to think most would not really want a secondary modern

[inkyfingers]

OK, tell me why the 'grammar school system' is good for the 85% who don't get a place? I love the pace and challenge etc the GS offers (as many MNers tell me), but how does the alternative serve the huge majority of pupils? (cos surely a 'system' has to benefit as many as possible??).

If it's a really good wheeze, then the GS supporters would surely be happy if their own DC don't get places?

I think what leQueen is saying is correct but it does not make it necessarily right or fair!

My 3 DCs are all/were at 'top' GS and, yes, their school does get brilliant results on the whole, and so they should. It would be a disgrace frankly if they didn't, with the intake they have.

So if a comp with a mixed intake gets fantastic results then that must be down to better teaching in the long run presumably. And whilst you can argue there are some children who are decidedly average who are not going to achieve high results however marvellous the teaching is, well they manage it in the private sector, don't they??? My DCs have plenty of contemporaries at university who were educated privately who are not any brighter than an 'average' pupil at a state comp but who have miraculously attained good enough A level results to get places at Russell Group universities.

And also the fact that some schools do it shows that there's nothing inherently better about grammar schools. We can have a system which is fair and in which bright children (all of them, not just the rich ones) do well. What's not to like about that?

When people talk up thegrammar school system it looks suspiciously like they quite like poor kids being kept poor.

I was a poor kid who went to a grammar school and it allowed me to do well academically and now I'm not poor.

Huddspur it's disproportionately available to mc children and the poorer you are the less chance you have. And that's not fair. That's the point which is being made over and again here.

huddspur - so how come some kids are tutored for grammar schools? If innate ability was the criteria, tutoring would be pointless. In the real world, tutoring does increase the chances of getting a place.

Or maybe you genuinely believe that intellect is directly related to social class?

Read the Marmot review - poorer children are held back in education while middle class children flourish. Although to be fair to secondary schools the trend is already well established by age 11. Bright working class kids fall behind less-bright middle class kids by age 11.

Its availible to the brightest children who do the best in the exam, its a meritocracy

Huddspur no it's sodding well not. Go and look at the statistics. Either poor people are more stupid than rich people (I'm assuming you won't be claiming that) OR it's an unfair system.

Wealthier kids are more likely to have been tutored I agree with you but that doesn't alter the fact that the best performing children in the exam get the places at the grammar school.

You're deliberately ignoring the facts for some reason. Great - enjoy your Sunday.

I'm not ignoring the facts grammar schools do have a high middle class intake, I know I went to one of which some had been tutored to raise their levels but that doesn't alter the fact that the best performers in the exam get the places so it is meritocratic.

'Its available to the brightest children who do best in the exam'. Yes, that is true. BUT many, many children are privately tutored and gain places over other non tutored children. There were several at my DCs state primary who I am positive were as bright, if not brighter, than some of my DCs peers at their GS. Their parents foolishly thought the same as you!!

My DCs weren't tutored by paid tutors, but I did buy practice papers and I taught them what was needed to pass the test highly enough to gain a place in the top 120 or whatever.

The system certainly isn't fair.

I agree with huddspur, grammar schools are meritocratic hence why they have an exam and the best performing students in their assessments are offered places to go to them.

Oh dear, I give up.

Yes, grammar schools do have entrance exams which should ensure only the cleverest pupils gain a place. But, it is not a fair test in that some children are tutored and some are not.

Have any of you actually got children at a grammar school??? You must know what goes on!!

My DCs are in a minority in that they attended a state primary school and they weren't professionally tutored.

I went to a grammar school and I wasn't tutored. I don't see what is wrong with getting your children a tutor to raise their academic progress. The fact that they've been tutored doesn't alter the fact that they are the highest performing pupils and so should be going to grammar school.

I too went to a grammar school, as did my sister, and wasn't tutored.

It's different now.

The fact that they've been tutored does alter the facts!!! It wouldn't if everyone was tutored who took the exam. But never mind.

Who cares if the children have been tutored or not. The highest achieving children will be given places at grammar school and that is surely right. How they became the highest acievers is irrelevant to the grammar schools

Some people care!! I suspect the grammar schools care too. They would rather have genuinely bright children there rather than ones who have been tutored for two years in order to pass the test.

The ethos of a grammar school used to be, I think, that it was open to clever children regardless of their (parents) income. Paying for tutoring obviously goes against the grain. It isn't the tutoring per se that is the problem, it is the fact that it isn't available to ALL, only the ones who can afford it.

But then we are not talking about actual fairness here, are we?? Just who can push their way to the top by any means.

Its open to clever childdren hence why the best performers in the assessment are offered places. Whether the best performers are there because they are naturally clever or because they have been tutored is irrelevant, they are still the best students

I think there is a lot of crap about middle class privilige being spouted here.
I live in an 11+ area and my 2 eldest are at GS.You don't need the school to prepare you or tutoring.All you need to do is get yourself down to WHSmiths and purchase a couple of packs of practice 11+ papers for a pricely sum of £10 each.
But many parents from less priviliged areas can't be arsed to do that or do it a week before the exam.

princely not pricely!

It's not just the tutoring. It's exactly that parents don't know how to encourage their children or, indeed, can't be arsed (although less of that than you'd think) don't we want to change that as a society? Don't we want poor bright kids to do well at school and go on to success not dealing drugs on a corner somewhere?

The depressing thing is I look at the answers here and it's clear that, no, some people really don't give a shit about other people's children. Well don't moan when they're mugging old ladies or pregnant at 14, or on benefits because no-one gave them any other kind of future to look forward to then.

'but many parents from less priviliged areas can't be arsed to do that or do it a week before the exam'

and there it is again ,the assumption that the Wc don't give a shit about education