May has got her Grammars.

Kazxy - I think the whole point of being against grammar schools is to reduce the bad comps/secondary moderns. Don't cream off the top kids for grammar and leave the rest at awful schools. Get the top, middle and bottom kids all together in one good school.

There weren't grammars in my area when I suffered the comp - it had been the town's grammar a few years before, but had been converted to a comp to merge with the town's sec mod which was closed. It really was the big lie of "Get the top, middle and bottom kids all together in one good school". Everyone, my parents included, believed that lie which was why they sent me there believing it would provide a quality education for everyone. It's now in special measures with falling numbers and is highly likely to close!

Kazxy - I think the whole point of being against grammar schools is to reduce the bad comps/secondary moderns.
Don't cream off the top kids for grammar and leave the rest at awful schools. Get the top, middle and bottom kids all together in one good school.

So are Grammars for kids who can’t motivate themselves in a comprehensive school?

Not necessarily just about motivation. If you're constantly being bullied (verbally and physically) and there's disruption in every lesson, it doesn't matter how motivated you are, you're not going to reach your full potential.

I speak from experience. I was a straight A pupil upon entering my comp. 5 years later, I failed all my exams, had burn marks on my arms (from fag ends stubbed out on me), suffered from depression and anxiety, had no friends, was suicidal. All because of a crap comp where the teachers didn't give a toss and had no control. As for lack of motivation, once I'd escaped from that hell hole, I taught myself A levels, then taught myself chartered accountancy exams in evenings/weekends, whilst working full time, eventually becoming a qualified accountant - I'd say that was pretty damned motivation that enabled me to do that.

I'd move heaven and earth to prevent my son ending up in a crap comp to suffer like I did.

It would be interesting to compare a 'standard' comprehensive school with the highest attaining 25% taken out with a ' standard' secondary modern school.

This would be able to show if the next cohort down of 30% do significantly better in a comprehensive school !

I am not sure they do...

In the highest attaining 'modern' schools they achieve GCSE results consistently that put them in the top 5% of non selective schools. This proving that modern schools can and 'do' send pupils to RG& Oxbridge Universities!

Therefore why not compare a 'standard' modern school with a standard comprehensive minus the highest achieving 30% !

My guess is the reason people in grammar school areas are super-keen for grammar-school expansion, prh4, is that they think it will give their DC a better chance of getting into one. They have little experience of and no access to the best alternative, good local comps.
And it's no surprise either that grammars are generally oversubscribed. Simply because they exist locally, you'd pretty much have to do all you can to get your DC in, to avoid the sorry alternative.
I know too that some tiger-parent-type families move into these areas "to give their DC the very best chance" of what they perceive as an elite education. But I also know at least one family which then moved out again, when reluctantly forced to recognise their DC was, erm, not grammar school material.
It's the ensuing primary-school tutoring madness which I object to most. Gosh, SATS prep the schools are forced to do is bad enough. Do we have to inflict even more senseless hoop-jumping on our under 10s?

Miss- allocation happens sometimes, certainly I miss allocated my son to the wrong school. This by judging the level 1 GCSE Maths/English attainment achieved by the aforementioned teaching at his previous school.

Noble, I am assuming my son if placed with you would have achieved at higher than grade 1 in Maths ! But perhaps my son's rapid strides in English and Maths are to do more than just good teaching.

These reasons being ones such as an environment free from bullying on a 'industrial level' . A strong school ethos based on 'over achieving' and finally the appropriate support from a SENCO . This being one does not view my DS as a drain on limited resources .

It should be about evaluating a child's current abilities and placing them in an environment suitable for it to flourish or advance!

But that’s not what it does. The 11+ is inaccurate and routinely allocates students to the wrong school.

Firstly the three girls would certainly have not been lionized at DD1/2s grammar for being Oxbridge bound ! The lionization of the girls enabled them to bully a boy with 'sen' 2 years younger than them my DS. The girls would then act all sweetness and light and seem to be helping DS when a teacher came past.
Rather alarmingly one of the girls is the current Head Girl of the school hence is lorded by the school all the time.

As for a comprehensive school being able to cater for all needs , well obviously that's not my experience . DS going from perceived level1 GCSE capability in Maths/English. This to possibly attaining level 5 Maths/English in a Independent school in just 18 months confirms my doubts !

The number of other points I am making include referencing the fact , that defining a school based on its designation is misleading . The three so called modern schools are among the best 'non selective' schools in the country regardless of location.

The so called comprehensive schools that consistently better them three have a number of selective pupils ! Selection of children should not be viewed as evil nor defining their future. It should be about evaluating a child's current abilities and placing them in an environment suitable for it to flourish or advance !

lestalk200

Not sure I understand the point above? You say the girls who did the bullying are "Oxbridge bound" which implies that if we had grammars and secondary moderns they would have been at the grammar and presumably bullying there?

It maybe that the comp in question does not have a good anti-bullying policy but that is not intrinsic to it being a comprehensive. A grammar school may equally well be poor at dealing with bullying.

Then comprehensive schools are the ticket .

When posters talk about 'Modern ' schools and 'Comprehensive schools'. Its rather relevant to ask which of these schools would you rather you Children attended:

Harrop Fold school, Thornhill Community School or The Polygon School

OR
Waddeson School, Wellington School, or Hilview .

This is important to understand because the top group are all fully comprehensive , whereas the second group are in fully selective areas.

If you believe education and schools in particular should be about evidencing a true representation of the utilitarianism of a local community than comprehensive schools are the ticket !.
This being 10 % very bright children 15 % bright children 50% average children on so on down to 10% of below average academic ability.

However, if you believe schools are not there to represent a perceived utopian panacea , comprehensive schools are not the ticket.

I am so thankful my DD1 did not go to DSs 'outstanding' comprehensive, otherwise she would have permanently excluded for battering the three 'bastards' that made DSs life hell there !
The three girls are lionized by the school not only by being children of teachers there but because they are Oxbridge bound !

The whole idea of comprehensive schools was not to improve the educational outcomes of children, but solely for social integration purposes.

ScrubTheDecks said:
“So are Grammars for kids who can’t motivate themselves in a comprehensive school?”

Yes!

I struggle to see this as "anti-democratic". It isn't as if the public has voted against this policy. Some polls say that the public favours grammar schools, others that they are against. However, support is strongest in areas that currently have grammar schools. Those areas are definitely in favour of more grammar schools.

The big question for me is what effect grammar schools have on pupils. Some studies show that they help social mobility, others show that they don't. Some studies show that the overall level of achievement in areas with grammar schools is higher than in comprehensive-only areas, others show the opposite. Similarly, some studies show that bright children do better at grammar school, others show that they don't. A summary of the available research (can't remember whose summary - I'd have to go digging if anyone wanted to know) suggested that most research in this area is designed to confirm the prejudices of the researcher. As I favour evidence-based policy, this mix means I have no idea what policy is best. However, I certainly wouldn't regard the views of the academic establishment as determinative.

From a Telegraph article, (albeit in 2013)
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9729674/Top-state-schools-flooded-with-over-1000-applications.html

ENGLAND'S MOST OVERSUBSCRIBED SCHOOLS
Al-Hijrah School, Birmingham, 18.35 (F)
Herschel Grammar, Slough, 14 (AC / SEL)
Langley Grammar, Slough, 13 (AC / SEL)
Sutton Grammar for Boys, Sutton 13 (AC / SEL)
Harris Academy Crystal Palace, Croydon, 12.3 (AC)
Tiffin Girls’ School, Kingston upon Thames, 12.3 (AC / SEL)
Tiffin Boys' School, Kingston upon Thames, 12 (AC / SEL)
The Latymer School, Enfield, 11 (SEL / F)
King Edward VI Five Ways, Birmingham, 10.6 (AC / SEL)
Slough Grammar, Slough, 10.5 (AC / SEL)

Quite a few grammars in that top 10.
With figures of 10 or more kids applying for every place, it is clearly not JUST those whose kids are actually going to pass that want Grammars. There is a genuine enthusiasm for the schools whether you like it or not, and parents aspire for their kids to go there, and not just middle class snobs before we fall back on that stereotype.

Many are unhappy with academic elitism, but I am not. Peregrina said on here "Where we fall down badly as a country is in our technical and vocational education, and for the 50% who don't go to university." I actually agree with this, but I don't see that this is helped by treating our children in a "one size fits all" system, where those who would be best served by a technical and vocational education are taught in exactly the same way as those who would benefit more from a rigorous academic environment.

As for more grammars meaning more secondary moderns, well that's really a conversation for another day, because we're not talking about more grammars here are we? We're talking about expansion of existing grammars, which given the expanding number of secondary age pupils (Secondary pupil numbers set for 19% rise by 2026 www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40608795) is just keeping pace with the same overall proportion of places compared to the student population.

Clearly people have deeply ingrained personal beliefs about our education system (myself included I admit) so I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but in these days of social media "echo chambers" it's important that we expose ourselves to the other points of view (hence I read this even though the first post is clearly from a different point of view than I hold personally).

The reason why the MC have a stranglehold is not because there are fewer of them - they always did have a stranglehold when that was the system everywhere, despite us being told about a few WC children who did well via a grammar school place.

I could see some logic in them back in the days when only 25% of the population were deemed to be clever enough to get 5 O Levels, and the school leaving age for the majority was 15; I can't see it now when we expect 50% to be able to obtain 5 GCSEs.

More grammar school places, please. I live out of catchment. In fact grammar school is 30 miles away. Both my sons attend one. The reason the MC have a stranglehold on them is that there are so few of them, tutoring is the cheapest way of gaining a coveted place in a competitive academic environment. Both my children are flourishing at grammar school, especially my younger son who was a poor performer in a state comp primary. He would have remained a poor performer in a state comp secondary.

I’m in Bucks and have a DD in year 4. I am lucky enough to live in a village with a primary, ( quite affluent, although we are not).

At least 6 of the 12 children in my daughters year are being tutored, there are waiting lists for the top tutors and the average cost for tutoring is £3k. They may not call it tutoring for 11+ but it is. It is especially prevalent in middle class village primary’s.

Whilst some children may do well without tutoring it is very much a culture in middle class areas. My friend tutored her daughter from year 3 for Grammar as the cost of tutoring compared to independent schools was pennies.

It does make the schools around it less desirable but I am lucky enough to be on the Oxfordshire border so my daughter can go to a normal comp.

A certain section of the public want grammar schools, giving the public what they want is surely what government should be about.

Not many want secondary moderns though which is what the majority will get.

I never get this argument that if you had more grammars you wouldn't have as much tutoring.

If you have a situation where, say 25% of children go to grammars then maybe a few people who have kids right at the top of the tree might think they can get away with a few practice papers. But anyone whose child is generally in the top half of the class will definitely think it's worth their while to try and get their child into the grammar and if they can afford it that will mean tutoring.

Also for people in areas where there are very few grammars there will generally also be some good comprehensives that most will be happy to go to. Whereas once you have many more grammars there won't be comprehensives so many more people will think they have little choice but to try and get their kids in somehow.

So I really don't get this argument.

Tid13 - if they weren't popular then they wouldn't be oversubscribed by 5 or more children for every place

www.kentadvice.co.uk/peters-blog/news-a-comments/item/1071-oversubscription-and-vacancies-in-kent-grammar-schools-on-allocation-for-2018.html

There were just eight grammar schools with vacancies on allocation, all of the five with more than ten empty spaces at this stage having a history of seeing high number of appeals from non-selective children upheld. The total at this stage is 184 places unfilled, the lowest figure in recent years (240 in 2017). Most of these will vanish after appeals and late applications.

giving the public what they want

Many more people don’t want their children to go to secondary moderns than want their children to go to a grammar, including people who want their child to go to a grammar. Grammar schools actually give way more people want they don’t want so if popularity is what you’re after, a policy that sticks loads of kids in secondary moderns isn’t it.

giving the public what they want is surely what government should be about.

Why should the parents of pupils-who-will-pass-the-test get to dictate the education offered to the much larger number of children who won't pass the test?

A government continually giving vocal minority pressure groups what they want, to the detriment of society as a whole, is simply weak,, and isn't governing. Government has a responsibility to balance the needs of all, and should always bear in mind that those who need the most may be least able to articulate these needs.

If the same amount of money had been found for the expansion of Special Schools, then I WOULD be happy.

giving the public what they want is surely what government should be about.

No, it should be about what is the best for the whole country, not just a noisy subsection. Where we fall down badly as a country is in our technical and vocational education, and for the 50% who don't go to university.