Grammar Schools

Thanks for sharing.

It just goes to show that all comprehensives are entirely different -that is all to the good. It is impossible to talk about comprehensives as if they are all like the one you know-the list of differences is far too long to even attempt.

The comprehensive I am talking about is oversubscribed, but not by much, and not every year - because there are becoming more and more second homes.

My brother lives in a very rural area and there is one comprehensive for the entire town and a large radius around. My town had 4 comprehensive schools and some in just a short area around that added to the choice so of course there was competition-they all wanted to get the best results and be an over subscribed school.
I wish someone could tell me why my child who went to university should be in a different school from the one who left at 16yrs -and what possible reason there could be having them in different schools.

Just to clarify, I didn't say "it could be because there is no other competition from elsewhere". That was a quote from soontobe's post

There was huge competition between all the schools in my area-primary and comprehensive. They are quite open about it.
Since I have 3 very different children, one academic one, one practical and one artistic I can't see why they needed to be in different schools. They are all doing their first choice of career. The academic one has a science degree from a RG university (his first choice one) and I wish someone could explain why having his brother who got an apprenticeship at 16yrs held him back in any way? Give a reason why they can't be in the same school? My academic one did very well but he was by no means the cleverest in his year group-there were some very gifted pupils.

But do you know for sure that the best was doing its best?

Agai for what it is worth, it could be that what I came across is fairly unique.
As Iam64 says, it could be because there is no other competition from elsewhere.

to not too.

The ones nearest it are quite some way down. In my opinion for no other reason than the demographic.

What nonsense, if that governor was correctly understood. When I served on an LEA Education Committee back in the 90s, when such things still existed, all our comprehensives were encouraged and inspired to rise to the level of the best. Levelling up - certainly not levelling down.

For what it is worth, there are no private schools within this area - perhaps because it is too sparsely populated.
So literally the only "competition" is other comprehensives. And the one my children went too is several percentage points up the league table compared to others.

I agree, Iam64!

I find it difficult to understand, or perhaps accept, that the governor of any comprehensive would tell a parent/anybody, that as 'comprehensives were supposed to give the same sort of education" that the school was 'not supposed to outdo other comprehensives too much, else questions would be asked about the nearest or other comprehensives" (soontobe's post 05.02.15 8.55) I don't mean to be offensive but it sounds like one of those urban myths to me.

League tables have added to the competition between schools in our area. This includes competition between the comprehensives and the private schools, which is intense.

A coast in school will soon sink, in my experience. What a silly thing for a governor to say.

I have to say on that point though, that our comprehensive [my youngest left 4 years ago], one of the Governors said that comprehensives were supposed to give the same sort of education, and said that since our comprehensive was the best in the area, that they were not supposed to outdo other comprehensives too much, else questions would be asked about the nearest other comprehensives.
I am not sure that that was a written down rule as such, more the general ethos of comprehensives.
He admitted that the school had settled for coasting for that reason.

And why can't a comprehensive stretch the most able? They certainly do in my area otherwise they wouldn't get pupils into top universities on a regular basis. If there is no grammar school then the top sets are the grammar school pupils and do just as well-as proved on a regular basis-i.e every year.

* So why shouldn't children get the education that suits their academic ability?*

Because a lot are placed in the wrong school and it all depends on numbers anyway. Had I lived on the other side of the river my marks would have got me into the grammar school, had I been a boy my marks would have got me into a grammar school. It does the rough job of separating the top % from the bottom % but somewhere in the middle it separates those of equal ability. I know two sets of twins where one went to sec mod and one to grammar and yet there was nothing between them academically. It doesn't take into account the late developer. If my brother could be in the express stream of the grammar school aged 13yrs then he should never have failed at 11yrs. A totally mad, wasteful and unfair system IMO-and very thankfully we only have 164 grammar schools left.

I agree with Leticia.
I think that is the trouble when discussing comprehensives.
The idea when they were set up was that they would all give the same education?
But they dont.

It also means that when comprehensives are discussed, we are all talking about different ones!!

It is very strange that you can get a bad experience at a grammar school or a private schools and no one writes off all grammar schools and all private schools and yet you get a poor comprehensive and all comprehensives have poor discipline and pupils who don't want to learn!!
Since 90% of our children attend comprehensives a lot of them are getting it right.

There are good comprehensives and bad ones with everything inbetween. My children went to a comprehensive and they did not have lessons disrupted.
I went to a secondary modern and we had the best reputation for behaviour in the city- the Head guarded the reputation fiercely and since I later went on to the grammar school I know it to be true.

In my opinion my DS would have done so much better at a grammar school if there were any him to have gone to but there were not. He went to the local comprehensive and had to try to cope with pupils who took great joy in disrupting lessons, throwing chairs around, talking through lessons and playing on phones etc. He used to get so annoyed at not being able to study and take in what the teacher was saying that he lost faith in the system.

I passed my 11 plus, as did my brother and we both did well at grammar schools, one next to the other on the same base so that we were near each other. I respected the teachers, wouldn't have answered any back, loved the way the head wore robes in a morning for assembly and had a little fear all the time I was at secondary school, which I think is lost these days and is not a good thing for it to be. There is nothing wrong with a little fear of elders and doing the right thing by them. In my opinion.

Thanks for the extra information Penstemmon. I always thought it was a way to buy places in the independent system but it sounds as if some started as independents and some as local authority.

Good luck to Minibags! In 6th Year she might do more Highers - it is possible to do one in one year if you work hard! DDs did biology and Spanish like that (one each). Or there are Advanced Highers, which she might do in subjects she wants to take further. The advantage of Highers over A-levels IMO is that if she gets all she needs for university or whatever she wants to do in 5th year, she then has the option of a year to broaden or deepen her education without all the pressure.

Re Direct Grant Schools The ones I had direct knowledge of were fully funded by the direct grant from the government /LEAs (as they were then).
The direct grant grammar school my DH attended had no fee paying pupils. It is now a fully fee paying school.
However I now understand that in some areas all places in DGGS were free and in others some pupils paid fees. You live and learn!

Good post, Penstemmon

Although there will always be late developers who suddenly 'wake up' after the age of 13 and who could then be limited if they have to make a choice at 13 of an academic or less academic route.

Friend's daughter got poor grades in all her GCSE's (nothing higher than a D) but later on did her A levels at night school, an OU degree whilst holding down a job and bringing up a child as a single parent (she got a first) and now has a Masters (with an award for being top student).
School had written her off completely.
They told her parents she just hadn't got much ability to succeed.