Grammar Schools

[Sharpe's Fox]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Exactly, it's not taxing to get an A level. They've had to dumb them down because standards have fallen.

 

That maybe so, but the children taking exams are not in competition with those from 30 years ago but with their peers from today and the debate around grammar schools should take that into account. The argument that bringing back selective education will increase the worth of an A-Level does not stack up.

[Smudge]

I thought comprehensive schools were streamed academically, is that not the case anymore?

[Finnaldo]

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Jesus Christ, I didn't think anyone would be so dense as to hark back for the return of secondary moderns. I don't think even UKIP or Jacob Rees-Mogg has dared to come out with that peach.

He didn't suggest a secondary modern, if you think about it both Grammar schools and the partner school would have the core English, Maths and Science, if someone in the partner school was excelling particularly well they could switch to a Grammar to focus on that, by contrast if someone was struggling with these and felt they were more suited to Engineering/ Design Tech they could swap to the partner school.

 

In some ways, it would mean that those who aren't great or interested in English and Maths aren't thrown in the bottoms sets while the teachers have to balance between some student get A* and some get their C. You could have teachers dedicated to building those with a low foundation in English and Maths and without the stigma of being in the 'spacker class' as some used to label it at my school. They could build their confidence to actually achieve in these classes and even if they aren't Einstein and gets the higher grades they could still leave with a good knowledge of English and Maths which they were deprived from by being alienated in Set 6.

 

Meanwhile, those who are gifted in Maths, English and Science can get more attention from teachers to achieve their targets.

 

I'm in the main a left wing poster and I can assure you my younger cousins would have benefited greatly from a more practical curriculum, they never really enjoyed Maths and English and the way the system operated never gave them much of a chance. Had they been given that chance I feel they'd be in a much better position than current.

 

Not all people are suited or particularly bothered about academical success, offering a fair alternative which still gives them an academical option should they want it seems pretty Left wing to me.

[Dr The Singh]

All schools should be teaching to the same standard, why is this going to make this happen

[Sharpe's Fox]

42 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

He didn't suggest a secondary modern, if you think about it both Grammar schools and the partner school would have the core English, Maths and Science, if someone in the partner school was excelling particularly well they could switch to a Grammar to focus on that, by contrast if someone was struggling with these and felt they were more suited to Engineering/ Design Tech they could swap to the partner school.

 

In some ways, it would mean that those who aren't great or interested in English and Maths aren't thrown in the bottoms sets while the teachers have to balance between some student get A* and some get their C. You could have teachers dedicated to building those with a low foundation in English and Maths and without the stigma of being in the 'spacker class' as some used to label it at my school. They could build their confidence to actually achieve in these classes and even if they aren't Einstein and gets the higher grades they could still leave with a good knowledge of English and Maths which they were deprived from by being alienated in Set 6.

 

Meanwhile, those who are gifted in Maths, English and Science can get more attention from teachers to achieve their targets.

 

I'm in the main a left wing poster and I can assure you my younger cousins would have benefited greatly from a more practical curriculum, they never really enjoyed Maths and English and the way the system operated never gave them much of a chance. Had they been given that chance I feel they'd be in a much better position than current.

 

Not all people are suited or particularly bothered about academical success, offering a fair alternative which still gives them an academical option should they want it seems pretty Left wing to me.

For me the focal point of the education should be English and Maths and to a lesser degree the sciences. I wouldn't be comfortable having a education system where these subjects are easily written off for some children, but that's just my opinion.

 

More important is the goverment's opinion and I doubt what you say is on the table in the governments plans. The system on offer is one of having comprehensive schools and selective comprehensive schools, there is no vocational school like in Germany and everyone will have to study Maths, English and Science however they fare in them. You make some good points in a succinct way but what you have posted is not on offer. What is on offer is backward and unfair.

[Finnaldo]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

For me the focal point of the education should be English and Maths and to a lesser degree the sciences. I wouldn't be comfortable having a education system where these subjects are easily written off for some children, but that's just my opinion.

 

More important is the goverment's opinion and I doubt what you say is on the table in the governments plans. The system on offer is one of having comprehensive schools and selective comprehensive schools, there is no vocational school like in Germany and everyone will have to study Maths, English and Science however they fare in them. You make some good points in a succinct way but what you have posted is not on offer. What is on offer is backward and unfair.

 

 

I don't disagree in that case, as I said they'd be have the core subjects of Maths and English but just with a more vocational curriculum built around it.

 

And yeah, I doubt it is, I was just responding in terms of the alternative to the Grammar school they could have. We can hope.

[Finnegan]

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Completely false. Everyone has the capacity to succeed if they work hard enough in a comprehensive system. It isn't a taxing process to get an A in A-Level Maths or Sciences which people see as the optimum. It takes a lot of work (more than myself or many others are willing to give, I admit) by practising what you are being tested on in an exam format but it very easily done, you don't even have to be especially bright. 

 

 

Your idea of an education system is a ****ing nightmare and is exactly what's wrong with the current model. 

 

Building a uniform system for everyone regardless of their abilities or INTERESTS and beating the idea in to them that if they just work hard and keep memorising the answers to the test then that's a success. Absolutely garbage.

 

I won't mind but you even have the audacity to then suggest that tailoring education to children's needs is some sort of upper class conservative notion.

 

It's time to drag out the liberal, artistic, Knight of the Realm education expert methinks.

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

21 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

Your idea of an education system is a ****ing nightmare and is exactly what's wrong with the current model. 

 

Building a uniform system for everyone regardless of their abilities or INTERESTS and beating the idea in to them that if they just work hard and keep memorising the answers to the test then that's a success. Absolutely garbage.

 

I won't mind but you even have the audacity to then suggest that tailoring education to children's needs is some sort of upper class conservative notion.

 

It's time to drag out the liberal, artistic, Knight of the Realm education expert methinks.

 

I don't care for your little video. Make your own points or summarise it, I don't really care which but I'm not spending 10 minutes watching it.

 

Changing the exam system isn't on offer unfortunately. Yes there's lots wrong with it but May's idea of selective education doesn't change anything about it.

 

EDIT: just to clarify my post you quoted isn't exactly what I want to see, I was just pointing out the reality.

[Finnegan]

Yeah, let's not consider input from expert sources who've spent their lives dedicated to their field so completely they've been knighted for their efforts.

 

 

Jesus. I'm off out.

 

Ciao.

[sdb]

On 9 September 2016 at 08:22, Strokes said:

Oh yeah the last 18 years have been utopian, our children have thrived in it

What age do you think it's appropriate to judge on ability? 

 

At whatever age people start going for job interviews maybe. I don't subscribe to the theory that intelligence is fixed. People can improve and develop beyond 11 years old, and at different rates. Kids learn off kids, and not just academically but socially too. All grammar schools do is divide. 

 

I work in an area full of grammar schools. Local comprehensives make far better progress with students yet there is still a mindset that grammars do a better job. Take the brightest kids and then reap the plaudits when results are good. 

[davieG]

Grammar schools benefit rich, says OECD

By Sean CoughlanEducation correspondent

1 hour ago

 

From the sectionEducation & Family

Share

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionThe government says grammars can help to promote social mobility

Grammar schools are likely to benefit wealthy families without raising overall standards, says the OECD's head of education.

Andreas Schleicher said international evidence suggested that selection was not linked to improving schools.

He said bright pupils in England were not getting enough opportunities, but grammar school tests were not reliable.

"Any kind of one-off test is likely to favour social background over true academic potential," he said.

Education Secretary Justine Greening has published plans calling for more selective schools in England, and a Department for Education spokesman said any new grammars would "prioritise the admission of disadvantaged pupils".

Meritocracy?

Mr Schleicher, the think tank's education director, was presenting the OECD's annual report comparing education systems across the industrialised world.

He said there was no relationship between increasing selection and how well school systems performed.

Image captionAndreas Schleicher says the importance of grammars is being "dramatically overplayed"

And countries such as Germany and Switzerland, where selection was widely used, were not more likely to produce high-achieving students.

"You might expect that where you have more grammar schools, you will have more of the really top students, that's not what we've seen," said Mr Schleicher.

The OECD education expert said access to selective schools was often unfairly biased towards wealthier families - and that contradicted the aim of stretching the most talented.

"I can see the case for introducing more meritocracy in the school system. Bright students here don't always have the educational opportunities they deserve," said Mr Schleicher.

Entrance tests

"But what happens in most European systems is that academic selection becomes social selection.

"Schools are very good at selecting students by their social background, but they're not very good at selecting students by their academic potential."

When admission to school was based on a one-off test, he said, "wealthy parents will find a way through it".

Image captionEducation Secretary Justine Greening faced questions on grammars from MPs

But there were Asian school systems, such as Singapore and Hong Kong, that seemed to be more effective in how they selected pupils.

"They are selective, but they seem to be very good at figuring out how good students really are," said Mr Schleicher.

But focusing on grammars and selection was not the way to raise standards.

"I think the importance of grammar schools is dramatically overplayed," he said.

And there should be more investment for "more schools that are more demanding and more rigorous".

Image copyrightPA

Image captionTheresa May says that expanding grammars will increase the number of good school places

A Department for Education spokesman said: "We know that grammar schools provide a good education for their disadvantaged pupils, and we want more pupils from lower-income backgrounds to benefit from that."

"We are clear that relaxing restrictions on selective education can and should be to the betterment, not at the expense, of other local schools."

The annual OECD report highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the UK's education systems.

It showed that by international standards, the children of migrants did very well - and often better than those who were not migrants.

The report says that in the UK, children born to parents born overseas were more likely to go to university than those with native-born parents.

Mr Schleicher suggested that this could reflect "higher levels of motivation" among migrants, who saw education as a "way of moving up the ladder".

In contrast, he said, British-born families were more likely to face "downward mobility" in their levels of education.

The bigger international picture, said Mr Schleicher, was of a "relentless" increase in the numbers going to university, with entry rates of 60% and above becoming increasingly common.

Highlights from this year's OECD education report for the UK include:

Children in migrant families have higher rates of university entry than UK-born families

Student debt levels are higher than anywhere except the United States, after tuition fee increases in England

Total spending on education, both public and private, is above the OECD average, including the cost of tuition fees

Completion rates for degree courses are very high by international standards

For every one student from the UK who studies overseas, there are 14 international students in the UK

Across the OECD, graduates on average earn 55% more than those with school-level qualifications such as A-levels

The UK is unusual in having bigger primary classes and smaller secondary school classes

The level of young people not in education, employment or training - Neets - remains below the OECD average

The UK has very low levels of non-formal education - such as adult education classes - provided by education institutions

[Captain...]

Weirdly I thought Leicester Grammar and Loughborough Grammar were grammar schools. You learn something new everyday.

 

Does the education system need reform in the UK? Yes

 

Are grammar schools the answer? I don't know. No problem with identifying the best and brightest academically and providing a more academically stimulating environment. The biggest issue with grammar schools is the name and the image of the archaic and elitist education system we should be moving away from. The ideal would be to create an environment where everyone can be stimulated and educated in a way that best suits their skill set and mindset.

 

Do I trust this government to actually implement a better education system and not just use it for political posturing and vote winning?  Not really.

[ajthefox]

There was a little piece on the BBC the other morning, and they spoke to a number of parents, a few of which were spending thousands on tutoring for this exam. It was a small sample but it will no doubt happen across the country, and it's an argument against the idea that these grammar schools which are supposedly for the benefit of the most intelligent kids.

[Captain...]

7 hours ago, ajthefox said:

There was a little piece on the BBC the other morning, and they spoke to a number of parents, a few of which were spending thousands on tutoring for this exam. It was a small sample but it will no doubt happen across the country, and it's an argument against the idea that these grammar schools which are supposedly for the benefit of the most intelligent kids.

Those with money will always look to use it to give themselves or their kids an advantage. That's why we strive to have money. The question is does it matter if a kid aces the 11+ because they've had private tutoring, or because they went to a prep school that prepared you for the 11+ or because they were naturally intelligent?

 

If state primaries spent some time preparing their best kids for the 11+ then nobody would have a problem with that. I had to sit an 11+ exam to go to Loughborough Grammar, before I did my parents sent me to a private tutor for exam practice because there was nobody at my primary school who could help me. It was mainly to understand what type of questions I would face so I wouldn't be overawed  by the whole thing and give me a fair chance at doing well. My 11+ involved Maths, English and a reasoning paper. I think it was the latter that concerned my parents the most, I mean what the fvck is reasoning? Actually it was piece of piss' the questions were logic puzzles, what comes next in the sequence type questions. I smashed that paper, but by having had a few practice exams I wasn't any more capable but more comfortable and confident in what I was doing.

 

My parents had average incomes, both teachers, and made a lot of financial sacrifices to allow me to go to a fee paying school. A lot of kids there came from much wealthier backgrounds and had been to prep schools in Loughborough, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester that pushed kids to get to the best schools in the area. Were they any smarter than the kids that came from state schools? Not really, but they were much more comfortable and confident in that sort of environment.

 

Incidentally nobody at my primary school suggested I should try and go to the best school I could, I was one of the best in the class which is why I asked my parents if I could take the entrance exam, just to see if I would be able to get in. There was never any encouragement from my state primary to try and better ourselves and despite there being other smart kids (I wasn't some sort of freaky child prodigy genius) that probably would have thrived at a private/grammar school. The option was never discussed. Most kids were just on a conveyor belt through the state schooling system and the local secondary school at the time was awful, but most people went there, because that is just what you did.

 

Should we return to Grammar schools, then state primaries should be given targets to get x amount of kids to take and pass the 11+ not necessarily go to a grammar school but make sure they know they have that as an option and not seem like it is an elitist institution out of reach for all but the rich and privileged.

[lavrentis]

We need to pay teachers a respectable rate, 40k minumum for NQT. Equate teaching with being a doctor. Then they will start giving a shit.

 

Seriously, teachers and schools are failing the kids. They need to give a shit, but they need more money. Knowledge is so valuable.

[Captain...]

23 minutes ago, lavrentis said:

We need to pay teachers a respectable rate, 40k minumum for NQT. Equate teaching with being a doctor. Then they will start giving a shit.

 

Seriously, teachers and schools are failing the kids. They need to give a shit, but they need more money. Knowledge is so valuable.

I don't think throwing money at teachers is the solution, the Labour Party tried that and it encouraged more people to train to be teachers, but it was mainly people who didn't know what else to do. It became the default job of those that had passed through university with no real idea what they wanted to do. There are many other ways to make teaching more attractive. One is to provide a secure stable environment for teachers and pupils and not move the goalposts constantly. Create a clear plan for kids of different abilities to progress through the system and come out of it with developed skills not just an academic grading.

[Crinklyfox]

I was educated in an era when there were Grammar Schools and Secondary modern and there was a divide.  I don't doubt that if Grammar Schools are re-introduced there would be a divide again.

 

I can only state my own experience, which was that Grammar Schools weren't exclusively for the rich, but that there were a lot more children from the leafier areas of Leicester in mine.  For the record I grew up in Mowmacre Hills and took the 11+ at their Junior School, passed it and went to Wyggeston Boys.  I didn't have any private tuition.  If my memory serves me correctly I think that less than 25% of my year made it to a Grammar School (there were four in Leicester at that time).

 

I wanted to be as successful as I could in life so worked hard to try to make it to a Grammar School.  If there hadn't been any 11+ and I would have simply gone to a Secondary School selected by the state I doubt that I would have put the effort in.  I'm not against an element of competition in our education system, life is competitive.  The challenge is to make the education system one that rewards effort and prowess rather than a bland 'one size fits all' system or one that is skewed towards the financially better off.

[Jon the Hat]

37 minutes ago, lavrentis said:

We need to pay teachers a respectable rate, 40k minumum for NQT. Equate teaching with being a doctor. Then they will start giving a shit.

 

Seriously, teachers and schools are failing the kids. They need to give a shit, but they need more money. Knowledge is so valuable.

Erm.  What?  Does it take 6 years to become a teacher now?  Waste of time, labour did this wit Nurses, and look!  They are still unhappy.  Like nursing what teaching wants and deserves is more respect and better conditions, not more money.

[davieG]

I took the 11+ and failed but then I didn't even know I was taking it, out of 4 classes in my school only 3 people passed and went to grammar schools, on reflection I do not believe that could have been a true reflection of their ability.

 

I  then went to what was a terrible SM, renowned as a prep school for borstal but fortunately in my last 2 years there we moved to a new building and i was one of a dozen who were allowed to pilot a new GCE year and gained some qualifications, so bear in mind 12 people who were dubbed failures at 11 manage to through fortunate circumstances to show we were cast aside too soon.

 

Grammar schools may be ok but to judge pupils at 11 is totally wrong.

[Captain...]

7 minutes ago, davieG said:

I took the 11+ and failed but then I didn't even know I was taking it, out of 4 classes in my school only 3 people passed and went to grammar schools, on reflection I do not believe that could have been a true reflection of their ability.

 

I  then went to what was a terrible SM, renowned as a prep school for borstal but fortunately in my last 2 years there we moved to a new building and i was one of a dozen who were allowed to pilot a new GCE year and gained some qualifications, so bear in mind 12 people who were dubbed failures at 11 manage to through fortunate circumstances to show we were cast aside too soon.

 

Grammar schools may be ok but to judge pupils at 11 is totally wrong.

I don't see any problem with assessing kids at 11, what is wrong is to write kids off at 11 based on one exam.

 

Any expansion of grammar schools should be coupled with development of the state education system not at the expense of.

[davieG]

24 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I don't see any problem with assessing kids at 11, what is wrong is to write kids off at 11 based on one exam.

 

Any expansion of grammar schools should be coupled with development of the state education system not at the expense of.

Yes, that's what i meant,although what I didn't add to keep it short was  that I also failed a 13+ exam which my 1 year older brother passed although it meant him dropping back a year and I still got more GCEs than him. 

[Alf Bentley]

It amuses me that this debate is always about "bringing back grammar schools"....not "bringing back secondary moderns".

Yet only about 20% of pupils would attend grammar schools; 80% would attend secondary moderns. I suppose parents just assume that they and their kids will be on the "right" side of the divide, though many will not be.

 

OK, this time they might not call the other schools "secondary moderns". They might inaccurately call them "comprehensives" or use some other nice-sounding name.....but they'd still be "secondary moderns" in all but name. At least some of the kids would feel that they were failures (at 11?!) and many of the better teachers would make a beeline for jobs at grammar schools. I'd have a bit more time for these proposals if there were plans to improve education for the 80%. Apart from a token measure to get grammar schools to share best practice with "secondary moderns", that doesn't seem to be the case. Under either selective or comprehensive education, there could be properly thought-out pathways towards proper apprenticeships or vocational training (keeping an academic element until at least 14, probably 16). But all the focus seems to be on the minority who'd attend grammars.

 

I went to the only local state grammar in the 70s - and my brother went to 1 of the 4 local secondary moderns. I got an academic education that was very good in terms of teaching you to pass exams (useful, but narrow), but otherwise mixed. Some teachers/classes were inspiring, but many others were "exam factories" that (temporarily) reduced my interest in learning - and I was a natural swot.

 

Meanwhile, it was very divisive socially. I grew up in a village and was 1 of only 2 lads my age who went to the grammar; all my other primary school friends went to the secondary modern. As I was a shy lad back then (not the loudmouth I am today), that did me a lot of damage in terms of social skills, which probably held me back until I was about 30, despite being part of the academic "elite". It also caused - or at least exacerbated - lifelong divisions between my brother and myself. I believe that it also helped to cause major damage to my brother's self-confidence and potential (he'd deny that, but I suspect that is down to pride).

 

Someone mentioned the option for kids who show greater academic potential after the age of 11 to switch to grammar schools. The only time that happened when I was at school was when half a dozen lads who had done a year at secondary modern Sixth Form transferred into our Sixth Form, a year over age. Nobody transferred at age 11-17. The drawbridge had effectively been pulled up...whether that would be the case now, I don't know. Not everybody at the grammar school came from a middle-class background, but most did - certainly a much higher proportion than at the secondary modern. I suspect that there would be an even bigger class/wealth division now, as the selection system gives parents more choice as "consumers" and the upper middle-classes have already learned to play the system: e,g, many already move house to get into the catchment area of good schools. If some are prepared to spend tens of thousands moving home, then surely many, many more will be prepared to cough up a few hundred or even a couple of grand for intensive tuition in passing the 11+ ?

 

It's a reality that some kids will have more academic potential than others. Likewise, some will be more suited to learning vocational skills than others. Some kids will progress more quickly/slowly than others - often at different stages or in different subjects (e.g. at 12, I was shite at Maths but ended up getting an A-grade O-level, higher than I managed in English Lit, in which I'd topped the class at the same age). Making such a big division between kids at age 11 is very drastic - and potentially damaging to all sorts of kids. Flexible streaming within comprehensives (at least in some subjects) seems a much better way forward, allowing more flexibility and minimising social divisions and psychological damage (though you'll never avoid these completely).

[ajthefox]

4 hours ago, Captain... said:

Those with money will always look to use it to give themselves or their kids an advantage. That's why we strive to have money. The question is does it matter if a kid aces the 11+ because they've had private tutoring, or because they went to a prep school that prepared you for the 11+ or because they were naturally intelligent?

 

If state primaries spent some time preparing their best kids for the 11+ then nobody would have a problem with that. I had to sit an 11+ exam to go to Loughborough Grammar, before I did my parents sent me to a private tutor for exam practice because there was nobody at my primary school who could help me. It was mainly to understand what type of questions I would face so I wouldn't be overawed  by the whole thing and give me a fair chance at doing well. My 11+ involved Maths, English and a reasoning paper. I think it was the latter that concerned my parents the most, I mean what the fvck is reasoning? Actually it was piece of piss' the questions were logic puzzles, what comes next in the sequence type questions. I smashed that paper, but by having had a few practice exams I wasn't any more capable but more comfortable and confident in what I was doing.

 

My parents had average incomes, both teachers, and made a lot of financial sacrifices to allow me to go to a fee paying school. A lot of kids there came from much wealthier backgrounds and had been to prep schools in Loughborough, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester that pushed kids to get to the best schools in the area. Were they any smarter than the kids that came from state schools? Not really, but they were much more comfortable and confident in that sort of environment.

 

Incidentally nobody at my primary school suggested I should try and go to the best school I could, I was one of the best in the class which is why I asked my parents if I could take the entrance exam, just to see if I would be able to get in. There was never any encouragement from my state primary to try and better ourselves and despite there being other smart kids (I wasn't some sort of freaky child prodigy genius) that probably would have thrived at a private/grammar school. The option was never discussed. Most kids were just on a conveyor belt through the state schooling system and the local secondary school at the time was awful, but most people went there, because that is just what you did.

 

Should we return to Grammar schools, then state primaries should be given targets to get x amount of kids to take and pass the 11+ not necessarily go to a grammar school but make sure they know they have that as an option and not seem like it is an elitist institution out of reach for all but the rich and privileged.

Interesting post, Captain.

The main point I was making was that I've heard that grammar schools will benefit the most academic but that's not necessarily true. I don't have any issue with people paying for tutoring or going to a prep school so that they get into a grammar school, but I think it's disingenuous to imply (not that you have) that grammars are all about rewarding those who are naturally intelligent.    

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Meanwhile, it was very divisive socially. I grew up in a village and was 1 of only 2 lads my age who went to the grammar; all my other primary school friends went to the secondary modern. As I was a shy lad back then (not the loudmouth I am today), that did me a lot of damage in terms of social skills, which probably held me back until I was about 30, despite being part of the academic "elite". It also caused - or at least exacerbated - lifelong divisions between my brother and myself. I believe that it also helped to cause major damage to my brother's self-confidence and potential (he'd deny that, but I suspect that is down to pride).

Likewise, it's interesting to hear your view on it Alf, particularly the bit above.

 

It's another aspect that I haven't heard much discussion about really. For every kid who does the exam and passes, there'll be another kid who will have spent just as much time and effort trying to pass but not doing so. And even if that doesn't mean they get a second class education, it can still have a long lasting and seriously detrimental affect on them.

[theessexfox]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Someone mentioned the option for kids who show greater academic potential after the age of 11 to switch to grammar schools. The only time that happened when I was at school was when half a dozen lads who had done a year at secondary modern Sixth Form transferred into our Sixth Form, a year over age. Nobody transferred at age 11-17. The drawbridge had effectively been pulled up...whether that would be the case now, I don't know.

I go to a grammar school, we take in girls and some external boys for Sixth Form so about 100/150 new students each year at 16. 

[Alf Bentley]

52 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I go to a grammar school, we take in girls and some external boys for Sixth Form so about 100/150 new students each year at 16. 

 

Is your school single-sex to 16 and then mixed for Sixth Form, then? When I was school (a long time ago), there was a separate Girls' Grammar with its own Sixth Form.

 

Obviously, practices will vary over time and from place to place but, apart from the big influx of girls at 16, the system at your place doesn't sound that different to the one in my day: nobody switching into the Grammar until Sixth Form.

 

Which makes it a very big decision that is taken at age 11 - almost irrevocable until Sixth Form, it seems.