Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

Ds's grammar school was a toxic place. Bullying, zero pastoral care, behaviour problems and there were serious drug issues there. It's not had an Ofsted since 2011 and still claims to be 'outstanding'.

NewModel But at least she was able to be moved ....

I think streaming is wrong before y9 at the earliest (our comp streams only for GCSE years, before then for timetabling it splits into 'equal ability' halves and then sets within that.)

Someone ace at English and rubbish at maths or vice versa wouldn't mass the 11+ in the first place Actually that happened to DN in a leafy comprehensive. Due to not being good at maths (scraped a 4 in the end) she was 'condemned' to what was clearly the less able 50% of the cohort BUT was always excellent at English. Parents had to make a big fuss when it got to looking at GCSE options to get her moved over to the other side. Vindicated by her mainly 9, 8 and 7 GCSE results.

Maybe dyslexic wasn't a great example, but you get the gist. Someone ace at English and rubbish at maths or vice versa wouldn't mass the 11+ in the first place, and wouldn't have 'peers' to be taught with.

Furthermore, with setting a dyslexic maths genius could be in top set for maths and bottom for English. You can't manage that with the grammar system.

You can Teen. DS is an exact example of it.

The provision and facilities are very different to the other state schools nearby. It is essentially like a fee free private school. DS's super-selective seemed very much a 'poor relation' in comparison with state-of-the-art facilities at many local comprehensives. They had a super active PTA which made lots of money to provide learning/sports equipment that you'd have thought would be a usual part of all schools' basic income.

Furthermore, with setting a dyslexic maths genius could be in top set for maths and bottom for English. You can't manage that with the grammar system.

(Most schools I think don't 'stream' straight away from y7 these days, purely because streams are harder to move in and out of and you want children to have time to develop and 'unwrap' differences in primary school quality.)

I don't think that is necessarily true Clarry.

IME a GS has a set of parents with fat wallets, often happy to contribute to the school by monthly direct debit or otherwise (we chose not to sign up to the direct debit funding scheme), that is what taxes are for isn't it?

But many do sign up because getting a child to the GS is actually saving them the five figure sum they would have paid for a private education otherwise.

The provision and facilities are very different to the other state schools nearby. It is essentially like a fee free private school.

This situation isn't balanced at all by other schools locally being academies and their business model/operating for profit/shareholder benefit.

Local kids that don't get into the GS have very different opportunities.

I wouldn't choose to live in a GS area if I wasn't here already, we were here pre kids and it didn't enter my head when we moved here.

No different to streaming or setting, just using a different building.

I personally don’t have a problem with selective education in theory - it happens at some point - whether 11, post gcse or at uni. Probably most people who are anti-grammar would be ok with selective 6th-form - as kids have had more time to develop - and by this point in U.K., the curriculum is more focused on 3-4 specialist subjects. So probably selective 6th form is a better route to go down. Also, older kids can travel longer distances- so you could get more specialist 6th forms which focus on specific subjects (eg sciences or arts/humanities/languages or vocational subjects).

I agree greatest. DS wanted to go to the GS, passed the 11 plus (no tutoring) and wanted to go there. I had reservations, he can be very sensitive to pressure. He isn't an all rounder and excels at one half of the curriculum.

That is absolutely fine for him because he wants to go in a certain direction. But it isn't fine for him at GS because his self esteem has taken a bit of a battering.

He's a good, bright kid with dyslexia, the GS's accommodation/provision for dyslexia has been very very poor indeed.

The fact that other children can't access the school sticks in my throat.

Other good local secondaries are out of catchment with a £1,000 a year bus fare and two hours added to the day. The nearest alternative is a very strict academy that wouldn't have suited him either.

An all round comprehensive would have been a fabulous choice to have had in the mix.

My experience would suggest that a lot of 'leafy area' comprehensives seem to operate 'set systems' which basically mark out the grammar school equivalent cohort as 'top dogs' from the off. So what's the difference between that and a grammar school? And they get the super 'enriching' experiences that one would think available to all in a comprehensive school setting!

Absolutely, and I'm not using this as an argument to defend grammars. I'm explaining (justifying, I suppose) why parents who live in grammar school areas continue to choose them, even when they appreciate the failures of the system. There are lots of comprehensives that do a great job of supporting academic children, and I would very happily send my DC to one - but I think there are very few secondary moderns that do - unsurprisingly, given that the vast majority of the most able top 25% have been creamed off by the grammars (and a sizeable chunk of the medium able have either found god and squeezed into the faith schools, or fled into the private sector). What I'm trying to say is that it's easy for parents to say they wouldn't send their bright child to a grammar school until they're faced with the reality of not doing so in a full grammar area.

@BuanoKubiamVej no, parents aren't obliged. But we do live in this thing called society, which we all have a stake in. I loved living in an area where everyone went to the same school. and therefore had a stake in this massive great institution sitting in the middle of it. it meant my children knew the sons and daughters of agricultural workers, fishermen, doctors, travellers and just about everyone else... but those are some of the kids they played and socialised with. I think that makes for a more cohesive and less divisive society.

One of my DC was decidedly average at school - inner city comprehensive - but still ended up at an RG university where she got a first. There is no way she would have passed the 11+, if it had been an option where we live. It begs the question, what is the point of grammars?

Grammar schools can be the best environment for some children. It's certainly true that there are some kids who do brilliantly in non-selective schools but that's not always true.

What is true is that the lower ability kids benefit hugely from having the brighter kids in the same school as them, so it does the greatest good for the greatest number to have a comprehensive system and it is the job of politicians to do what is the greatest good for the greatest number, as far as possible and in line with party policy and voter demands.

Parents are not obliged to do the greatest good for the greatest number, their responsibility is to do the best for their own child. So if a parent feels their child will be better off in a selective school and can be confident that their child will get in, of course they will be in favour.

But for every child in a selective grammar there are 4 children who are going to a school that is incrementally a less good environment for those children for every high-ability child that is sent elsewhere. You can't be in favour of grammars without also being in favour of the often extremely troubled schools that have a higher concentration of difficult pupils because the ones who are easier to teach are all elsewhere.

We ran away form a grammar area at the tail end of primary school and the children went to a local comp. It was a deprived rural area so not the leafy comp of MN myth. But both our DC got all A stars at GCSE and at A level and one went to Cambridge and the other to Durham (and now works in an academic job in a university). So clearly they were good enough for grammar. But the whole thing didn't sit well for us. It's divisive. And if I'm honest, even with their future grades and potential I couldn't be sure our DC would have passed the 11 plus without tutoring (which we weren't going to do!).
profoundly disagree with selective education at that age

I’m often surprised how relatively badly children at grammar schools do, bearing their selective intake.

Yes, you can change schools at sixth form, but in some regards that's already too late. If you want to do two MFL or classical languages at A level/degree level, it's very challenging to do that if you haven't already done them at GCSE. Not impossible, but challenging.

There are always a few DC where 11 plus doesn’t work. However in a 11 plus LA, there are more places available and she almost certainly would have got in.

As for an area being 25% to grammars: this for my grammar LA is false. Where there are greater numbers of highly educated professional parents, it’s nearer 35%. In the north of the county it’s less than 20%. Many DC from out of the county get places at the 4 grammars in the northern area. Some schools rarely get a single child to any of them.

I would say some secondary modern schools are very good. They do, after all, have 30% high achieving children in them so they get plenty to university. It’s also possible to change a schools at 12 and definitely at 6th form. A highly academic child should probably move for 6th form.

All our grammars are outstanding. Obviously quite old reports but progress 8s are pretty good. Some of the secondary midterms are less good

I have a theory about social mobility and grammars. I think in my day the grammars definitely provided social mobility in my county. Schools had farm workers children mixing with farmers’ children. DCs of council road workers mixed with the DCs of the chief officers. My reasoning is that social mobility has happened! The DC I went to grammar school with have all escaped being working class. They are now middle class and so are their DC. Their DC are likely to go to the grammars or do very well at a secondary modern. Which, incidentally, have better results than a good many comps. The children who I know who went to our local sec all did really well. Better than some in the grammars!

One of the reasons the grammar system is unfair has been demonstrated by DD. She failed the 11+ for 2 different areas and also the 11+ style test for a super selective grammar. She went to a comprehensive. On arrîval there in y7, she scored very highly in all the tests they did in week 1 and in fact scored the highest in her year for maths. She did her GCSEs and got all 8s and 9s, for her A-Levels she got 4xA*. In other words, DD was actually good enough to be top end of grammar school, yet failed the 11+.