If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

The point of grammar schools should be to avoid this problem by allowing different lessons for kids with different learning needs.

@SabrinaThwaite my states school was one of the best in the county, I was in top set for everything and got top marks all the time and I still think they mostly wasted my time on boring easy lessons because they didn't have enough people right at the top to bother to make the work more challenging. The kids at the bottom of top set would probably have been left behind.

Thanks for clarifying regarding my link to school fees @IAmNotASheep

About your question on types of schools. I think but I'm not sure that 'high school' is just a term some people use for any secondary age school?

Secondary moderns were where those who 'failed'* the 11+ went, when the UK had a full grammar system. Often kids at secondary moderns were put in for CSEs rather than O Levels, but some did offer the option of O Levels.

Comprehensives were the replacement when the 11+ system was scrapped in most areas. I have older friends who went to state comps before GCSEs were introduced. Maybe depended on individual schools but my friends said some kids did O Levels, some CSEs, and some did O Levels in some subjects and CSEs for other subjects.

*Imo the idea that the 11+ was something to pass or fail, and the notion that vocational abilities, jobs, and schooling was/is lesser, is where the system went wrong in the UK.

I mentioned the German model earlier on this thread. It's imo how we should've approached it. Equal value given to vocational schools, and opportunities to move from a vocational school to their version of grammars at a later stage (presumably can move the other way too).

State schools absolutely do not ‘cater to the middle’.

This isn't true. I went to a secondary modern school in 1970 and was placed in the top stream. We absolutely were able to take O'levels (the lower streams took CSEs)

I unfortunately dropped out half way through my A levels (which I still regret) but many of my peers went on to university.

@CurlewKate Yuo. Went to one. Was a monumental waste of time for the majority of it. States schools cater to the middle.

@CakeTastesBetterAsBatter You do know that comprehensive schools have sets, don't you?

There are specialist schools for children with difficulties and extra learning needs. I don't see why there shouldn't also be specialist schools for children with extra learning needs that include being bright enough that the lessons catering to the middle and to bringing up the struggling students to minimum standards waste their time and education and potential.

There should be more grammar schools just as there should be more SEN schools.

They should be restricted by exam not money.

Never mind Grammar school, or not.

ALL schools should be properly funded to provide decent and solit education for all. Buildings that don't fall down, smaller class sizes, well qualified and motivated staff, etc. Many parents want to send their kids to private school, or Grammar schools where available, often at huge distances from home- for one reason only : no place at a good local school- not out of elitism.

Where local schools are excellent, with all the above- the vast majority of parents would not wish to send their children, at huge cost and sacrifices for many, to a private system. Same for health care.

The attached doc mixes up fees re day and boarding.
( Some fees quoted can seem lower also as some schools include meals in the fee whereas others add it as an extra cost )

However
Day fees are, for example
Eton £48k
Brighton £21k - £30k yr7-11
Concord £18k

This is interesting as I always thought they were comprehensives but we now have three titles

• comprehensives
• high schools
• secondary moderns

So I’m still confused

And I realise I spelt Diane Abbott's name wrong in my previous post. My fat fingers and I didn't click Edit button in time.

@bridgertonmodiste - I live in Kent and have one child at secondary and another in primary having recently done the tour of local school options- both grammar and not.

all the non-grammars teach foreign languages and insist on one until GCSE. (But only the grammars offer Latin, although not all do now.) All have a 6th form, and the only non-grammar that doesn’t offer A levels near us offers the IB instead. The non-grammars often have other non-A level courses for Key Stage 5 but they have a uni route option for their brighter students.

they do less GCSEs, but closer to what is offered in other parts of the country, it’s the grammars who are offering something different than kids would get if they didn’t live in a 11+ area.

£15200 average last year. I think as a lot of Mumsnet is Londoncentric people tend to think all private schools charge the 30k+ a year

The most expensive private schools aren't in London (except Harrow).

I was curious about which private school is the most expensive. According to the link below (no idea if it's accurate, as I just googled) it's not Eton although that is one of the priciest. It's Brighton College. Next most expensive is Concord College in Shropshire.

Obviously though fees will be higher if the DC are boarding rather than day pupils.

I also checked the fees for a London day school, out of interest. City of London, where Dianne Abbot sent her son, is around £22,600 a year.

https://piacademy.co.uk/advice/most-expensive-private-schools-uk/

Can we get rid of faith schools as well then please?

Comprehensives for everybody. Like in other countries.

And whilst the high schools in grammar areas may not be all about woodwork and CSEs, many do offer a more restricted curriculum. Lacking a significant % of high achievers many offer fewer MFLs, might only offer combined science, not triple science or not offer further maths.

Actually that's not true.

In a grammar area (as opposed to having a super selective grammar) the non-grammars are very different.

They offer a wider range of subjects but don't insist on foreign language, three separate sciences. Most don't have sixth forms.

They are more likely to offer vocational GCSEs such as childcare, PE or practical subjects.

Of course, I can only speak for my situation but I could afford to give up work and then HE if we pulled her out of private.
I won't put her in local state secondary with low outcomes, results and aspirations. I don't think it is acceptable for a school to have fewer than 50% of its pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs.

Ah the old “we’d home educate”. Yes, I hear that a lot. Parents don’t, though. They take the place and their kids are fine.

Speaking personally, we would simply move or home educate until a place came up. Of course my child isn't better than any other child but at the same time I won't let her education suffer.

Why do private school parents think they’d have a choice when it comes to the state education sector? Your children would go to the school nearest to their home with a place available. You might have a choice of 2/3 schools, if you’re lucky, but you don’t get to be fussy. I work in school appeals and every year I see middle class parents demanding a place at an outstanding school when they don’t live close enough. They don’t get it. They get a place at the school closest to their home with a place, it’s as simple as that. Your kids aren’t better, or more deserving, than anyone else’s. That’s what “level playing field” means.

@FancyBiscuitsLevel I agree that the school the majority of children in a fully selective area go to is not a "secondary modern" in the traditional sense. I use the term, usually in quotation marks, because it is also not a comprehensive. A comprehensive school has the full range of abilities and socio-economic groups. Such schools do not.

No private parent I know would send their DC to sink schools. Why is it up to to private parents to improve state schools? Why can't the 93% of parents at state schools do this? Are the 7% private parents so much better than state parents?

Parents will put their kids where there’s a place if they can’t afford private school. What do you think the parents that currently can’t afford private school do? The sink schools would improve with a steady stream of kids from homes that value education and they wouldn’t be sink schools any more.

I do wish people on MN wouldn’t insist that non-grammar schools in grammar areas are “secondary moderns” - they are something very different to comprehensive schools, secondary moderns didn’t follow the same subjects and curriculum as grammar schools, usually offering a much more vocational education and children couldn’t do the old O levels that became GCSEs.

comprehensive schools admit all students based on criteria that doesn’t require a test. They teach all students a range of subjects to GCSE level. Therefore it is perfectly valid to call non-grammar schools in grammar area’s comprehensive.

because some of the brighter children (not all!) go to grammar school doesn’t make them any less comprehensive as comps in non-11+ areas with lots of private schools or faith schools creaming off the top achieving kids via scholarships.