New grammars by 2020 which will exclude 90% of local kids

I think Bucks has a Headteacher's appeal system too. But even if it is just Kent, that's nearly 25% of grammar schools..........

I'm not sure this link will work but try it:

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/schools-by-type?step=phase&region=886&geographic=la&phase=secondary&for=Performance&basedon=Overall%20performance&show=High%20achievers%20at%20key%20stage%202&&schoolTypeFilter=allSchools&dataSetFilter=pro v

It's a list of Progress 8 results adjusted to show High Achievers only. You'll find as you work down the list that the grammars and secondary moderns become very mixed so there are plenty of secondary moderns doing better for High Achievers than many of the grammars. So yes, what's the point of introducing this mad system elsewhere?

Just like they say a developed country is where the rich use public transportation, I believe a developed country is where the rich use the state schools. In my town the private schools are struggling because everyone is using the state school. We are one of those families. We had a place for DD at a top tier private school before we came to our senses and realized what we were doing was really stupid.

Our wrap care is amazing with 22 free enrichment programs to choose from and costs $400 a year. During the week my DD is learning Spanish and Mandarin twice a week. The only aspect I am not happy with is the lack of sports. I don't have time for rec sports. DD does soccer and softball. She will be starting lacrosse next year. Each sport costs $50 a year and is run by the town using funds granted to the town from the state.

Another interesting fact from the same source

nearly a third (31%) of children in Kent grammar schools are selected using Headteacher Assessment or appeals, where further evidence is considered.

TAlkin Parts of NJ are urbanized. There is a whole lot more that isn't. There is also a good reason why I am very happy living in NJ. We pay more in taxes, $15k on our home for a start, so others less fortunate get access to basics such as a good education, healthcare and housing.

Also, you have pretty good provision all the way down the east and west coasts. My sister is going private out in Seattle because she is a snob. Truth be told the public, government funded school is better than the private school she and my BIL are paying for. Their kids would be better off in the local school but my sister doesn't want them hanging out with the 'wrong' type of kids

There are so many issues, education being one of them, with the middle of the country. It's what Trump played to why he won this last election.

I doubt grammars would sit empty,they're underfunded as it is.

Parents pay for buses to grammar schools not tax payers.

And sorry saving the environment is no argument against grammars. Not all of us are lucky enough to,live in the most expensive areas with the best schools. Parents will always commute if needs be. The fairest system would be a lottery system which would involve everybody doing a commute.

In reply to an impassioned speech by Peter Hitchens, who asserted that all our grammar schools were heavily oversubscribed, I pointed out that nine Kent grammar schools had vacancies on allocation day in 2016, and that to the best of my knowledge all Kent children who had passed the Kent Test were offered a place at a Kent grammar school, if not the one of their choice.

From this source

www.kentadvice.co.uk/peters-blog/item/940-radio-kent-s-big-grammar-school-debate.html

Tiggy
My point is that those are the only ones that have such a huge climate damaging catchment that they barely impact on local schools

the others are as Dandelion so eloquently described at 17:38

Oh also, previously if you failed 11+ but excelled at your local secondary you could move to the local grammar at a later date. My understanding is that this is no longer the case.

Want2be
NJ is a pretty urbanised state .... how about Montana ..... or Virginia .......
50 miles between high schools does not give a lot of "choice"

And NJ (once it recovered from the predations of Trump) is a rich state
others are not
why should kids born in poor places be condemned to a poor education
Nancy De Vos had fun in DC after all today

As I said, I'm in two minds about it.

As grammars were, way back when my DH went to one, they did provide opportunities to disadvantaged kids. As it stands now, they no longer do so I'm not so convinced.

TAlkin Here in NJ the state redistributes. Newark has more $ per child than 'superzips' such as Millburn. I have colleagues at work who are moving to East Orange, a notoriously bad neighbourhood, because the town get so much in state funding that schools are very well funded.

Our town gets a lot of state funding because we are a former abbot district. We still have about 45-50% of kids on FSM's in our town in the public school. Spend per child is about $20k, which is more than what the private schools charge in tuition. Its a big part of the reason why schools in our town more than rival the private ones.

I agree with charter schools being a disaster but I disagree with you on parental choice. My kids are in school with people from all walks of life and parental choice would most probably reduce that diversity. The charter schools in my town have much much less diversity and they accept kids from out of district.

Tiggy
Colyton, Tiffin, which others .....