Grammar schools
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Asterisk49
Well it effects their children who dont go through giving those who do go arguably an unfair advantage because daddy was a banker.
People want more of a meritocracy, where peoples skills are taken into account rather than how rich they are.
As you said, teaching actually goes on at a private school. Would you say that its fair that poorer kids get a lower standard of education than grammar school kids? (and poorer kids are a lot less likely to go btw).
Also you seem like a very snide individual assuming anybody who does not go to a grammar school does not try new things but rather stare at the tv all day after school. Or maybe you are basing this on yourself.
Grammar schools are an unfair disadvantage to anybody who cannot afford them, hence why they want them banned.
There is my opinion.
Posted from TSR Mobile
People want more of a meritocracy, where peoples skills are taken into account rather than how rich they are.
As you said, teaching actually goes on at a private school. Would you say that its fair that poorer kids get a lower standard of education than grammar school kids? (and poorer kids are a lot less likely to go btw).
Also you seem like a very snide individual assuming anybody who does not go to a grammar school does not try new things but rather stare at the tv all day after school. Or maybe you are basing this on yourself.
Grammar schools are an unfair disadvantage to anybody who cannot afford them, hence why they want them banned.
There is my opinion.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Would you say it's fair that the people who work hard and can afford their children a better education should be disadvantaged? Not everyone who goes to a private school has tonnes of cash. My parents went to crappy state schools, but they weren't disillusioned. So in some ways it is an unfair advantage as many kids at my school are spoilt, thick rich kids, but there is a population of intelligent, less rich kids too. And anyway, private schools don't open that many doors, unless its Eton. We've never had many opportunities at my school. I think poorer people like to blame their lack of money on the inflexibility of society, when in fact their families have had generations to come out of the cycle. Of course, it's not as cut and dried as I've just said.
I'm not really sure where I stand on whether we should have grammar schools or not. Now that we don't have entirely different qualification systems (apart from BTECs) like we used to, the issue of kids at non-grammar schools not being allowed to sit decent exams in subjects they were good at is less common, so I think that's tipping me in favour of grammar schools at the moment.
What I absolutely believe, though, is that we should either have grammar schools everywhere or not at all. It is completely unfair on the brightest kids in non-grammar counties who see their peers in other counties having a much better educational experience and having more opportunities just because of where they live (and yes, I am biased and jealous!) That just seems beyond unfair.
What I absolutely believe, though, is that we should either have grammar schools everywhere or not at all. It is completely unfair on the brightest kids in non-grammar counties who see their peers in other counties having a much better educational experience and having more opportunities just because of where they live (and yes, I am biased and jealous!) That just seems beyond unfair.
I am against because I personally suffered as a result. There was a grammar school in my area. I did not sit the exam myself although one or two of my classmates did. The result was all the middle class parents tried their best to get their children into the grammar school and the other schools in the area ended up with the dregs. If you fail you feel are a failure and many children develop later so they are unfair.
The reason there was a huge campaign to abolish grammar schools was because it precisely did not, nor could ever do , what it said on the tin.
It was based on a flawed piece of research that claimed IQ was immutable. You just had to find a test that uncovered it in each pupil and Bob's your uncle! One of the questions in an early 11+ was about the difference between a parlour maid and a ladies' maid!
Children born in the later part of the academic year were disadvantaged; lots of perfectly good children had their lives blighted by being labelled a failure at 11; once you got to a Secondary Modern school , you often followed quite a different curriculum than the pupils in a Grammar school , making it next to impossible to change.
The heart break in families when one child made it to Grammar school and another didn't created rifts which in some cases never healed.
The most successful educational systems in the world eg Finland are comprehensive.
The whole point of a grammar school system is to limit the life choices of the majority of children.
For every working class child it helps, it hinders another 10 by relegating them to a Secondary Modern school. It is a most pernicious system for everyone caught up in it.
The reason Margaret Thatcher didn't bring back Grammar schools over most of the country , was she knew it would be huge vote loser. The pressure for Comprehensive Education came above all from parents who didn't want their children to go through what they had gone through.
It was based on a flawed piece of research that claimed IQ was immutable. You just had to find a test that uncovered it in each pupil and Bob's your uncle! One of the questions in an early 11+ was about the difference between a parlour maid and a ladies' maid!
Children born in the later part of the academic year were disadvantaged; lots of perfectly good children had their lives blighted by being labelled a failure at 11; once you got to a Secondary Modern school , you often followed quite a different curriculum than the pupils in a Grammar school , making it next to impossible to change.
The heart break in families when one child made it to Grammar school and another didn't created rifts which in some cases never healed.
The most successful educational systems in the world eg Finland are comprehensive.
The whole point of a grammar school system is to limit the life choices of the majority of children.
For every working class child it helps, it hinders another 10 by relegating them to a Secondary Modern school. It is a most pernicious system for everyone caught up in it.
The reason Margaret Thatcher didn't bring back Grammar schools over most of the country , was she knew it would be huge vote loser. The pressure for Comprehensive Education came above all from parents who didn't want their children to go through what they had gone through.
I'm in favour of a modern co-educational selective system (not a return to grammars and secondary moderns). I'd like to pick up a few points on this post that I don't think are particularly fair or balanced.
And comprehensive education is any better? It promised to address the inequalities in the previous system, but we now have shocking levels of social inequality (unseen during the tripartite system post-war) and an education system where outcomes appear to be entirely based on your parents wealth and property buying power.
It was based on a flawed piece of research that claimed IQ was immutable. You just had to find a test that uncovered it in each pupil and Bob's your uncle! One of the questions in an early 11+ was about the difference between a parlour maid and a ladies' maid!
I agree, the idea of one entry point at 11 and the culturally and socially biased testing that went on were completely wrong. Any future system would need to be more flexible.
Children born in the later part of the academic year were disadvantaged; lots of perfectly good children had their lives blighted by being labelled a failure at 11; once you got to a Secondary Modern school , you often followed quite a different curriculum than the pupils in a Grammar school , making it next to impossible to change.
See comment above. The disadvantage of late birthers still exists in our comprehensive system.
The heart break in families when one child made it to Grammar school and another didn't created rifts which in some cases never healed.
This is hardly universal or provable. As someone who has been in this exact situation, it was a complete non-issue for our family.
Is Finland the most successful education system in the world? Depends on what stats you look at. Their results in mathematics according to the TIMSS survey have declined dramatically over the last 10 years, for example. Also, at sixth form level, the Finnish system is almost entirely selective.
Sadly, this may have been the outcome of the old tripartite system, but it certainly wasn't the objective of the grammar school, which was to educate the brightest (at the time of testing) portion of the local children to a high academic standard. The effects are clear to see in the presence of ex-grammar school pupils in high public office, leading business positions, senior legal and medical positions. I fear that, as a result of the poor implementation of comprehensive education in this country that we will now begin a return to these positions being entirely dominated by privately educated individuals.
That presupposes that a modern Grammar requires the underfunded and neglected secondary modern alongside it. There is no need to repeat such a failure in a modern system.
I absolutely agree and this opinion is still alive and well today to often irrational extents. I've been in parent forums at my daughter's school where the fact that streaming exists is constantly criticised with real hatred and venom. Unfortunately the hard truth is that not all people are the same and that some a more academically capable than others. To try and shoe-horn everyone in to the same educational model necessary leads to a race to mediocrity, especially when combined with rigid targets. This is why we see comprehensive school round the country spend additional resources (and even offering financial incentives!) on pupils that are at the C/D grade boundary at GCSE whereas those above it (and below it) are often neglected and not supported to reach their full potential.
In my view, selective education should not be about selecting the 'best' pupils out of the pack and spending all your time on them, it should be about providing high quality education for all that maximises the opportunities for individuals to reach their full potential. In my view this requires a range of educational institutions that have clear & compatible objectives and can focus on being excellent in their respective areas.
Original post by pickup
The reason there was a huge campaign to abolish grammar schools was because it precisely did not, nor could ever do , what it said on the tin.
And comprehensive education is any better? It promised to address the inequalities in the previous system, but we now have shocking levels of social inequality (unseen during the tripartite system post-war) and an education system where outcomes appear to be entirely based on your parents wealth and property buying power.
It was based on a flawed piece of research that claimed IQ was immutable. You just had to find a test that uncovered it in each pupil and Bob's your uncle! One of the questions in an early 11+ was about the difference between a parlour maid and a ladies' maid!
I agree, the idea of one entry point at 11 and the culturally and socially biased testing that went on were completely wrong. Any future system would need to be more flexible.
Children born in the later part of the academic year were disadvantaged; lots of perfectly good children had their lives blighted by being labelled a failure at 11; once you got to a Secondary Modern school , you often followed quite a different curriculum than the pupils in a Grammar school , making it next to impossible to change.
See comment above. The disadvantage of late birthers still exists in our comprehensive system.
The heart break in families when one child made it to Grammar school and another didn't created rifts which in some cases never healed.
This is hardly universal or provable. As someone who has been in this exact situation, it was a complete non-issue for our family.
The most successful educational systems in the world eg Finland are comprehensive.
Is Finland the most successful education system in the world? Depends on what stats you look at. Their results in mathematics according to the TIMSS survey have declined dramatically over the last 10 years, for example. Also, at sixth form level, the Finnish system is almost entirely selective.
The whole point of a grammar school system is to limit the life choices of the majority of children.
Sadly, this may have been the outcome of the old tripartite system, but it certainly wasn't the objective of the grammar school, which was to educate the brightest (at the time of testing) portion of the local children to a high academic standard. The effects are clear to see in the presence of ex-grammar school pupils in high public office, leading business positions, senior legal and medical positions. I fear that, as a result of the poor implementation of comprehensive education in this country that we will now begin a return to these positions being entirely dominated by privately educated individuals.
For every working class child it helps, it hinders another 10 by relegating them to a Secondary Modern school. It is a most pernicious system for everyone caught up in it.
That presupposes that a modern Grammar requires the underfunded and neglected secondary modern alongside it. There is no need to repeat such a failure in a modern system.
The reason Margaret Thatcher didn't bring back Grammar schools over most of the country , was she knew it would be huge vote loser. The pressure for Comprehensive Education came above all from parents who didn't want their children to go through what they had gone through.
I absolutely agree and this opinion is still alive and well today to often irrational extents. I've been in parent forums at my daughter's school where the fact that streaming exists is constantly criticised with real hatred and venom. Unfortunately the hard truth is that not all people are the same and that some a more academically capable than others. To try and shoe-horn everyone in to the same educational model necessary leads to a race to mediocrity, especially when combined with rigid targets. This is why we see comprehensive school round the country spend additional resources (and even offering financial incentives!) on pupils that are at the C/D grade boundary at GCSE whereas those above it (and below it) are often neglected and not supported to reach their full potential.
In my view, selective education should not be about selecting the 'best' pupils out of the pack and spending all your time on them, it should be about providing high quality education for all that maximises the opportunities for individuals to reach their full potential. In my view this requires a range of educational institutions that have clear & compatible objectives and can focus on being excellent in their respective areas.
(edited 10 years ago)
'it should be about providing high quality education for all that maximises the opportunities for individuals to reach their full potential. In my view this requires a range of educational institutions that have clear & compatible objectives and can focus on being excellent in their respective areas. '
This exactly what the Grammar/ Secondary modern system claimed to do. It didn't.
The problem is selection. How do you do it, when do you do it, without disadvantaging whole swathes of children?
One of the ways you don't disadvantage children is by keeping them in the same educational establishment until the late developers and those born later in the year have had a chance to catch up. The view of Manchester Grammar School 50 plus years ago eg. was that it took approximately to age 15 for this to happen.
For this reason it was decided that a comprehensive school offering broadly the same sort of education to all to 15/16 would be appropriate. The point of a school system is to open up new horizons for children not to keep them confined in any system of disadvantage they may start with.
By mixing up children from all backgrounds a true comprehensive school benefits everyone. It shows those from educationally poorer homes what is on offer and shows those from more advantaged homes to respect and understand those less well off than themselves. A win win situation.
Children who play together, learn together, work together are less likely to have weird ideas about people who start from different places than themselves.
We have learned, haven't we (?) that dividing children artificially on grounds of religion ( Northern Ireland) only prolongs the divisions in society. Dividing children on spurious grounds of educational aptitude is no less dangerous. It leads the 'chosen' to think they are superior , more worthy of having their opinions listened to; that others are 'not like them', don't need the things they need.
It leads those who are not chosen to carry chips on their shoulders for years, to lack confidence, to think they are unworthy of consideration, that they are for ever pressing their noses up against the window but never being able to take part.
By all means offer options after 16. Anyone who has taught knows that unfortunately it is only after 14/15 that many children start to leave behind them their adolescent bad behavior and become more mature and able to make considered choices.
For this reason I am against too much choice before 16 as it gives pupils an opportunity to miss out on very important subjects and therefore subjects that may limit their future.
The real problem in our schools is funding; especially for staffing. Our local prep school has approximately 12 children in each class. Virtually no state primary school can do that across the board. Many schools are still desperately short of books, facilities and equipment. It is not because state school pupils are without talent ( see Jessica Ennis) that they didn't feature as much as private school pupils in the Olympics. It was that they didn't have the chance.
This exactly what the Grammar/ Secondary modern system claimed to do. It didn't.
The problem is selection. How do you do it, when do you do it, without disadvantaging whole swathes of children?
One of the ways you don't disadvantage children is by keeping them in the same educational establishment until the late developers and those born later in the year have had a chance to catch up. The view of Manchester Grammar School 50 plus years ago eg. was that it took approximately to age 15 for this to happen.
For this reason it was decided that a comprehensive school offering broadly the same sort of education to all to 15/16 would be appropriate. The point of a school system is to open up new horizons for children not to keep them confined in any system of disadvantage they may start with.
By mixing up children from all backgrounds a true comprehensive school benefits everyone. It shows those from educationally poorer homes what is on offer and shows those from more advantaged homes to respect and understand those less well off than themselves. A win win situation.
Children who play together, learn together, work together are less likely to have weird ideas about people who start from different places than themselves.
We have learned, haven't we (?) that dividing children artificially on grounds of religion ( Northern Ireland) only prolongs the divisions in society. Dividing children on spurious grounds of educational aptitude is no less dangerous. It leads the 'chosen' to think they are superior , more worthy of having their opinions listened to; that others are 'not like them', don't need the things they need.
It leads those who are not chosen to carry chips on their shoulders for years, to lack confidence, to think they are unworthy of consideration, that they are for ever pressing their noses up against the window but never being able to take part.
By all means offer options after 16. Anyone who has taught knows that unfortunately it is only after 14/15 that many children start to leave behind them their adolescent bad behavior and become more mature and able to make considered choices.
For this reason I am against too much choice before 16 as it gives pupils an opportunity to miss out on very important subjects and therefore subjects that may limit their future.
The real problem in our schools is funding; especially for staffing. Our local prep school has approximately 12 children in each class. Virtually no state primary school can do that across the board. Many schools are still desperately short of books, facilities and equipment. It is not because state school pupils are without talent ( see Jessica Ennis) that they didn't feature as much as private school pupils in the Olympics. It was that they didn't have the chance.
Original post by pickup
'it should be about providing high quality education for all that maximises the opportunities for individuals to reach their full potential. In my view this requires a range of educational institutions that have clear & compatible objectives and can focus on being excellent in their respective areas. '
This exactly what the Grammar/ Secondary modern system claimed to do. It didn't.
This exactly what the Grammar/ Secondary modern system claimed to do. It didn't.
But that doesn't mean selection can't work, nor that the old tripartite system is the only way of doing it. All I know is that the comprehensive system does not achieve excellence either and doesn't improve social mobility as it was claimed it would do.
The problem is selection. How do you do it, when do you do it, without disadvantaging whole swathes of children?
You can't avoid some form of written assessment, but I think that one point of entry at 11 isn't appropriate, the addition of a further entry point (or points) would be better.
One of the ways you don't disadvantage children is by keeping them in the same educational establishment until the late developers and those born later in the year have had a chance to catch up. The view of Manchester Grammar School 50 plus years ago eg. was that it took approximately to age 15 for this to happen.
I'd like to see the evidence of this. Surely the best way to benefit people is to give them an education that is appropriate for them? In the system you propose, you either must slow down to allow the late developers opportunities, this damaging the early developers, or you keep going at pace making it difficult for those late developers to catch up.
For this reason it was decided that a comprehensive school offering broadly the same sort of education to all to 15/16 would be appropriate. The point of a school system is to open up new horizons for children not to keep them confined in any system of disadvantage they may start with.
But it doesn't work! People's futures are almost entirely dominated by their parent's postcodes. Quite how you can defend such a system in the face of the damning evidence about the lack of social mobility and poor outcomes for poorer students is beyond me.
By mixing up children from all backgrounds a true comprehensive school benefits everyone. It shows those from educationally poorer homes what is on offer and shows those from more advantaged homes to respect and understand those less well off than themselves. A win win situation.
In order to do this, we would need to bus children across towns and cities. We would also need to dismantle the private sector. Neither will ever happen. I'd rather you proposed a real, workable solution rather than an egalitarian ideal.
Children who play together, learn together, work together are less likely to have weird ideas about people who start from different places than themselves.
Is there peer-reviewed evidence to back this up? What about cliques? What about external social factors.
We have learned, haven't we (?) that dividing children artificially on grounds of religion ( Northern Ireland) only prolongs the divisions in society.
The situation in Northern Ireland is highly complex and involves many factors. However, sectarian division is entirely different to educational selection. If we want to talk about Northern Ireland lets talk about one of the last parts of the UK that has a selective education system and the standards that it achieved (which were are higher than in England).
Dividing children on spurious grounds of educational aptitude is no less dangerous. It leads the 'chosen' to think they are superior , more worthy of having their opinions listened to; that others are 'not like them', don't need the things they need.
It leads those who are not chosen to carry chips on their shoulders for years, to lack confidence, to think they are unworthy of consideration, that they are for ever pressing their noses up against the window but never being able to take part.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But, as nice a story as this is, there isn't actually any real evidence (in the form of proper studies, not anecdotal testimony or subjective one-off judgments) that any of this is true in all cases or even important. The real world of work tends to knock the stuffing out of most people (apart from the protected privately educated elite, that is) pretty quickly. Also, the real world is unrelentingly competitive and highly selective, we should at least be aiming to control children's exposure to this rather than hide them from it in a false egalitarian paradise.
By all means offer options after 16. Anyone who has taught knows that unfortunately it is only after 14/15 that many children start to leave behind them their adolescent bad behavior and become more mature and able to make considered choices.
But in the meantime (up to 16) we should accept the continued disruption of classes by pupils who don't want to or can't learn in the standardised comprehensive fashion (or that these pupils are condemned to PRUs) and inversely frustrate the academically talented by forcing them to tread water.
For this reason I am against too much choice before 16 as it gives pupils an opportunity to miss out on very important subjects and therefore subjects that may limit their future.
Well, that's why you have limited choice. It isn't black and white.
The real problem in our schools is funding; especially for staffing. Our local prep school has approximately 12 children in each class. Virtually no state primary school can do that across the board. Many schools are still desperately short of books, facilities and equipment. It is not because state school pupils are without talent ( see Jessica Ennis) that they didn't feature as much as private school pupils in the Olympics. It was that they didn't have the chance.
Funding is the key to any education system. But I believe that the most efficient way to get excellence is to fund a system of institutions that have specific educational goals that they can focus on properly rather than trying to be all things to all people.
Original post by jsmithy11
I personally think that all schools should be private, hard working people should not be forced to subsidise the rest.
I presume you mean rich people.
You make Michael Grove seem progressive!!! 
The very idea of schools in the first place was so children from ordinary backgrounds could learn to read and write etc. A lot of private schools such as Eton, were surprisingly enough set up for this very reason (the rich had their children what would nowadays be called home schooled).
The very idea of schools in the first place was so children from ordinary backgrounds could learn to read and write etc. A lot of private schools such as Eton, were surprisingly enough set up for this very reason (the rich had their children what would nowadays be called home schooled).Original post by winningjojo
I don't believe that the same culture and attitude to education is instilled in those who don't attend a grammar school.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I somewhat object to the idea that because I attended a comp my attitude towards education is somehow inferior to yours because you attended a grammar. I'd like to think that I'm perfectly capable of wanting to perform well regardless of the school I went to, though maybe I'm wrong and have in fact been underachieving throughout my education.
Generally I don't see what is achieved by having grammars that isn't achieved by setting within comprehensive schools. Also, surely it creates problems for some subjects where the best may be split across the grammars and secondary moderns and thus can't compete with each other, eg. PE? Even with some academic subjects, I'd hope I'd be grammar standard at English, History etc. (from what I gather it's the top 5% in most modern grammars, not sure if this is the historical target figure though) but imagine I'd struggle in, say, Maths. Comp streaming allows for the flexibility for people to be in the class that suits them in each subject, rather than being segregated off into different schools.
(edited 10 years ago)
This thread is full of misconceptions.
Firstly, a great number of grammars are free to attend. They're not all private schools!
Yes, lots of children go to private primary schools and their parents pay so much for tuition - BUT in my experience, a lot of these private school / tutored kids don't pass the entrance exam. If you're intelligent enough, you will get in. Maybe it gives them a small advantage, but so does having parents who are not rich, but just willing to sit with you and practice some questions.
Do people not understand that money can't buy intelligence?
I went to a comprehensive, then grammar for A levels - my brother was at a grammar all the way. Neither of us paid fees, neither of us had tuition.
Firstly, a great number of grammars are free to attend. They're not all private schools!
Yes, lots of children go to private primary schools and their parents pay so much for tuition - BUT in my experience, a lot of these private school / tutored kids don't pass the entrance exam. If you're intelligent enough, you will get in. Maybe it gives them a small advantage, but so does having parents who are not rich, but just willing to sit with you and practice some questions.
Do people not understand that money can't buy intelligence?
I went to a comprehensive, then grammar for A levels - my brother was at a grammar all the way. Neither of us paid fees, neither of us had tuition.
Original post by TheRandomer
This thread is full of misconceptions.
Firstly, a great number of grammars are free to attend. They're not all private schools!
Yes, lots of children go to private primary schools and their parents pay so much for tuition - BUT in my experience, a lot of these private school / tutored kids don't pass the entrance exam. If you're intelligent enough, you will get in. Maybe it gives them a small advantage, but so does having parents who are not rich, but just willing to sit with you and practice some questions.
Do people not understand that money can't buy intelligence?
I went to a comprehensive, then grammar for A levels - my brother was at a grammar all the way. Neither of us paid fees, neither of us had tuition.
Firstly, a great number of grammars are free to attend. They're not all private schools!
Yes, lots of children go to private primary schools and their parents pay so much for tuition - BUT in my experience, a lot of these private school / tutored kids don't pass the entrance exam. If you're intelligent enough, you will get in. Maybe it gives them a small advantage, but so does having parents who are not rich, but just willing to sit with you and practice some questions.
Do people not understand that money can't buy intelligence?
I went to a comprehensive, then grammar for A levels - my brother was at a grammar all the way. Neither of us paid fees, neither of us had tuition.
I think this may depend on location. In places like Bucks and Kent where there is a grammar system this may work, but for super selective schools in Surrey or London like Latymer or Wilson's, where hundreds of kids may be separated by 10% and you need 97/98 to actually get in, then tuition is virtually essential, as exam technique gets you a few extra vital %.
Original post by roh
I think this may depend on location. In places like Bucks and Kent where there is a grammar system this may work, but for super selective schools in Surrey or London like Latymer or Wilson's, where hundreds of kids may be separated by 10% and you need 97/98 to actually get in, then tuition is virtually essential, as exam technique gets you a few extra vital %.
Well that's probably a supply and demand issue.
Original post by roh
I think this may depend on location. In places like Bucks and Kent where there is a grammar system this may work, but for super selective schools in Surrey or London like Latymer or Wilson's, where hundreds of kids may be separated by 10% and you need 97/98 to actually get in, then tuition is virtually essential, as exam technique gets you a few extra vital %.
Ok well there are loads more grammar schools than those in London, they're a bit of an extreme example. I went to one in Liverpool. When my brother took the exam it was extremely competitive to get in - but plenty of people with tuition actually performed worse than those who didn't have it.
Original post by TheRandomer
Ok well there are loads more grammar schools than those in London, they're a bit of an extreme example. I went to one in Liverpool. When my brother took the exam it was extremely competitive to get in - but plenty of people with tuition actually performed worse than those who didn't have it.
Yes, but within places like London or Surrey where grammars aren't limited by catchment, it has, according to friends who went to schools like Latymer and Henrietta Barnet, pretty much reached the point where virtually everyone who gets in was tutored, although many who were tutored don't, as so much depends on finding those extra 3-4 marks to go from 94/95-98/99.
I was just trying to show why people may associate grammars with being tutored, because the grammars where they live are the 'super selectives', rather than the more traditional grammars of counties still running the tripartite system like Kent and Buckinghamshire.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by roh
Yes, but within places like London or Surrey where grammars aren't limited by catchment, it has, according to friends who went to schools like Latymer and Henrietta Barnet, pretty much reached the point where virtually everyone who gets in was tutored, although many who were tutored don't, as so much depends on finding those extra 3-4 marks to go from 94/95-98/99.
I was just trying to show why people may associate grammars with being tutored, because the grammars where they live are the 'super selectives', rather than the more traditional grammars of counties still running the tripartite system like Kent and Buckinghamshire.
I was just trying to show why people may associate grammars with being tutored, because the grammars where they live are the 'super selectives', rather than the more traditional grammars of counties still running the tripartite system like Kent and Buckinghamshire.
But what about the grammar school where you don't even have to pass the 11+!
21 places above Latymer in this league table lies Boston High School, a girl's grammar school in Lincolnshire.
Here is its admissions FAQ
http://www.bostonhighschool.co.uk/site/files/11plus/faqs.pdf
Selected highlights:-
There is no guarantee that any applicant will ‘pass’ the 11+ test. The test is norm referenced, so it aims to take the top 25% of each cohort. That means that there isn’t a set level of ability needed…she simply needs to do better than other pupils in her year group! As an indication, if she is currently getting Level 4s and 5s at primary school, then she is likely to do well in the tests, though there is not a direct correlation between the tests and Key Stage 2 scores.
If she hasn’t ‘passed’, is there anything I can do about it?
Yes there is. All parents have the right of appeal against the decision not to admit pupils based on the 11+ test outcomes. Indeed, if you and your daughter’s primary school teacher(s) feel that your daughter is of an appropriate ability level to succeed at Boston High School, then you should appeal. That discussion with your daughter’s primary school should be held when the outcomes are posted to you in October, as you will be nominating Boston High School as your school of choice on your preference form in order to be able to make the appeal later. This does mean that, if unsuccessful at appeal, you will be allocated a school by the Local Authority.
In past years, many pupils have entered Boston High School on appeal and have gone on to achieve excellent GCSE and A Level results and subsequently gone to university. No test can accurately predict the ability levels of all candidates sitting it, and it would be wrong not to take into account what you and your daughter’s primary school already know about her if she should simply have ‘had a bad day’ for the tests, so should she not ‘pass’, then please do exercise your right to appeal. As we have two single-sex grammar schools serving the town, we have not traditionally had the over-subscription problems facing some other grammar schools in the country, so there have been places available for those deemed suitable by the independent Appeals Panel.
Original post by nulli tertius
But what about the grammar school where you don't even have to pass the 11+!
21 places above Latymer in this league table lies Boston High School, a girl's grammar school in Lincolnshire.
Here is its admissions FAQ
http://www.bostonhighschool.co.uk/site/files/11plus/faqs.pdf
Selected highlights:-
21 places above Latymer in this league table lies Boston High School, a girl's grammar school in Lincolnshire.
Here is its admissions FAQ
http://www.bostonhighschool.co.uk/site/files/11plus/faqs.pdf
Selected highlights:-
Seems like something of a back door for the well informed/sharp elbowed middle classes to me, but maybe I'm just cynical...
Also, surely if they just take the top 25% they are always full?!
Original post by roh
Seems like something of a back door for the well informed/sharp elbowed middle classes to me, but maybe I'm just cynical...
I am sure it is, but I don't think that matters so much when it would otherwise be an empty desk.
Also, surely if they just take the top 25% they are always full?!
No because the school capacity is obviously greater than that proportion of the top 25% of pupils in the locality who want to go there.
Original post by ChemistBoy
That presupposes that a modern Grammar requires the underfunded and neglected secondary modern alongside it. There is no need to repeat such a failure in a modern system.
That presupposes that a modern Grammar requires the underfunded and neglected secondary modern alongside it. There is no need to repeat such a failure in a modern system.
Totally agreed. When I was 8 or 9 the secondary modern opposite the grammar school I went to (I'm 19 now) was in Special Measures and did really really badly. It now gets 54% 5 good GCSEs which is a lot better than even some comprehensives, and it regularly produces 10 or 20 students with GCSE grades to rival those at grammars who tend to move on to grammars for Sixth Form.
I absolutely agree and this opinion is still alive and well today to often irrational extents. I've been in parent forums at my daughter's school where the fact that streaming exists is constantly criticised with real hatred and venom. Unfortunately the hard truth is that not all people are the same and that some a more academically capable than others. To try and shoe-horn everyone in to the same educational model necessary leads to a race to mediocrity, especially when combined with rigid targets. This is why we see comprehensive school round the country spend additional resources (and even offering financial incentives!) on pupils that are at the C/D grade boundary at GCSE whereas those above it (and below it) are often neglected and not supported to reach their full potential.
SO MUCH AGREEMENT. It was absolutely lovely to move on to grammar school from primary and no longer have to suffer the 11-year-olds who couldn't do basic sums or string a coherent sentence together.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Are grammar school sixth forms better?
- Should we scrap all grammar schools or build new ones?
- Grammar School - A Level
- Grammar or state
- how to get a conditional offer for a grammar school sixth form?
- advice for moving schools for sixth form??
- Grammar or private sixth form with scholarship?
- Is grammar school actually better?
- help!! regular sixth form or grammar?
- Set maths
- Best Neighbourhoods For Secondary Schooling In Bucks & Hertfordshire counties?
- GCSE
- Is having 11+ exams in September too early for kids after summer hols?
- Leaving friends for a better school
- Should I consider switching to a grammar (state school) for sixth form?
- Grammar school
- A - level subject choices
- Sixth form
- Grammar school sixth form or college?
- Really great state sixth form or a good grammar school?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
