Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

Grammars never did achieve the level of social mobility they were intended to support.

The results simply reflect the cohort, the selective intake. Socially as well as academically.

All-grammar counties like Kent do not have better results across the whole population than comparable non grammar areas.

I went to a selective school, my kids to comprehensives. I think grammars are a con. We all need to fight to ensure good provision for children of all abilities.

Comprehensives offer the same Kevin of education in top sets / streams, and offer more to more young people overall.

IMO / IME.

Also currently there is enormous pressure on kids in grammar areas to pass their 11+.
My ds is 9 and I’m really pleased we don’t have to worry about that.

The parents who send their kids to grammar will often convince themselves that it’s fantastic as they had to pay a huge premium to live in that area and/or for tutoring to make sure their kid got in.
I’m sure grammar schools are great for the right kids.

But it is massively unfair to lower income families who are far less likely to either be able to afford to live in the “right areas” and/or pay for tutoring.

Who would want to go to a sec modern? I know lots of them are great schools and but there will be a stigma attached to going to them however good they are

It's all a bit silly really. If you have all the kids in an area sit an exam aged 11 and then the ones who do best in that exam go to a special school, does it really make sense that the schools are what causes those kids to go on and get more good exam results? I went to a grammar and we had shit facilities, very limited subject choices and some truly appalling teaching. In one GCSE subject the teacher made a mess of her planning and ran out of time, so we had to teach ourselves the last chunk of the curriculum from photocopied handouts over the Easter holidays - and no one got less than an A in that subject. We were all either naturally academic or had a lot of support at home and I believe we'd all have done just as well at a comprehensive.

I grew up in an area with grammar schools. I now live in an area with no grammar schools, just comprehensives. I went to a grammar school, and got a great I'd education there, but it was an utterly unfair system which worked to the benefit of well-off families. My children now go to a comprehensive school where they are getting an education as least as good as I got in my grammar school, but with a far better education at primary school (which wasn't focussed on 11+exams) a broader range of opportunities and a much wider mix of fellow pupils.

I would always choose a comprehensive system over a selective one. DD would probably have qualified for a superselective grammar aged 11 and it would have been utterly wrong for her. She's clever enough to do well in tests, and is aiming for top grades in some GCSE subjects, but is fundamentally practical rather than academic.

Absolutely. Our local grammar has a comoletely different demographic to our local comp. Markedly so. A child from an average 30k income family will feel poor at Grammar.

There are lots of arguments both ways, but a lot of people who object to grammar schools do so not because grammar schools aren't good, but because of the impact of grammar schools on those children who don't get in. In theory, a secondary modern (a non grammar in a grammar area) could be just as good a school as a grammar, just catering for different children. In practice, it very often doesn't work like this, and the secondary moderns end up with a disproportionately high share of social and behavioural problems, which can then discourage teachers from working there, leading to a downward spiral. Also, the impact of house prices and tutoring on pass rates means that grammar schools become weighted towards the financially better off. Our best local grammar takes 20% of its intake from prep schools.

Yes Minister isn’t a source of reliable information!!

You need to go back to the Education Acts of the 70s, with Labour introducing statutes that abolish selective education and then the conservatives re establishing it later on. Neither party have ever been united in their approach with different administrations changing tack through the decades.

Labour comprehensive no more grammars, Tories bringing back grammars in the 79 act (without teeth!), Labour more faith schools and academies, Tories (Teresa) more grammars.

Despite their popularity, grammar schools have little effect on social mobility.

I worked in one. We werent paid more...

It was a lovely school but I hate it breaks up the area we're in and having had children go through the 11+ now would rather live in a nice comprehensive area!

This article explains some of the debate around grammars: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grammar-schools-what-are-they-education-explainer-controversy-theresa-may-a7233531.html?amp