Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

In a 25% grammar area, it's a brave parent who's got a really academic child and decides to send them to a secondary modern. I knew lots of parents who said they were going to do this when their kids were young, and only one of them actually did it (and they went to the 'comprehensive' high achieving faith school). As someone said upthread, a secondary modern in a full grammar area might well struggle to support a very able child. There's also subject choice to consider. Mine's turned out to be a linguist, now doing two MFL plus Latin at GCSE, and will want to continue on that path. If we'd gone for the secondary modern on principle, he'd have had the option of Spanish only, and that only up to GCSE. I'm not 100% comfortable with the grammar school system, but I'm afraid I just wasn't going to make that choice for him.

I know people who have regretted it but we aren't in a 25% area. (More like 10% from our school). A lot of competitive people togethrr (or pushy parents) can make it a harder environment to be in.

No parent is going to come on here and say they regret sending their DC to a grammar school are they? However, what they fail to realise is that "comprehensive" schools in grammar school areas just don't have the same calibre of students as those in non grammar school areas because the grammar schools cream off the best pupils.

Quite. If you live in an area where the grammar schools take 25-30% of the cohort, then the schools that are left really can't be called comprehensives at all – hence @rampantivy's speech marks. They are secondary moderns, they don't like to call them that any more, but that is what they are.

We were fortunate that an excellent head teacher turned our local secondary modern from a really struggling school into an OK one just around the time DD went to it, but it still struggled to support children who were aiming to take academic subjects for A level and go on to university.

DialsMavis.... I wonder if we are in the same area.... we prefer the grammars less strict approach and less homework!
FSM so very much lower .

I work in a (leafy) comprehensive and my children all attend a SSGS. Our P8 scores are about the same - well above average, though Att8 is higher at the grammar. Many of the children attending my school have siblings in my children's school. The %FSM is very similar.
It seems overall that the behaviour in the classroom is better at my school. Perhaps that is because my school is a girls'only school.

Of course they're good, that really isn't the point. The point is that they only benefit a tiny proportion of children, while at the same time ensuring the vast majority get an inferior education. Why is that something to be aimed at or encouraged?

Exactly. DD received an excellent education in a very good comprehensive school. She achieved sterling GCSE and A level results and is now studying a STEM degree at a well regarded RG university.

No parent is going to come on here and say they regret sending their DC to a grammar school are they? However, what they fail to realise is that "comprehensive" schools in grammar school areas just don't have the same calibre of students as those in non grammar school areas because the grammar schools cream off the best pupils.

They write off comprehensive schools because they just don't know how good a good comprehensive can be. It would be interesting how the Progress 8 or value added scores compare between a grammar school and a proper comprehensive school. (Are these measures stilll used these days?)

I'm really glad we have no grammar schools in our LA.

The most disruptive child in DS's form in his comprehensive school is also in top sets for everything, so would probably be at a grammar school if we had them here.

We live in a grammar area (v average bit of a nice, but average town). We put DD in for 11plus because our catchment comp gets great results but is one of those almost military style academies with incredibly strict rules and very harsh punishments. The grammar seemed more chilled out in comparison .

My biggest fear for my daughter with SEN, who i likely to end up in lower sets to match her work level, is then having to put up with the disruptive children who don't want to learn.

All our children deserve a calm learning environment, not just the top 10%.

No, teachers at grammars don't get paid more. In fact, in ours the teachers have gone on strike before because of not being paid enough. Teachers come and go. This has steered parents to other grammars. Also, many parents are superficial seeing in 11+ forums things like they preferred a grammar much farther out which requires 1.5 hours travelling because they like the building more. The result is as another poster has already pointed out that The results simply reflect the cohort, the selective intake. Socially as well as academically.. So yes, the grammars which attract the cream of the cream get the best results. Have seen the stickies at the elevenplusexams regarding QE for boys and the notorious culling which is ongoing despite the school having denied it on open evening only for their sons to have to go to another 6th form even though they got brilliant GCSE results.

It has been in the news that several grammars boot their Y12 at the end of year if not straight As are predicted from the Y12 mocks. We definitely wanted DS2 to join DS1 at his grammar because we didn't want him to continue with the same disruptive children from his primary. Thankfully he did and it has helped him immensely. DS3 didn't get in but it seems that his secondary is much stricter than their primary which is a relief.

If you asked me whether our grammar or our comprehensive is better I would have no idea of knowing!

I have one DC at a GS (20 odd miles away) and one at a local well performing city centre comp (20 minutes walk away). They both choose their school themselves.

I prefer the GS hands down no comparison and no complaints whatsoever. Also lots of nice kids but depends on the child. The comp has a lot of who seem to clamber over one another to try and be popular. Dress code out of school and school uniform adapted to be chavs and slags.

Most parents send children to grammar school for the environment of non disruptive behaviour. Much similar to faith schools where religious ethos somehow restricts adolescent rule breaking and boundary testing. Why do we need academic selection and religious selection to create such environment? Perhaps because we value freedom and bestow our children with much freedom earlier than necessary.

All of my children went to Grammar school and I can honestly say that their education was fantastic. They were at school with other children that wanted to learn so there wasn’t the peer pressure to mess about in the classroom.

We deliberately chose to move to a non Grammar area as we knew it wouldn't be the best place for our DD, and unfortunately that sometimes means the other schools aren't great.

The local school where we are now has a wide ranging vocational and academic curriculum so hopefully she'll be able to do the best courses for her and get good qualifications.

Unfortunately Grammar schools don't fulfil their original purpose now.

The problem with grammar schools is that academic achievement is not linear – some children are good all-rounders, others only come into their own at a later stage, when they are doing fewer subjects and can focus on what really interests them/they are good at.

Deciding on what school suits a child on the basis of a particular type of non-curriculum based test taken on one day at the age of 10 (in most cases) is a terrible system. I can't understand why anybody supports it.

It does change the atmosphere doesn't it? Our alternatives aren't great so we're putting the time in to prep but painfully awarenit comes with its own problems.

We live within a ten minute walk of a grammar school and it is a school for local kids (rather than one that has a huge geographical intake based on scores).

Despite that, the demographic is very different to the primary schools because lots of people move here in the last couple of years of primary for the GS, travelling to independent primary schools for those last years.

Lots of big cars, tutoring and sharp elbows.

DC got in without tutoring (couldn’t have afforded it) but personally, I don’t think it’s been great for him. Too pressured. We’re at the end of the journey thank the lord, DC is moving elsewhere for sixth form. Somewhere with a different ethos, less pressured, more caring.

I knew he wouldn’t thrive in a hot house, bright enough but skin not thick enough for their expectations.

Yes Minister only launched in the early 80s, by then the number of GS's was about the same as it is now, hugely down from its 1960s peak. It's certainly true that GS's used to get more funding per pupil, which isn't true of today's 'grammar schools', though I'm not sure what the implication of the move towards comprehensives was for overall funding. I should think that today's state school system, with most kids staying on till 18, so many classroom assistants etc in primaries and SEN specialists etc, & half decent buildings etc for most, is in aggregate an awful lot more expensive per head the 1960s system.

Anyway, back to OP's question, why have so many successive governments gone along with keeping the overall number of GS's very low? I suppose a practical reason is that they were on balance unpopular with voters, but really I suppose the main reason is that the mid 80s move to GCSEs, i.e. towards a united qualification for everyone, cut the case for the GS/modern school system off at the knees.

The original postwar tripartite system [of grammar schools, technical schools (remember them? me neither) didn't promote segregation for segregation's sake. The whole point of the tripartite system was that the grammars were set up to produce arm kids with a set of relatively demanding academic 16+ qualifications [O levels] and the moderns set up to arm kids with either no or soft [CSE] academic qualifications. Very different qualifications meant very different syllabuses meant very different schools. O levels were, at least initially, so difficult as not to be suitable for most [not all] kids.

GCSEs are completely different, with the overall bar set low enough so that relatively high grades are attainable for most [not all] kids. The remaining grammars now promote segregation for segregation's sake. Adding more grammars but keeping GCSEs in their current form would be a bringing back a small part of the old system in a really weird way.

We're in a grammar area and although v bright ourselves lower income due to disability. We are tutoring ...as she is v bright and we are in this system. However given a choice I would live somewhere without this system. I hate that the year 5s are all talking about it already.

Agree with @TheChemicalMother our kids should all have the right to a good education regardless of where they live and what school they end up in