[Closed] Grammar schools

You don't mention whether you are looking for girls or boys grammars.

Salisbury girls grammar school gets very good offsted reports.

Self selecting due to the 11 plus - brighter to start with, fewer kids disrupting lessons so it grows from there. Happily send my kids to one if we had the chance.

I suppose if the standard is higher to start with the teachers don't spend time with those at a lower level, so better kids can be pushed more.

If your child is a bit of lazy arse though it won't matter what school they go to!

I have 2 daughters. One went to the local mixed comp and ended up going off the rails. Mainly because of boys. Based on this experience our youngest daughter attends the local girls grammar school and is thriving.

I wouldn't say the teaching standard is any better, but you are pulling together a group of like minded kids all of whom have had to pass an academic test to get in.

If you can get your children into one, I'd recommend it.

We live in a country that rewards those in elite education unfortunately and if you can play the game then do.

I'd be quite happy to send babybgoode to grammar school or event private school if I thought it was right for him and would give him sufficient advantage

My slightly older brother passed his 11+ and got into Grammar School, I did not and went to the local Comp. He is super smart and I'm and idiot. It could be the schools or it could be an errant gene. I'm not clever enough to know which.

Bit of both, certainly selection helps, there's less likely to be the bottom pulling everyone else down to their level, or at least the bottom is already a lot higher. Also better teachers (academically, ie more focused on academic achievement) although the counter to this is they can be less concerned about the pastoral side of things, my daughters at a grammar, very good results, I think kids can get lost if they can't keep up though.

Also can be quite socially sparse, brighter kids tend to come from wealthier parents (cos their parents are bright and have more earning power) which can mean bright kids from less affluent households can feel a tad uncomfortable.

On balance though I'd prefer my kids to be in grammar school although in our case the alternate was the opposite end of the scale, a comprehensive half full, in special measures that hoovered upall the pupils no other school wanted.

At least our grammar school is aspirational and encourages achievement in different fields outside school life. My daughters pretty good at ballet and has auditioned for the Royal Ballet schools in London and Birmingham, got through to final auditions. The school were very supportive about time off and wanted to celebrate the achievement of getting to final auditions (which is a big deal in the ballet world). Not sure how that would have been handled by an NUT run comprehensive. (ironically I think it was the ballet that got her through the 11 plus, being used to pressure in auditions and exams plus having to work hard put her in good stead for the entrance exam).

You should take account of the size of the catchment the girls and boys grammars in Reading for example are effing huge. Thousands take the test for a couple of hundred places. Also if your spawn dont get in schools around grammars tend to do worse. If there are no gramma schools the slightly less able tend to do better.
If it was me I would prefer an area without a grammar system but near a "good" school.

I suppose if the standard is higher to start with the teachers don't spend time with those at a lower level, so better kids can be pushed more.

We have thought of setting you know.

is the teaching exactly the same

I would imagine in general terms gramma will attract more applications so may tend to have better teachers than the surrounding non grammar schhols.

I live near Salisbury. I think there is massive competition for places at the grammar schools, my understanding being that the local secondaries are perceived as poor in comparison (especially on the heath!). You're then going to find a subset of the most intelligent and best supported/driven children in these schools. Does this this describe your children?

There is a new Technical College which takes 14-18 ages which I've visited professionally and is fantastic. I'd see that as a good option, but will help my daughter (who is 4!) to pass 11+ and get in to south wilts if she is capable.

The elitist snobbery is strong on this thread.

I would imagine in general terms gramma will attract more applications so may tend to have better teachers than the surrounding non grammar schhols.

This is a good point.

We have thought of setting you know.

But is it implemented in all schools?

As a teacher in a Grammar school, I'd say my teaching improved when I moved from the comp I had been working at because you swap your emphasis from classroom management and having to engage reluctant students (we have special names for these types) to pushing and challenging students academically.
On the other hand if your local school is a good comp send them there (we did) so that their mates are close by too!

Currently have one boy at 11months so it's a bit early to tell....but I like planning ahead, this move is a 20year one so needs to be right if things turn out right. Both mum and dad were pretty academic, did well at school and uni and career so far, so I'd hope that will be passed on, but we will have to see. I'd like to give the best chance possible and have the choice. I went to private school (military bursary) but no way I can afford the fees, I'm told my old school is now £11k a term.

To boil it down even more the current thinking is thorden/overpriced not very nice house in chandlers ford vs something a bit more rural, nicer and salisbury grammar catchment.

Interesting point about the other schools being of lower standard in case he doesn't get in. Hadn't thought of that.

Apologies if anyone thinks this comes across as snobby, it's not supposed to be it is about family planning and wanting the best for my kids.

We have thought of setting you know.

Where there are grammar schools the results overall are lower (Nick Davies: The School Report), it creates a self-perpetuating division of unequal opportunities. So if you opt to live in that area, it's make or break. Is there such a thing as an 'NUT run comprehensive'? I've never come across one in 30 odd years in education, I do have mates who teach in the public school round the corner who are in the NUT however.

If you look at St Josephs the results seem OK (be aware it's a Catholic school), for convenience you could then look at Laverstock and surroundings for housing. On balance I've enjoyed living in and around Salisbury for the last 15 years. When you talk about catchment, how far out were you thinking? Between 1-2 miles of Salisbury city centre you're already rural 🙂

For the near future, the local primary schools we looked at were all very good.

My daughter is starting at Tonbridge Grammar for Girls in September. She worked really hard for her 11 plus (and enjoyed it) to get into one of the Kent Superselective Grammars from Out of Catchment. We are going down the same line for our son.

We had friends who's son sat the Reading Boys 11+ without any tutoring. He is as bright as our daughter (they've been mates since birth, and he failed, as the national curriculum doesn't prepare you for the 11+.

If you think your kids will suit/do well in a grammar, then aim to succeed, and make sure they get in. I get that the grammar system is polarising, but aiming to stretch the top kids is a good thing IMHO.

[url= http://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/index.php ]This website[/url] will give you all you need to know about the 11+ & grammars in your area.

So Salisbury has cheaper housing and a grammar school? No brainer then surely?

he failed, as the national curriculum doesn't prepare you for the 11+

Sums up everything that hacks me off about Grammer Schools. How can a state funded school be allowed to set an admission test that requires private tutoring to pass?

The Comprehensive system was what stopped a lot of bright working class kids from getting into the top Universities.

The focus should of been raising standards in Secondary Modern schools.

I went to an independent grammar school, fee paying, from 1975-82.
Yes I had to pass an entrance exam.
No I didn't have any special tuition to do so.
It was a boys only school so I didn't mix with girls other than outside school hours - it may have helped me academically or it may not, but it certainly did nothing for my confidence

If I had children I would probably give them the choice

"rewards those in elite education unfortunately"
A misprint surely?
Anyway, get a grammar if you can. Your kids will to a great extent avoid the lazy little sods who don't care about their own education and have no worries about buggering up the education of those who do care. That is worth so much. Like everything this may not be 100% but in my experience with 25 years in teaching it is noticeable.

Just read Headfirst's reply. That's it in a nutshell.

The focus should of been

I've taught loads of (often poor) kids in comprehensives who went to top universities and are in smart jobs: bankers, barristers, teachers, doctors, scientists, an academic and an MP.

We had friends who's son sat the Reading Boys 11+ without any tutoring. He is as bright as our daughter (they've been mates since birth, and he failed, as the national curriculum doesn't prepare you for the 11+.

My understanding is that Reading boys dont do the 11+ they do a test about 1000 + take it, the top 150 get a place. You could pass the 11+ with flying colours and not get in. The catchment includes Newbury 15 to the west and slough to the east. Its huge. Same with Kendrick the girls grammar.

The Comprehensive system was what stopped a lot of bright working class kids from getting into the top Universities.

Really!?!

I wouldn't say the teaching standard is any better, but you are pulling together a group of like minded kids all of whom have had to pass an academic test to get in.

Thousands take the test for a couple of hundred places. Also if your spawn dont get in schools around grammars tend to do worse. If there are no gramma schools the slightly less able tend to do better.

the real problem with grammar schools is they both help the most able [ good] and harm the least able [ bad]

I dont know what the perfect solution to this but ideologically I have no issue with them. I do have reservations about how to do it fairly.

The Comprehensive system was what stopped a lot of bright working class kids from getting into the top Universities.

As a teacher in a Grammar school, I'd say my teaching improved when I moved from the comp I had been working at because you swap your emphasis from classroom management and having to engage reluctant students (we have special names for these types) to pushing and challenging students academically.
On the other hand if your local school is a good comp send them there (we did) so that their mates are close by too!

I think there is an illusion in the general public that there are good and bad teachers and that's the end of it. The reality is a lot more complex. There are teachers that are fantastic at engaging pupils of all abilities and making a really accessible learning environment with great empathy for those that struggle to understand the subject matter. There are also those that have phenomenal subject knowledge and use it to stretch the most able. The former might not be the last word in subject knowledge and the latter might be a bit devoid of the soft skills but both can be brilliant in the right context. A grammar school can be a great place to teach (and to be loved and appreciated) for folk that might get eaten alive (or at the very least not be appreciated and be hugely miserable) in a standard comp.

I'm a product of a single sex state funded grammar eduction and think it works, but I would wouldn't I! Looking at the bigger picture I think they can only be justified if the alternative schooling in the area isn't just a dumping ground but offers equally good but alternatively focussed education. The middle class parents private tutoring their kids to pass the 11+ and the consequences for those that don't quite make it and are left without academic role models within their peer group make me hugely uncomfortable.

The other option are these huge 'factory' sized comprehensives large enough to do everything well but I believe they create many issues in other ways (impersonal, with poor pastoral support) that I don't see it as a better solution.

The simple answer is a yes, Grammar schools are better. But it's not actually as simple as just a yes. I went a Grammar school after passing my 11+ (many many years ago I might add) and I went from being in the top 5 students at my old school to basically close to the bottom of a class of 30 and struggled like mad. But it comes down to the student then and sadly I learned too late that buckling down and getting my arse in gear I could actually achieve good marks and got some decent O level results in the end. I think our parents have a big say in it as sadly mine didn't bother at all, took no interest in me or gave any help apart from giving me grief over the cost of uniforms and sports equipment.
I've made sure I gave my kids every bit of support they needed and helped them as much as I could and they've done well and so maybe I learnt something good from my time at a Grammar school.

The simple answer is a yes, Grammar schools are better.

Based on what. The research suggests they are better for the 100kids who get in but make things worse for the thousands who dont.

The Comprehensive system was what stopped a lot of bright working class kids from getting into the top Universities.

Absolutely.

The focus should of been [s]raising standards in Secondary Modern schools.[/s]
in creating Technical Schools

Better for those who get in. And don't tell me that if you were given the choice you wouldn't want the best for your kids as you know what you would choose. The Secondary v Grammar school debate is one that is flawed on both sides. Secondary only schooling system really does hold back gifted students and a Grammar school is beneficial to those who get in.

Absolutely.

EVIDENCE- its just not true.
The 11 + and grammar schools still favour the middle classed they always did. Not least because they can afford private tuition to pass the exam.
We still have them today and they still predominately draw from the middle classes. For example they have 3 % of pupils on free school meals compared to the national average of 15%

Feel free to present the national class % and then compare them to grammar schools intakes and provide some empirical evidence to support your view - clue it refutes it so please stop saying it.

For folk to try and pretend Grammar schools existed for the extremes of the working classes is both a false argument and disingenuous..
Grammar schools are no more championing the working classes any more than Oxbridge is.

The participation rates of the working class in university has gone through the roof since the abolition of grammar schools. Many factors not just grammar removal though so agin its just a false claim

If you favour selection/grammar just say so. Please dont pretend you favour it to help the out the working class as the stats show it does not achieve this.

Also worth noting that the two areas - Kent and Lincoln - who fully select also have the highest percentage of schools failing to hit 5 GCSE- I assume you will be arguing that is also to help the working class out?

Hadge is correct the real issue is how we designa system that both benefits the most able and the least able

Neither system , alone, can achieve this and we have never got the balance right.

If you favour selection/grammar just say so. Please dont pretend you favour it to help the out the working class as the stats show it does not achieve this.

Well I do favour selection! In fact I think its essential !

Im sure that you as a devout advocate of evolution also endorse its usefulness.
I am working class and by default so are both my offspring, I also know that my son would have passed his 11 plus if he had been given the chance, he was not given that chance because of the absence of a local Grammar school.
Luckily he has also excelled at sixth form college and will be off to Uni in September anyway.

I also know that my son would have passed his 11 plus if he had been given the chance, he was not given that chance because of the absence of a local Grammar school.

😆

Luckily he has also excelled at sixth form college and will be off to Uni in September

Er....I dont get it...what have I missed?

I saw both sides of the coin as a youngster, attending secondary school from the mid 1980s. We moved from Dolgellau to Wirral towards the end of the first year and by the skin of my teeth, I got in to Calday Grange Grammar.

There is no doubt in my mind that Calday pushed me academically so much more and is the reason I came out of secondary education with a decent set of GCSEs and A levels. Things did not go to plan at uni, but that's another story!
My youngster sister benefited from West Kirby Grammar for girls and she came out with a degree from uni. After a few years travelling, she is now part way through a part time, post graduate degree course of a very different nature (much more my cup of tea, biomedical sciences).

It would probably be very different for the lads that had grown up there, but as a newcomer to the area after the first year and being quite introverted, the boys only Grammatical school meant I was very late in discovering girls/women.

But on balance, I would always encourage parents to try and get their children into Grammar schools.

You can chose your school (to an extent) but you can't chose your parents. One has a bigger effect on outcomes than the other.

How can a state funded school be allowed to set an admission test that requires private tutoring to pass?

I've never understood this mindset.

If you need tutoring to get in, you will struggle like anything for the next 5 years.

In effect, you are sentencing your child to 5 years of misery where they will be the least able in school. That's not great, is it?

I've never understood this mindset.

If you need tutoring to get in, you will struggle like anything for the next 5 years.

Surely though if tutoring is the norm then you're still sitting at your own natural level. Btw, can't see us being in a position to tutor privately but if my daughter is keen then we'd coach her ourselves. She is catholic anyway so might just choose to go to the decent comp with most of her classmates.

Tutoring and grammar schools do not go hand in hand, at least they did not for me and my sister.

I've never understood this mindset.

If you need tutoring to get in, you will struggle like anything for the next 5 years.

In effect, you are sentencing your child to 5 years of misery where they will be the least able in school. That's not great, is it?

There is some truth in this. Not all grammar kids are tutored thankfully.

My parents intended to move areas from North Wales to Kent in the summer holidays between my primary and secondary eduction and I did my 11+ with 15 minutes notice (hadn't a scooby what an 11+ was) in my headmaster's office with him gabbling away loudly in welsh on the phone throughout all the tests. It was more of an exercise in testing my ability to block out distraction than anything else!

Also...

he failed, as the national curriculum doesn't prepare you for the 11+

I doubt he did - he 'failed' because he was not bright enough. I'm very glad that 11+ tests deliberately have little to do with the national curriculum. It shouldn't be about how well you have been taught or how well you have retained that national curriculum content. It should be about basic cognitive ability. The 11+ is much more like an alis or midyas test (read as IQ test in rough proximity) than a facts based GCSE exam or an end of key stage test (though there is still some extended writing and bit of maths). The fact there is still merit in being coached with private tuition means it's still not good enough mind you (though it would be interesting to know if it makes much difference).

Tutoring and grammar schools do not go hand in hand

I know. My eldest lad goes to the local one.

A parent dropping his kid off for the test remarked that "at last, we can get our lives back" from all the extra work required to pass.

She didn't get in. Good job, really.

Based on what. The research suggests they are better for the 100kids who get in but make things worse for the thousands who dont.

They make things worse for surrounding schools as they suck in the netter teachers for example. In areas where grammar schools dont exist the less able do better.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2015/03/eleven-grammar-school-myths-and-the-actual-facts

Christopher Cook, while at the Financial Times, gained unique access to student level data for the entire country for 2011. Creating an area called "Selectivia", made up of the larger and more distinct authorities where parents were unlikely to skip across boundaries - Kent, Lincolnshire, Medway and Buckinghamhire, he compared achievement in selective areas to those overall.

“You can see that poor children do dramatically worse in selective areas”, notes Chris Cook. “There is an idea out there in the ether that grammar schools are better for propelling poor children to the very top of the tree. But, again, that is not true. Poor children are less likely to score very highly at GCSE in grammar areas than the rest."

He found that, for the very richest in society, there was a benefit to attending grammar schools. Those in the top 5% by income did better than those in non-selective areas. However those in the bottom 50% for income did, overall, worse in selective areas.

My 2 girls go to the grammar school in Salisbury (totally separate from the boys' school)

Eldest really wanted to go, not quite sure why (I reckon she wanted the "validation"). We live out of their catchment which means our school didn't do any preparation like many of the catchment primaries did (and we had to rely on fewer catchment kids passing the 11+ than there were school places).
We got some sample papers (the tests may be "IQ" tests at least in part but what benefits them is seeing the format) and she had a couple of sessions with a tutor so we could see if they thought she was up to it. (those tuotrs book up REALLY early, btw - we couldn't have had a load of sessions even if we'd wanted to)

She likes the school now but her first 2-3 years there were a rough ride - she didn't take well to the way kids were pressurising themselves/each other and she was only with a couple of kids she'd known before starting. She is NOT the cleverest kid there by a long shot - don't underestimate the effect that could have on some kids

The younger one is some sort of mutant genius, like her bloody mother. We got the same tutor to have a look at her, who said there was no point her taking our money as she'd pass easily. She's having a great time but pissing about a bit and sort of mildly disruptive, I think (but if she's as bad as it gets, then the teaching will be all teaching and not riot control).

Neither of them actually works that hard at their schoolwork. Eldest is doing GCSEs this year & hasn't started any revision yet. School seems to work them pretty hard in lessons but not so much outside that. If your kid's not motivated, they can slack off (or you could call it relaxing) quite a lot I think. I wouldn't call it a hothouse.

I'd say the school doesn't do much non-academic extra-curricular stuff apart from music/choir (little sport, for example - so you'll end up organising that stuff yourselves if your kids want it)

nickc - Member

The elitist snobbery is strong on this thread.

I give you.... [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/14/britain-meritocracy-graduate-earnings-social-mobility?CMP=fb_gu ]Anyone who still thinks Britain is a meritocracy must be deluded[/url]

I can say from personal experience that people in my company are treated differently depending on degree type (Bachelors, Masters etc.). The higher degree you have the higher starting salary and quicker progression independent on work quality...
they also like to have a certain % of people from prestige universities (global top 20) because it looks good on PR releases (everyone likes to see an Oxbridge or Harvard tag). In my experience people I work with are either good or shit irrespective of their background.

You cannot deny elitism is around. If you want to get ahead then you have to use all tools available to you even the ones which may be distasteful.

You cannot deny elitism is around. If you want to get ahead then you have to use all tools available to you even the ones which may be distasteful.

This is true and pushing for the best option for your kids is obviously the right thing to do. Doesnt make Grammar schools right for society too!

If Ms Cosslett is correct then her success as a freelance journalist writing for a world famous newspaper and The Vagabond is either a mirage - she's really crap - or based on other factors.

Odd, I would have thought that it was because her work had merit. Funny old world...

Even odder in our team, everyone has the same basic salary depending on role. But based on merit and performance their final remuneration differs quite widely. Meritocracy in action. Perhaps our team is unique? Doubt it somehow....

I certainly don't see grammar schools as a panacea. I also think that the problems in grammar areas won't be fixed by scrapping grammars, but by sorting the other schools. I'd say Kent & Lincolnshire are 2 of the most deprived rural areas in the uk, so I'm not sure The stats quoted above are purely down to the presence of grammars.

WRT my mates lad who didn't get into Reading boys. If 950/1000 entrants were tutored, and he wasn't, then it was stacked against him. He has just got into Abingdon boys privately, so certainly isn't thick! His mum was idealogically against tutoring - I'd say that's cost her a hell of a lot in school fees.

In Kent, you need to differentiate between grammars who selection catchment, and the superselectives. For example I believe the 11+ pass mark last year was iro 320. My daughter, from out of Kent, needed 380 to get into TOGS, whereas local girls required 360(ish) Tutoring her to achieve the OOC level certainly doesn't mean she will struggle.

Good tutoring is also reinforcement of core learning, exam technique, and teaching kids to focus. None of this is wasted IMHO. In an ideal world, tutoring makes no difference, but the world isn't, and it does. This is the big reason for stopping social mobility, IMHO, but I didn't make the playing field, I just have to play on it.

I also think that the problems in grammar areas won't be fixed by scrapping grammars,

Not on its own no, but it would be a start

Im sure that you as a devout advocate of evolution also endorse its usefulness

Luckily he has also excelled at sixth form college and will be off to Uni in September anyway.

No offence but neither of your points supported your view and both negated it.

Perhaps our team is unique? Doubt it somehow....

Hard to tell some days you are an economics teacher with staff and all your students get A *, others days managing a national force of people caught up in events abroad

Which one of your claims on here is this relating to ? Until then its really hard to say whether this is real or not real.

THM you have pedalled so many you cannot even remember them all yourself 😆

I would say that many companies I have worked for have tried to make promotions and salary dependent on the quality of your work not your starting point but have then applied it in a crappy way.

For instance where I work now you have to get the equivalent of points to get the pay grade change. You get these through quality and diversity of work. Sounds all good.
When you are hired on you get a salary based on the hays guide for you qualification level. So PhDs get more than a masters and so on.
Now if you start with a bachelors you have to wait 2 years before you start to get points to the next grade, 1 year for masters and 0 for PhDs.
It is structured this way as it is assumed that the different qualifications make you more able to do "good" work with less training.
In some respects this is true but the ultimate end is that the people who start with a higher degree if motivated can get the more rewarding tasks quicker and thus progress faster.

For me it is a kick in the balls for people with a bachelors but for the company overall all they care about is getting work out the door to clients who they want to be seen as an elite provider by. I would guess that a fair few on here may have seen the glass ceiling for apprentices and people working their way up in companies. I've seen fantastically able people sidelined because they didn't check all the hr boxes and the system was too rigid to support them..