The Politics of Grammar Schools

The point is that Stretford High is a non selective school in a Deprived area that operates a selective system. A true "Modern" under what some people designate a modern school as yet the school achieves almost what the average Comprehensive does at GCSE.

Who said FSM/PP = Unintelligent, I certainly did not....

And sorry drilling a child hard enough will guarantee you nothing,drilling alone will get you zilch.

You need a certain degree of intelligence to cope with the 11+ and many kids tutored to the nth degree still don't get in.

High ability students (L5 at entry) should get an average of A for GCSE otherwise they have not made "good" progress by OFSTED standards.

Not really sure of your point smokepole with your 39% FSM. Plenty of schools (mine included) has a higher FSM percentage than that. 2/3 of my yr 10 class are PP (mixed ability option subject. FSM/PP does not = unintelligent.

Errr why do the best teachers need to be in the poorest areas?

I'm interested in the assumption that not being being poor guarantees a child will do well too,no need for Ofsted then.

Any child in a family over £16 k are clearly guaranteed to do well and clearly anybody from a family under are doomed to failure.

Biggest load of cods I've heard in a long time.

A good comprehensive puts the house prices up. The identical house in the next street, but a different catchment are will be thousands cheaper.

T"he top LEAs for GCSEs and A levels were dominated by areas where grammar schools still exist like Sutton, Bromley, Kingston, Barnet, Trafford and Redbridge"

Well, in Sutton there are no fewer than 3 boys super selectives, and I believe some girls schools too, which take the top % from thousands of applicants from all over London - so a comparison based on a borough will be very skewed indeed. I believe Kingston is the same, with super-selectives.

What are the mortgages like?

That of course is also unfair. You can imagine what the mortgages are like.

Quite simply the best schools and the best teachers need to be in the poorest areas as the rest will do OK.

It would only work if they could get a test that was utterly tutor proof and that is an impossibility. Money buys a place-drill a child hard enough and long enough and it can be done.
If they did come back they need to have an end of year shuffle and the ones in the secondary modern who are out performing any in the grammar schools need to swap places.

Those who enter Secondary school at Level 5 in English/Maths?

I think that is the definition from the "Performance Tables" on the Dept of Education Website.

"Not in my area where the comprehensives are excellent."

What are the mortgages like?

I shall get very militant if there is any suggestion of sending the majority of our children to secondary moderns and actually get up and fight it-to the end.

"High Ability students"

Definition?

But when there aren't grammars it's simply not the case that all the kids who would have gone to the grammars go to the comps. Large numbers of them go to the private schools where they're even more likely to emerge as precious little emperors etc

Not in my area where the comprehensives are excellent. When they get the stream that would have gone to grammar school into top universities you would be a bit silly to pay.

Hakult. You can't get a more "Modern School" than Stretford High with 39% FSM yet last year 52% got GCSE Maths/English, but perhaps better is that the 15% High Ability students averaged B - at GCSE. A similar school in Kent would be 25-30% GCSE.

I am waiting for the day when anyone says 'bring back the secondary modern'. It won't come.
They don't stand a chance of coming back when 80% of children won't get in then 80% of people with children, or grandchildren, or bothered about the next generation, will vote against it.
The disadvantaged don't stand a chance-money buys a place these days.

My point was that the children do not choose the school themselves based on where they might fit in, and that they don't get to experiment and try different places for a few months, or change as their outlook changes, as we do as adults with jobs.

A parent choosing a school for their child is not the same, which was the comparison opal was making.

And culture in schools is such a fluid thing. The school I teach in has changed beyond recognition in the 10 years I've been there. The previous school I worked in did the same in the 4 years I was there.

Opal. The range of schools offered in Trafford means that not one pupil, is left in a unsuitable school. As you are probably aware BTH and Wellington are only Modern schools in name and bare no relation to what people think modern schools are (past or current). The (fully) selective system works in Trafford, it does not work very well in Kent particularly in East Kent, the difference is that if your High/Middle ability child fails the 11+ in Kent, they are likely to end up in a school with a 40% pass rate at GCSE. The worst though is that even "High Ability" pupils at these schools in Kent achieve C grades, whereas in Trafford at the two schools mentioned High Ability pupils average B+ for GCSE.

It is difficult for people to say the 11+ does not work in Trafford, because it does work. The difference though from Kent is failure does not confine pupils who fail to abject schools.

They won't be offered a choice of cultures if the school they choose is selective and they don't get in!

Comprehensive schools differ hugely in culture.

eviltwins private schools offer very different cultures. This is accepted in the sector and parents choose what they want.

I have my own (evil ) twins and their respective schools could not be more different.

If I have that within my grasp because I'm rich, why should others be denied any choice of culture because they are not ?

"think we are extremely lucky in the area we live in, having a choice of amazing schools that can cater for a range of children with a range of abilities."

Really? So proper comprehensives then?

opal I think that comparing schools to work in terms of culture is inappropriate. As an employee, yes, adults make choices for themselves about the type of place they want to work. However, many of us try a range of workplaces before finding one we truly like, and also might find that our tastes change as our lives change or our careers progress. Our choices might be limited by other areas of our lives.

Children do not choose their own schools, usually - it's their parents' choice. Children tend to stay at the same school, unless there are problems, yet the change in the children between the ages of 11 and 16 or 18 is phenomenal.

Claiming that we need a range of schools so that children can find one which suits them, culturally, is a ridiculous argument.

Amber. I think we must be very lucky here then. We do have a choice. There is no one school that would suit everyone but there is a good variety available.

Part of the reason I'm in favour of comps is so that kids do not leave school as precious little emperors who have never worked with poor or non academic people

I think this is a misnomer, though. I went to school in Winchester, Hants. It was a comprehensive, but I have to say that the higher achieving pupils had absolutely zero to do with the those in the lower sets. We were streamed from what is now year 7, with mixed form groups which were, in effect, totally segregated. We're in Bucks now and DS will be going to grammar in September - it's actually quite a mixed group going from his school and he knows a lot of boys there through sporting activities. Not all "little emperors" at all.

opal I haven't read all of the material posted here but I think you're coming in for some unnecessary flak. I live in the same area as you and am currently experiencing the joy of Year 5 prep for the exams. I think we are extremely lucky in the area we live in, having a choice of amazing schools that can cater for a range of children with a range of abilities. We have the option, as parents, of making that choice. For me personally, I agree with the grammar school. In our particular area, the grammar school system is actually benefitting all of the schools and children locally.

BUT, I accept that our area is fairly unique. Even in places where there are grammar schools, the alternatives are not so great. In some places, there simply isn't a choice. And you do have to accept on the whole, it is an affluent area, with tutors, parents putting in a considerable amount of time in support, lots of upwardly mobile / professional / pushy parents. House prices close to the grammar schools are hundreds of thousands more than an equivalent house half a mile away.

And whilst the results the grammar schools achieve are in the top 5 I think in the country, and a local primary school was 2nd in the whole of the country in the league tables, and the results for the alternative schools are just as impressive, you can understand why people may view it as out of reach for families who can't afford to live in the area / have tutors etc.

In a town near where I live, there are three comps.

One has rigorous setting, one uses streaming, one doesn't do much in the way of either!

The experiences of the DC attending those schools are not the same. The cultures are very different.