Should I send my kid to a grammar school

Alongside the many grammar applicants who are not tutored (like the OP of this thread and Bert's ) there are numerous threads and other forums which are about tutoring from an early age, parents seeking tutors , being told the best tutors are booked up from Yr4, children doing an extra half hour of 11+ prep every night and an hour on weekend days and more .

The intensive tutoring is a an unintended consequence of there being too few good schools and is pretty much limited to the relatively small number of super-selectives. People use it to argue against grammars, when in reality, it's an argument that there should be more grammars or other good schools. In those areas, demand is far higher than supply meaning the "best" kids are selected so intensive tutoring is needed and the bright but untutored kids don't stand a chance. Out in the rest of the country, where things are more normal, the grammars aren't so much over-subscribed so bright kids can get a place without tutoring, just like it used to be in the 1960s when every town had a grammar and much higher proportions of kids went to them (a third in our town so hardly elitist!). People really can't use the intensive tutoring for super selectives as grounds for arguing against all grammar schools, because most aren't like that!

"t starts with the comments about little Jocasta not being able to mix with the rough girls,the only bullying goes on in private prep schools, private school kids are thick and in drugs. You get the picture."

how many times are the "little Jocasta" comments in response to the prevalent assumptions such as those I outlined in my post? And I can't believe anyone said that bullying only ever happens in preschools! I have read people saying it doesn't happen there though which is pretty daft! And are you saying there are no drugs in private schools? The would be daft too...........

Those who support grammars often cite the behaviour and work ethic as a benefit. Alongside the many grammar applicants who are not tutored (like the OP of this thread and Bert's ) there are numerous threads and other forums which are about tutoring from an early age, parents seeking tutors , being told the best tutors are booked up from Yr4, children doing an extra half hour of 11+ prep every night and an hour on weekend days and more .

This is self selective of children who will sit down and do this intensive extra work.

That is the basis of my comment.

ToughAs, and Marnia, I have no personal stake in grammar schools, I sympathise with individual parents who choose them as the best available option and you will see that I have advised the OP of this thread to use the grammar school opportunity in her circumstances.

My view on the school system is based on where I believe our focus as a country should be, which is improving and extending every person's access to a good comp which looks after the needs of all children. I 'bang a drum', aka lay out my reasons for this, on the grammar schools in Wales thread.

Have you done a search for phrases such as "the scrotes at the local comp"?

To be fair I only read that once. I only read "I know what goes on in comps " once too. Was enough, though. How about "throwing him to the lions" "eaten alive" "will be bullied for being a nerd" "chavs" "pyjama wearing" "chair throwing"

And how about the general assumption that if you don't go to grammar school or to private school you will be spending your days with disruptive, probably violent bullies with low aspirations who will drag your child down to their level?

"It's so much more acceptable to be spiteful about grammar school kids though, private school ones are always fair game too."

Gosh. I don't think there was any spite towards children was there? But it seems to me that the only kids who are "fair game" on mumsnet are the ones that people "move heaven and earth" to get their children away from.

"I posted:"let me guess Blu and Bert, you both have children who didn't pass?"

At 14.25 Bertranrussell posted "Wrong, marnia."

And then later in the day remembered she did have a child who had failed the 11+!"

*My "wrong" was directed to your unpleasant implication that only people who have a child that has failed have any issues at all with the 11+. I have one that passed and one that failed. And I have had issues with the 11+ system since my first child started reception!

Oh, and incidentally- you must be a very speedy person if you consider just over a minute "later in the day"........ .

Who I have branded a failure? Are you equating failing the 11+ with 'being a failure'.I certainly wasn't!

It's bullying.

Because branding someone's kid as a failure at 11 is offensive. Calling them out on it as an individual is offensive.

It's certainly not how I choose to behave.

Why do you find it offensive??

Well I find it super offensive. I read it as "Let me guess, you have kids that failed. Yeah yeah that's what all the failures say. My kids, OTOH, are genii who don't need tutoring."

Yuk.

Sorry I must apologise to Bert it was Blu who said "not to mention the children who have proved that they will sit still, do as they are told and do endless test routines as part of the tutoring since Yr 4 "

ErgonomicallUnsound It was in response to her claim that all 11+ passers had spent their childhood being forced to do practice papers.Which as well as being untrue was clearly meant to be goady.

The undertone being that if you have a child that "failed" then any comments that you may make are just sour grapes. It's a sideswipe designed to undermine, IMO