People who are in favour of grammar schools....(1000 Posts)
....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?
Go to other normal state schools like before. If you have the money, go private perhaps?
I'm amazed that anyone can be in favour of grammar schools. I've yet to see any argument that makes any sense whatsoever. All publicly funded schools in the UK should be non selective. They should all be secular too.
I'm a regular name changer but I think I'm your biggest fan. I'm always agreeing with you which is most unlike me.
I am in favour of grammar schools so long as the entrance test is opt in as opposed to it being compulsory for children unless they opt out. I guess I am for more parental choice than grammars par se.
I would like to send my children to a single sex school at 11. There are no state options in my area other than grammar.
I would also like to see more schools with a vocational slant like The Brit School or one which focuses on more hands on skills. I have one child who is very bright and one who is towards the bottom of the year academically but excels at sports and practical subjects.
The problem with our schools is they are one size fits all. There should be options to suit each and every child where they can be encouraged and succeed in what they are good at (I know, I live in cloud cuckoo land).
I have no objection to schools that can meet the needs and learning pace of the very bright but do feel many other skills and talents which are just as important could be overlooked.
If a grammar entrance test is purely optional then I have no issues, nor do I feel would create a second tier of children to the same extent it used to. Maybe I am just naive?
Tricky, this what to do with "les autres", isn't it?
School admissions generally should be reformed. However, this thread is about grammar schools.
Go to another school?
There are plenty to choose from and grammar schools aren't all the same, some encourage social mobility.
Clitheroe springs to mind.
' 'I'am amazed anyone can be in favor of grammar schools'
"Now the world don't move to the beat of one drum, what might be right for you may not be right for some". It takes different strokes to rule the world yes it does !
The quality of the other schools is one of the main reasons I've been against grammar schools.
For areas that currently only have state comprehensive system it should say that the Government are proposing to reintroduce schools which separately educate non-academic and less academic children, rather than say reintroduce grammar schools.
(I hesitate to use the title secondary modern schools as I understand that it is a loaded label and those in favour of grammar schools could argue that the schools they propose will be very different.)
I don't know Clitheroe Grammar but on the face of it it doesn't seem to do a lot to encourage social mobility. It's in the lowest quintile in England for percentage of pupils on FSM, 4.2% in 2014, compared to a national average of 28.5%. But then I don't know the social make up of Clitheroe. It might be a very affluent area, with an average of only 4% of children on FSM, in which case the grammar school still isn't doing much for social mobility.
It would be tedious to list the data for every grammar school in the country.
trying to remember the rest.
A man is born, he's a man of means, then along come two who have nothing but the trees.
Not sure if that's right
Good point though.
Different strokes, for different folks.
The education establishment is against them, I'll take my advice from the experts. When people start pushing for the majority of kids to be educated at secondary moderns and for that cohort to include their own children (as opposed to other people's as is generally the case) then great, bring the grammar school system back. I'd rather we concentrated on improving the existing system. My aunt was at grammar school in the 1950s, left without siting any exams because she had a job in a typing pool - the growth in white collar jobs at the time that actually fuelled the social mobility.
To be honest, I don't completely understand if at the end of school your children are where they need to be at good university entrance level what all this extra pushing at school is actually supposed to be for?
Strangely people are only in favour of grammar schools when they expect their own children to get into them. No one ever seems to be in favour of secondary modern schools. Selection only ever seems good when it works in your favour.
So what specialised provision do you think should be made for the children who don't pass grammar school entry?
"I have no objection to schools that can meet the needs and learning pace of the very bright"
I have a child who is exceptionally good at maths and music and appalling at literacy. He failed the 11+
What school would meet his needs if the vast majority of 'very bright' children are in grammar schools which are closed to him because his literacy is weak?
And where would you put the very bright but idle and dreamy children, who will not want to do a vocational training but wouldn't pass the 11+ or enjoy being in an academic hothouse?
And what about those exceptionally bright children whose parents won't enter them for the 11+?
Clitheroe is in Lancashire LA which had over 13% children claiming FSM. So Clitheroe Grammar is not representative of its area. How exactly is it encouraging social mobility?
Minifingerz, I have a friend who would have been in your DS's situation but with maths her weaker area. She is absolutely brilliant at other subjects and the idea that she could have been excluded from a grammar school where pupils would most probably be far weaker than her in the areas where she excels seems absolutely bizarre to me.
I also have a very bright child with poor spatial awareness and so the 11+ non verbal is a struggle for him, despite achieving the highest level in all his subjects in year 5. Not sure it's relevant to this thread but it makes me sad that a bright child (or indeed any child) would feel a failure at such a young age.
How on earth is it not representative of it's area.
bright kids get to go whatever their background, my friend dd attends, they are as poor as church mice and FSM
"The problem with our schools is they are one size fits all. There should be options to suit each and every child"
Why do they need to be on separate sites to do this?
My dc's comprehensive has highly academic children doing 4A levels and studying music at grade 8. In the same building there are children doing BTECS. All the children do really well because the school has adequate resources and experienced teachers. What would be gained by separating the vocational and academic students out into separate schools if they are currently thriving in the same institution? And if my dc's comprehensive can do it why can't others?
And what about the children who don't hit their stride until later? My daughter would never have passed an 11+ exam but by the time she was in year 9 she 'got it'. She's just done her GCSEs and did much better than everyone predicted. We don't have grammar schools here. Thank goodness.
Well total under my system of '40% ' educated in selective education and under the dispensation given because of your DSs disability he would fly in to the grammar !
"bright kids get to go whatever their background, "
That's just factually incorrect.
What specialized provision would you make for the children who are not selected for grammar school?
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.