Grammar schools

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.

What research? Why do they make things worse for those who don’t get in? What is the impact on the “thousands” if grammar schools don’t exist?

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…. Anyone who still thinks Britain is a meritocracy must be deluded

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

and I am sure you understand its usefulness is to not help the weakest in the gene pool excel so we cannot have “natural selection” to favour the most needy can we 🙄

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

Damn if only we had grammar schools to help out this working class youngster succeed

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..