Research about grammar intake..

I completely agree Seeker. I'm sure you and I have had this same converstaion before and come to the conclusion that our two areas are very different, and that the types of GSs have a very different impact.

Of course they can access it! If they don't get a place that is a different thing. We are obviously using the word in two very different ways.

If every child were to actually get in to the GS, it wouldn't be a GS would it? And there is a reason for that. A super selective GS education simply won't suit the majority of children.

And why shouldn't very intelligent children be catered for differently to those with below average academic ability? Not catered for better, just different. Children are not all the same, and we shouldn't try to educate them as if they are. They all go on to different types of FE or jobs, so why do we expect them all to fit in to the same school mould. The point is to try and do what is best for each individual. Fair does not mean the same.

The top 5% are taken off, but only if their parents choose for them to take the test, and many don't, because the rest of the schools are comprehensives! I know there are areas where that isn't the case, but I can assure you that it isn't like that here. And that 5% is taken from such a wide area, over four counties, that it makes no difference at all. Private schools will make a much much bigger difference to the comprehansives than the one GS ever could.

No, the rest are not comprehensive, because the top 5% have been taken away.

How does the 'right or opportunity' to use something work, if the very function of the thing in question is to reject the majority of children to focus on the few? Would a child have access to it regardless of how good it was as passing tests? No it would not. So every child would NOT be able to access a grammar school. Ever. That's the whole point of grammar schools!

The flaw in your argument seeker is that primary Heads have to say whether or not they agree a particular child is grammar ability and the parents have to agree to put them in for the test. If nobody for that particular estate goes to grammar that suggests that either their parents don't want them to sit the test, the Head won't endorse them, or they just aren't clever enough.

Nobody calls for the secondary modern system to come back because it was crap, but it's not teh only alternative for what we have now.

The system doesn't have to be full of secondary moderns and grammars. It works fine in the area I live in, and we have one boys and one girls grammar school, which takes the top 5% over a huge area. The rest are good comprehensives.

So does that mean access in its lesser used sense as 'the chance to be turned away from'?

No. In ds's school dictionary, (I checked!) access means a way in, or the right or opportunity to use something or see someone.

That's how I meant it.

Obviously.

Why does nobody ever call for a return to the Secondary Modern system? Because that's the reality of the 'Grammar school' system for the majority of children.

You said they should have 'access'. So does that mean access in its lesser used sense as 'the chance to be turned away from'?

Oh, so there should be one nearby every child, which the vast majority could fail to get into?

I didn't say every child should have entrance to GS.

And access to a school does not mean getting a place there. It means having one in your area that you could access on a daily basis, that ideally regularly accepts children from the area in which you live.

The only way you can make every child has entrance to a grammar school would be to get rid of the entrance exams, surely?

Even if every county had the 11+, not every child within it would have access to a grammar school, would they?

Elaine, err, yes it does, especially if you aren't going to quote me in the context of me post.

Seeker I think after all the posts I have read of yours about grammar schools, I finally understand why you feel the way you do about them! I would probably feel the same as you if I saw that every day too.

@Slavetofileofax I think every child should have access to a grammar school

Does the problem with that need pointing out?

It's daft though, isn't it? (Am also in Kent) as the only dc it disadvantages are the ones without clued-up parents.

At my dcs school ALL the kids had coaching (mine didn't apart from papers at home)

I don't think school help knows either...

I still have no idea if schoolhelp thinks grammar schools are a good thing or not. very confused.

I have read this thread from top to bottom and remain completely bewildered by it.

seeker - can you not speak to the head and suggest that all possible candidates are either coached/helped, or parents spoken to?

Trouble is, most state primary heads disapprove of the system.

Round here it's VR only and children don't stand a chance unless they've had some sort of coaching, the familiarisation done in schools is nowhere near enough to get the sort of score required.

In dd's year I can think of at least two girls from non-grammar backgrounds who would certainly have passed or been very very close had they had the year-long coaching some children received.

In our area (Kent) children have to pass all sections (they do VR/NVR and maths, with an english paper that's only looked at in borderline cases). If they drop a bit in one section they fail - even if they have high marks on the other sections. And honestly the NVR in particular is such a speed test that children who haven't seen a paper before are really unlikely to pass, no matter how bright they are.

Only part of the test is VR/NVR, so the children that are particularly good at maths and English still stand a chance. At least in this area.

The difference coaching and practice makes to VR/NVR is massive. It seems to me harder to make a difference to maths.

In many ways I think the fairest way would be to use SATs style papers, given that at least schools teach towards these, so no child would go into them totally blind. And yes, as I've seen people here arguing, anyone can buy a couple of books and practice. But that assumes that parents realise that their children are not prepared for the 11+ in any way at state schools.

I don't think a perfect test exists either, but I don't see how the test my son took discriminates in favour of middle class children.

The English and Maths papers were based on what is covered in KS2, and the NVR/VR test is just that.

I think supportive but non English speaking parents would have children that cope ok, I can't see how it would be any harder for them to do well than it would in a comp. If they were that supportive, they would learn enough English to get by, or they would get their children to translate things they need to know.

Seeker, why do you have such a problem with middle class families? By your definition, I am middle class, although it certainly doesn't feel like I am. I have a much bigger problem with those parents that will happily send their child to my son's school, but would have had no problem sending them private if they hadn't got in. There is no way I could afford private, even on a generous scholarship.

Grammar school isn't just about social mobility in the way you come across as thinking it is, it's about teaching children in a way that suits them best and enables them to fulfil their full potential. Why do you seem to think that GS shoudl be reserved for the poorest families only?

Anyone that can't afford private school, either prep or secondary, should have equal right to apply to grammar schools.