The eleven plus - getting into grammar school?
Discussion
StevieBee said:
In very simplistic terms, a grammar school selects those students on the basis of their academic capacity so that you end up with a year of pupils whose average level of capacity and propensity for learning is greater than you would find in a state school. As result, the rate, breadth and depth of learning is greater in a grammar school compared to state.
That is not to say that state schools are bad. Far from it. But they have to cater for a wider variety of competency levels. This means it is more difficult for the higher-capability students in state schools to fully achieve their potential.
Locally, the grammar schools are "state schools".That is not to say that state schools are bad. Far from it. But they have to cater for a wider variety of competency levels. This means it is more difficult for the higher-capability students in state schools to fully achieve their potential.
Amateurish said:
It's definitely the fact that they are cherry picking the students at year 7. My son's grammar tries to provide a private school style education which means subjects like Mandarin and Latin in Year 7 and mandatory rugby + cricket (no football) plus things like fencing.
Well, they're cherry picking from those who apply, I think we'd be naive to think that some of the smartest naturally gifted people never sit the exam - however, the true value is the environment that being selective and having enthused staff brings. Add that to the fact they have a much higher chance through facilities and time (smaller classes etc) to nurture/find in the first place any area where a child may excel, that's why these kids will over index for success later. There will be smart kids that do the same/better things outside of that school, but the chances for distraction/going off the rails when you're surrounded by a total cross section of society are going to be stratospheric compared to a selective environment.It is why IMO when a kid comes out and does amazing stuff having not been in any of the above environments, they're clearly hugely impressive. And this is a big challenge of the fancy schools etc, they want people to know that you don't have to be put off applying, if your child is truly gifted, we'll pay them through, but you have to want to enter that process/know it exists in the first place. Eton I believe mention something along these lines in their bursary page.
It is unclear whether selective schools "add value" to academic achievement through their selection. It groups the academically brighter (although some people might have a bad exam day, parents who don't enter them for it, no prep etc.) pupils from an area together.
Streaming and setting withing a non-selective school worked for me and many others.
Streaming and setting withing a non-selective school worked for me and many others.
Amateurish said:
Countdown said:
But how much of that ^^^ is based on the fact that the Grammar school selects higher-ability students in the first place? To put it another way is it actually the "depth and breadth of learning" that results in GS pupils that results in the higher professional jobs OR the fact that they're cherry picking the best students at age 11?
In terms of "depth and breadth of learning" we were still doing Latin when the students in the local Comprehensive were doing "Design and Technology"
It's definitely the fact that they are cherry picking the students at year 7. My son's grammar tries to provide a private school style education which means subjects like Mandarin and Latin in Year 7 and mandatory rugby + cricket (no football) plus things like fencing. In terms of "depth and breadth of learning" we were still doing Latin when the students in the local Comprehensive were doing "Design and Technology"
Countdown said:
But how much of that ^^^ is based on the fact that the Grammar school selects higher-ability students in the first place? To put it another way is it actually the "depth and breadth of learning" that results in GS pupils that results in the higher professional jobs OR the fact that they're cherry picking the best students at age 11?
It's a feedback effect. Less time spent dealing with disruptive kids (but when they're disruptive, they can be complete b*stards)or ones who can'tcope with the basics, as well as less variation in capability, so the teacher puts less effort into a diverse lesson plan, and more into stretching themselves and the kids.Countdown said:
StevieBee said:
In very simplistic terms, a grammar school selects those students on the basis of their academic capacity so that you end up with a year of pupils whose average level of capacity and propensity for learning is greater than you would find in a state school. As result, the rate, breadth and depth of learning is greater in a grammar school compared to state.
That is not to say that state schools are bad. Far from it. But they have to cater for a wider variety of competency levels. This means it is more difficult for the higher-capability students in state schools to fully achieve their potential.
A simple analogy is to consider the difference between a college (state) and a university (grammar).
My daughter went to a grammar school, my son went to state school so we had the benefit of observing both. Looking at my Daughter (now 26) and all her old school chums (most of whom she is still friendly with), all of them are now in what you might classify as ‘higher-professional’ jobs. I remember when she got in I said to my wife that that’s that - we would not have to worry about bailing her out or forking out for a deposit on her house and the like. And so it has been proven to be the case.
My son (now 22) is doing OK as a Personal Trainer. Looking at his old school mates most of whom he chooses not to engage with that much, the variety of routes they’ve ended up on is far more variable; roofers, builders, mechanics, estate agents (and there’s no shame in any of these) and not a few that have lost their way in life completely.
But how much of that ^^^ is based on the fact that the Grammar school selects higher-ability students in the first place? To put it another way is it actually the "depth and breadth of learning" that results in GS pupils that results in the higher professional jobs OR the fact that they're cherry picking the best students at age 11?That is not to say that state schools are bad. Far from it. But they have to cater for a wider variety of competency levels. This means it is more difficult for the higher-capability students in state schools to fully achieve their potential.
A simple analogy is to consider the difference between a college (state) and a university (grammar).
My daughter went to a grammar school, my son went to state school so we had the benefit of observing both. Looking at my Daughter (now 26) and all her old school chums (most of whom she is still friendly with), all of them are now in what you might classify as ‘higher-professional’ jobs. I remember when she got in I said to my wife that that’s that - we would not have to worry about bailing her out or forking out for a deposit on her house and the like. And so it has been proven to be the case.
My son (now 22) is doing OK as a Personal Trainer. Looking at his old school mates most of whom he chooses not to engage with that much, the variety of routes they’ve ended up on is far more variable; roofers, builders, mechanics, estate agents (and there’s no shame in any of these) and not a few that have lost their way in life completely.
Countdown said:
That reminded me. We had hockey and cricket - it meant that our "Inter-school" games were with private schools like Rossall and Knutsford rather than the local Secondaries. [Good thing as well as we would have ended up getting our heads kicked in!)
Knutsford isn't private.We were a comprehensive former grammar school who took sport seriously and played rugby and cricket and cross-country running against the private schools and grammar schools of NW England.
StevieBee said:
One comes with the other. The ability to distil higher calibre learning can only be done if you have a group of naturally higher calibre students who can only be selected through a system of testing. I wouldn't use the word 'cherry picking' as this suggests a level of arbitrary choice which isn't the case. It’s selection based upon proven ability.
Streaming by ability with non-grammar schools can have a similar effect, but mixing abilities leads to lowest common denominator teaching.In mixed ability classes, the less able kids obviously need more help, leading to neglect of the more able.
loafer123 said:
StevieBee said:
One comes with the other. The ability to distil higher calibre learning can only be done if you have a group of naturally higher calibre students who can only be selected through a system of testing. I wouldn't use the word 'cherry picking' as this suggests a level of arbitrary choice which isn't the case. It’s selection based upon proven ability.
Streaming by ability with non-grammar schools can have a similar effect, but mixing abilities leads to lowest common denominator teaching.In mixed ability classes, the less able kids obviously need more help, leading to neglect of the more able.
Streaming and setting (classes) for subject worked fine for the brighter kids at my comp. The lower sets sometimes sounded like a riot taking place.
MC Bodge said:
Countdown said:
That reminded me. We had hockey and cricket - it meant that our "Inter-school" games were with private schools like Rossall and Knutsford rather than the local Secondaries. [Good thing as well as we would have ended up getting our heads kicked in!)
Knutsford isn't private.(a) It was a boarding school in Cheshire
(b) In the after-game meal you could have literally as many fish fingers as you wanted (as opposed to being limited to just two at our school). It was my first experience of how the other half lived.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This isn't quite the complete picture. There are some so called "super selective" grammar schools which essentially demand a near perfect score, so if you like there are two games being played, scoring highly enough to get into a selective school, or getting a higher score to have the option of a super selective.The point about a hard limit on seat numbers is generally true though. Selective schools are forced to have an appeals process, but the fundamental issue is fitting a quart into a pint pot, so the no of appeals that succeed is low.
aparna said:
At some point, you have to wonder whether all this time and energy and money spent on private tuition, catchment area housing etc, might better redirected, perhaps towards private education fees? Or maybe a well stocked library or music room, that is of benefit for many years.
I understand many of the kids at the private schools around me also have tutors to help them pass the entry exams for the sought after schools at 13+ entry. A mate works for one of the better schools in a very wealthy part of London and informs me that most of his class have tutors alongside.Also notice that houses here are still more expensive if they're a short walk to a good selection of private schools, mostly as even 3 miles is going to take a LONG time to get to each day unless you're cycling. But as you said, to move house for many folks is going to cost a few years tuition in fees before you've even started.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If the children needWith respect, you do come across as a very intense individual. If children need 2-3 years of coaching and pushing from intense parents, then maybe they are not the right fit anyway?
The distracting and putting off competition at the school gate sounds a little cloak and dagger. I wonder if your fellow parents perceived it in the same way as you do?
It's really not as big a deal as some make out anyway.
Wait till he finds out that every f
ker gets straight A's now anyway, and you need a lot more than just grades to get into one of the top Uni's 
That said, such schools have a good history of managing that. But a mate of mines kid needed AAB to get into sodding Loughborough I heard the other month. Madness.
ker gets straight A's now anyway, and you need a lot more than just grades to get into one of the top Uni's That said, such schools have a good history of managing that. But a mate of mines kid needed AAB to get into sodding Loughborough I heard the other month. Madness.
okgo said:
I understand many of the kids at the private schools around me also have tutors to help them pass the entry exams for the sought after schools at 13+ entry. A mate works for one of the better schools in a very wealthy part of London and informs me that most of his class have tutors alongside.
Also notice that houses here are still more expensive if they're a short walk to a good selection of private schools, mostly as even 3 miles is going to take a LONG time to get to each day unless you're cycling. But as you said, to move house for many folks is going to cost a few years tuition in fees before you've even started.
Zero chance I’m paying for private education AND tuition fees. Im not in that league. Also notice that houses here are still more expensive if they're a short walk to a good selection of private schools, mostly as even 3 miles is going to take a LONG time to get to each day unless you're cycling. But as you said, to move house for many folks is going to cost a few years tuition in fees before you've even started.
Ill be paying for small class sizes and decent resources etc. don’t particular mind if his class mates are dunces.
MC Bodge said:
If the children need
With respect, you do come across as a very intense individual. If children need 2-3 years of coaching and pushing from intense parents, then maybe they are not the right fit anyway?
The distracting and putting off competition at the school gate sounds a little cloak and dagger. I wonder if your fellow parents perceived it in the same way as you do?
It's really not as big a deal as some make out anyway.
+1 Far better they find the right school where they're encouraged than one where they're battling to stay on top of the work.With respect, you do come across as a very intense individual. If children need 2-3 years of coaching and pushing from intense parents, then maybe they are not the right fit anyway?
The distracting and putting off competition at the school gate sounds a little cloak and dagger. I wonder if your fellow parents perceived it in the same way as you do?
It's really not as big a deal as some make out anyway.
And what's with the stress and competition? It's ridiculous, like getting stressed about SATs. Sure you want them to do well, but why make such a big deal about it they get stressed?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Im not convinced that you are necessarily going aboit this the right way.Children need to learn take responsibility for themselves too. Not just be forced through everything by somebody who *sounds* like a very intense person who is also a pushy parent living through their child's success.
I've met people who had parents like that who then couldn't cope on their own.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff