sackofspuds

I disagree totally, but we seem to disagree about most things, so no surprise there.

In a Grammar system the children are judged when they take their 11 Plus. I live in a Grammar school area. Here are a few points:

1. Grammar schools aren't constrained by catchment area, so the Grammar school near me has pupils from way outside the LEA catchment attending. This, of course, means fewer places for those who live nearby.

2. Grammar schools were designed to give working class kids the chance of a decent education; as good an education as a private school would give. Nowadays the middle classes have hijacked the Grammar schools. By this I mean that all kids whose parents want to pass the 11+ are coached privately for at least a year before taking the exam. Near me, the people who write the exams are amongst those who offer this coaching. Hardly anyone will pass without intensive, expensive coaching.

3. Research shows that the pupils who benefit most from the Grammar system are those who just manage to pass the exam. Those who do worst are those who just fail and end up in Secondary Modern. The difference between success and failure is therefore marginal. My nephew was dismissed by his primary school teachers as a low achiever. Had he been in a Grammar school system he may well have been dumped in the Secondary Modern. He went to a Comprehensive school and turned out to be a late developer. He is now studying PPE at Oxford.

4. The kids who go to the worst performing Grammar school near me have a 94% chance of attaining 5 passes at GCSE, the best Grammar has a 99% score. The worst Secondary Modern has a score of 20%, the best - wait for it - has a score of 27%. The National Average is 54%.

If your child failed the 11+ would you really be happy for them to attend a school where they have a 20% chance of gaining 5 GCSEs?

ABCDiamond

Even though you say we disagree, we may actually agree

My comments referred to the days in which I went through the system, and from what you have said, it must have changed a lot.

I had no coaching for the 11+, and I am sure that all the Grammar school kids were locals at that time.

94% passes would sound high for those days.... I didn't do THAT well, AND.... GCSE's were never heard of !!

Obviously I am going back a few years Ahhh the good old days

mand8002

The reason children from afar travel to the grammar schools is because probably in their area they no longer have a grammar school. If they hadn't been abolished then children could attend their local grammar school. As it happens I attended a comprehensive but in my day we were streamed so that we did all our classes with children of similar ability, so as I was in the top set I in effect received a grammar school education. These days the classes are mixed ( at least in the area I lived ) making people look for alternative options.
As for unis, I do not have a problem with fees, particularly as you can defer payment till earning. I am fully aware that we will have to pay upfront as we are not citizens of Australia but I knew that before we came.

ABCDiamond

Bring back the good old days


Actually, they do a similar streaming here, in at least some of the schools.

sackofspuds

Point taken about the reasons for travel to Grammar schools. That, in my view, is a reason to abolish them, not to create lots of new ones.

The Primary school my kids go to streams in Maths and English so it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Comprehensives stream. That seems a sensible compromise to me. "Differentiated learning" is what they try to do now; setting different groups of kids in the same class different levels of work.

ABCDiamond

Do you know if that makes the job of the Teachers a bit harder ?

We were talking to our daughters teacher about that the other day, and she was saying that it creates so much extra work for her.

Gibbo

"Differentiated teaching" - have I got it right? - is not new. It was know as "group methods". I wont say how long I have been teaching, but will give you a clue. I'm certain I could have taught most of you, who frequent this site !!! Group methods is much more work for the teacher because he/she has to prepare work for each group in each subject that is grouped instead of one lesson in each of the subjects but the reward is that the children are progressing at their own speed and not being frustrated by being asked to do something that is too difficult or too easy - which leads to boredom. No teacher worth their salt should be teaching the basics without grouping. Classes these days are very seldom "streamed".