeed their broader education/sports/interests) shouldn't necessarily be seen as 'cheating the system'. Most achievements worth their salt require work. Some have to work harder than others, I guess.

Yes, this is so very true. It does come down to a huge commitment required by parents (and children). Which of course is not a commitment all parents can give, especially if both are working long hours and unable to afford nannies etc. There is no getting away from the fact that grammars do not necessarily take the 'true' top % but, certainly nowadays, those who are able but augmented by parental support. I always find it fascinating to hear some parents' being shocked at other (often poorer) parents spending hundreds of pounds on tutoring. However, as someone else said on here, that just does not compare in terms of the input someone like Juanita undoubtedly needs given her home environment especially as English is such an essential part of the 11+ (to me she seemed very able). Plus parents, or those lucky enough to have committed grandparents (especially teachers - cheats! ) spend many more hours "tutoring" (yes, it's still tutoring even if you don't pay for it) - so who is being 'over tutored'? The family who spends £300 for their child to be tutored a couple of hours per week or the child who has a stay-at-home parent (or grandparent) who is able to give hours and hours of 'enriched' time. Anyone read Malcolm Gladwell's 'Outliers'? A fantastic book looking into the fallacy of thinking about 'innate' ability when much of 'success' comes down to pure hours of application whether that is computer programming or sports.

Ultimately, the system is grossly unfair but it is difficult to see how it will ever change (in this country).

[tiffinboys]

Distribute wealth equally may be so every one can afford £ *** for tuition. Btw, some one mentioned up the thread, those who were coached, continued to need coaching for years after passing 11 plus.

[RedPanda]

I think some one mentioned that the one who passed the test in the BBC documentary, was the one prepared at home. Was there huge and expensive tutoring/coaching?

If you are asking me, I've no idea.

My point is, the actual GS has little effect (although I believe there is some advantage, contrary to the politically driven studies coming out these days) on the pupils' achievements (academic or sporting). It is mainly about the children themselves and what support/money/opportunity they have at home.

Crossed with turnip08 - Good points, well made.