"Pupils shine brightest at grammar schools"

Watch
This discussion is closed.
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#281
Report 16 years ago
#281
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Does that make sense?
I was trying to get my head around it too - but then I can't get my head around anything tonight... even my own sentences don't seem to make sense.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#282
Report 16 years ago
#282
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
That is completely false and with no evidence. Of course people of good academic ability get into grammars - that is, as you claim, they get such fantastic results despite the fact the comprehensive system is 'better'.
I did not say that gifted children did not go to grammars, I said that very few "uncoached" ones did.
I refer to my Lea for the evidence you say I lack. When they were ofstedded, the report said they were surprised that not many children of "very able" ability (i.e. top 2% of lea population) were attending the grammars. Again, my Lea (wholly selective so the best reference point for evidence of performance of grammars as they have the greatest number) did not get "fantastic" results in their grammars - 4 managed to get 100% A*-C GCSE (out of 33) and at A level they failed to match the national average! The only way to compare the performance of grammars with others is to take the grammars and secondary moderns total aggregate and divide by number of pupils and then compare this with genuine all-ability schools (schools that take the full range of pupils in the accepted ratios of top quartile, middle 50% and lowest quartile).
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#283
Report 16 years ago
#283
Anyway. I got into a state grammar school without any coaching. All I did was do a couple of practice papers at home so I had an idea about what the tests were about.

Some people I know got coaching to get in. Now we're in year 11, they are probably the people falling behind the pace who need extra help.

At least, I think so.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#284
Report 16 years ago
#284
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Does that make sense?
I imagine it would to yawn, but for everyone else:

Yawn/Bigcnee say that grammars only top the league tables because they take in the academically gifted. This is an indisputable poinjt.

Yawn then said:

"There are very few naturally gifted children who get into grammars just on inherent uncoached ability"

Which seems to undermine the main part of his argument. Does he now believe that it is grammars' fantastic teaching standards, not the pupil quality that makes them top the league? In that case, grammars are clearly the best schools.

However yawn does not think this.

In short: Yawn said something very stupid.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#285
Report 16 years ago
#285
(Original post by yawn1)
I did not say that gifted children did not go to grammars, I said that very few "uncoached" ones did.
I refer to my Lea for the evidence you say I lack. When they were ofstedded, the report said they were surprised that not many children of "very able" ability (i.e. top 2% of lea population) were attending the grammars. Again, my Lea (wholly selective so the best reference point for evidence of performance of grammars as they have the greatest number) did not get "fantastic" results in their grammars - 4 managed to get 100% A*-C GCSE (out of 33) and at A level they failed to match the national average! The only way to compare the performance of grammars with others is to take the grammars and secondary moderns total aggregate and divide by number of pupils and then compare this with genuine all-ability schools (schools that take the full range of pupils in the accepted ratios of top quartile, middle 50% and lowest quartile).
Well as you live in the South-East, the most affluent area of the country, and I live in the North-West, one of the poorest regions, snobbery and middle classes coachng their children does not happen en masse here, but it obviously does where you are.
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#286
Report 16 years ago
#286
And when you're talking about very few people getting in uncoached...

I think this is *******s. Most of my friends didn't get special coaching and we are some of the most hard working and well achieving people in our year. (Or at least we do well in exams and coursework while not being as bothered with normal classwork)

So does this mean there are the people who get in without coaching who do really well because they're naturally good at it, and the people who get in with coaching and are only "average" and need support throughout life at grammar school?
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#287
Report 16 years ago
#287
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)

Which seems to undermine the main part of his argument. Does he now believe that it is grammars' fantastic teaching standards, not the pupil quality that makes them top the league? In that case, grammars are clearly the best schools.

However yawn does not think this.

In short: Yawn said something very stupid.
I thought the argument was whether we should keep these schools or not. Or at least mine was. Even I admit that grammars are the best schools but I still think standards should be made equal between the two types of schools.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#288
Report 16 years ago
#288
(Original post by thefish_uk)
And when you're talking about very few people getting in uncoached...

I think this is *******s. Most of my friends didn't get special coaching and we are some of the most hard working and well achieving people in our year. (Or at least we do well in exams and coursework while not being as bothered with normal classwork)

So does this mean there are the people who get in without coaching who do really well because they're naturally good at it, and the people who get in with coaching and are only "average" and need support throughout life at grammar school?
I agree with you. By 'Coaching' is everyone meaning teaching - surely everyone is entitled to that?
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#289
Report 16 years ago
#289
(Original post by happysunshine)
I thought the argument was whether we should keep these schools or not. Or at least mine was. Even I admit that grammars are the best schools but I still think standards should be made equal between the two types of schools.
An argument that has been made before is that grammars are not the best schools, they simply have the best pupils.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#290
Report 16 years ago
#290
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
An argument that has been made before is that grammars are not the best schools, they simply have the best pupils.
Isn't that the same thing? To become a best school, they have to have the best pupils.
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#291
Report 16 years ago
#291
(Original post by happysunshine)
I thought the argument was whether we should keep these schools or not. Or at least mine was. Even I admit that grammars are the best schools but I still think standards should be made equal between the two types of schools.
Standards can't be made equal. It's like expecting both the Higher and Lower Set for maths within your year to get A*.

What we want is for both kinds of schools to have the same opportunities and resources. My school used to be run by grants from a foundation (I don't have a clue where the money came from before that) and since it has been run by the state it hasn't had enough money to play with. But the foundation funding stopped after the huge building programmes where we got all sorts of new facilities such as a nice sports hall and (albeit pretty small) swimming pool.

Then the best kids who want to learn could go to good schools and get pushed further, while the others go to equally well equipped schools even though the people might not be as nice.

The problem with doing this is that you'd end up with the "lower" schools being absolute shitholes with all the new equipment and facilities being disrespected, so even more money has to be spent on them to keep these. And the teachers would be constantly seeking jobs elsewhere, leading to an unstable education for the kids meaning more trouble.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#292
Report 16 years ago
#292
(Original post by happysunshine)
Isn't that the same thing? To become a best school, they have to have the best pupils.
Concerning teaching standards and value added etc
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#293
Report 16 years ago
#293
I'll read your posts tommorow, nothing is making sense to me
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#294
Report 16 years ago
#294
(Original post by happysunshine)
I agree with you. By 'Coaching' is everyone meaning teaching - surely everyone is entitled to that?
"Coaching" is where people in year 6 go off to special classes run in posh hotel suites on Saturday morning where they study each kind of question, to try and make sure they pass the 11+ exam. The exam is designed to test ability at exams generally rather than at that specific type of exam, so less able pupils would improve their technique at it to try and make up for it and get into the school.

They think that anybody to get into the school is really intelligent and will do really well. That isn't the case, as I said. The school used to be discouraging this coaching but they have now removed that comment from their website, probably as a result of complaints.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#295
Report 16 years ago
#295
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
I imagine it would to yawn, but for everyone else:

Yawn/Bigcnee say that grammars only top the league tables because they take in the academically gifted. This is an indisputable poinjt.

Yawn then said:

"There are very few naturally gifted children who get into grammars just on inherent uncoached ability"

Which seems to undermine the main part of his argument. Does he now believe that it is grammars' fantastic teaching standards, not the pupil quality that makes them top the league? In that case, grammars are clearly the best schools.

However yawn does not think this.

In short: Yawn said something very stupid.
BH - you seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being said. You agree with my point that grammars mostly top the league tables because their averages and point scores are arrived at from a very narrow base - 25%. Good we agree on something!
You misread my point about naturally gifted children getting into grammares - I reiterate "without coaching" or transferring to secondary from private primaries - as you did yourself! Some parents consider this a good investment and cheaper than sending their children to private secondary schools.
I have never suggested that "it is grammars fantastic teaching standards that makes them top the league". Give a teacher the 'raw' material and they can get good results and this goes for non-selective schools as well. This does not prove your theory that grammars "are clearly the best", if anything it proves that comps are the best to get such exemplary results against the odds - example is Thomas Telford comp whose results mirror the top grammars with all ability students.
Your comment that "Yawn has said something very stupid" is pompous, demeans you in the eyes of others and does nothing to illustrate your self-implied intelligence.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#296
Report 16 years ago
#296
(Original post by thefish_uk)
"Coaching" is where people in year 6 go off to special classes run in posh hotel suites on Saturday morning where they study each kind of question, to try and make sure they pass the 11+ exam. The exam is designed to test ability at exams generally rather than at that specific type of exam, so less able pupils would improve their technique at it to try and make up for it and get into the school.

They think that anybody to get into the school is really intelligent and will do really well. That isn't the case, as I said. The school used to be discouraging this coaching but they have now removed that comment from their website, probably as a result of complaints.
Oh I see. That is really unfair, but if I was going to try and get into a grammar and I had rich parents I do the same. I'm shocked that people do this - it's worlds away from the life I know. Not that I'm really poor or anything, just working class
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#297
Report 16 years ago
#297
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
Concerning teaching standards and value added etc
Didn't they say that Value Added was to remove the differences in entry standard that grammar schools had? And grammars still came out top for improvement over the 3 years so that means that teaching must be better for kids there?

An alternative is that primary schools like mine didn't push us as far as they could in year 6, saying that extension papers were a waste of time. So wouldn't this mean that the people going into grammar schools might have the same KS2 SATs results as people going into "normal" schools, meaning that the value added thing would be better if the teaching was the same? Think about it... I'm confusing myself now, I can't figure out how to explain it.
0
hattori
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#298
Report 16 years ago
#298
(Original post by happysunshine)
Sometimes it is not possible for a 'gifted' student to go to a grammar school so they have to attend their comprehensive schools. Reasons include: there are often not enough places despite passing the 11+, the school is too far away, the parents aren't able to afford travel costs and the parents are not informed about grammar schools.
did you even read my post, it was about making it easier for people in this position to get their children into grammar schools being the fairer system.
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#299
Report 16 years ago
#299
(Original post by happysunshine)
Oh I see. That is really unfair, but if I was going to try and get into a grammar and I had rich parents I do the same. I'm shocked that people do this - it's worlds away from the life I know. Not that I'm really poor or anything, just working class
I heard that my school totally changed the exam on the morning of the 11+ exam so it was totally different what the people had prepared for. I don't think that was true, but it would be good because it'd give nobody an advantage.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#300
Report 16 years ago
#300
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Didn't they say that Value Added was to remove the differences in entry standard that grammar schools had? And grammars still came out top for improvement over the 3 years so that means that teaching must be better for kids there?

An alternative is that primary schools like mine didn't push us as far as they could in year 6, saying that extension papers were a waste of time. So wouldn't this mean that the people going into grammar schools might have the same KS2 SATs results as people going into "normal" schools, meaning that the value added thing would be better if the teaching was the same? Think about it... I'm confusing myself now, I can't figure out how to explain it.
Value is added now and the results published from Key stage 2 to 3 and Key stage 3 to 4.
The general consensus is that there is more emphasis on preparing for 11+ and that children 'peak' for that (generally in Nove/Jan) and don't prepare in the same way for SATs in the following May. Consequently the children who go to grammars have not reached their potential at KS2 and therefore their standard is increased after 3 years at secondary as they are playing catch-up.
The national picture is changed for value added from Key stage 3 to Key stage 4. The comps charge ahead and consequently add more value during this period.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (46)
8.23%
Confident (73)
13.06%
Indifferent (77)
13.77%
Unsure (147)
26.3%
Worried (216)
38.64%

Watched Threads

View All