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?

That should read late developers are NOT as uncommon
as some seem to think.

"I wonder how many people who are vehemently anti-grammar, actually went to GS themselves and now have children who have the ability to gain entry into a GS???"

Me!
And am presuming DSs would have got into grammar schools based on their CATs results in Y7 which put them in top 3% for their age nationally.

What's your point?

Something that worked well 30 years ago is not necessarily the best thing now.

Oh, and not all comps need improving - such a generalisation!

Giddy, are you in Devon? What you describe is the situation here. I'm always amused by local comp HT's claims that of course they can't improve standards in their schools because of the mere existence of these few GS stripping out their brightest, while in fact they probably only "lose" about 3-4 pupils from each year to the GS.

My DCs would go to a school like your local comp over my dead body LeQueen, but that doesn't mean they represent all comprehensives!! I moved away from a Grammar school area to an area of good comprehensive schools. I was very pleased with them and they have given my DCs the ability to choose any career they want-surely that is all anyone wants-the widest possible of life choices for their DC?
Discipline has nothing to do with the type of school. I started at a secondary modern (ending up at Grammar)and the secondary modern had the best reputation in town for behaviour. We stood up when a teacher came into the classroom and said 'Good Morning Sir or Good Morning Miss Smith', we were not allowed to eat in the street in school uniform etc etc.The Head's aim was to turn out good citizens-and he did.
I hate the whole system of sorting DCs when they are much too young. My brother failed at 11, passed at 12 and at 13 was in the express, high flyers stream. It makes a complete mockery of the whole system.
I wouldn't mind it so much if there was movement between the schools, some DCs went up (I was one) but no one ever went down. They have a place for life-IMO-if a DC is drilled to get a place and they then don't keep up they should lose the place and give it to a late developer. There were also those who took a place and left school at 16yrs-another waste of a place.

Also, I know of a super-highly rated by Ofsted comp where not only do they operate a back door selection based on postcode (don't like a particular family? Just exclude their street from the catchment area for the year so that the neighbouring school has to pick them up) but they also have an "A" population and a "B" population. Who are not even taught the same things. I know this because my friend's two oldest children (one school year apart in age) were assigned different "populations".

'That should read late developers are NOT as uncommon
as some seem to think.

They are very common. DS1 didn't do it, but I think he was borderline at 11yrs but he came on in leaps and bounds in yr7 and by the end was in top sets for everything. The comprehensive allows for movement either way.
No DC should be given a place at 11 because parents have tutored them for 3 yrs and allowed to keep it when they can't cope. I know DCs who have got grammar school places and the school has had to give them extra lessons to get them up to scratch!!They shouldn't have been there in the first place.

duchesse that sounds rather sinister.

My old comp is now openly academically selective. I wonder what it's like for those who go in via the sibling policy or another method who are not considered academic?

I wonder if they feel like second class citizens, as we did?
I wonder if they get the maths teacher who is really a PE teacher as we did? And so on. I was the only child in the whole school to move to the A band at 14. By that time the damage to my self esteem was almost irreversible. I did very well in the end but I doubt myself more than I should.

The 3 'A' stream classes were distinct from the 3 'B' stream. Definitely two 'populations' one superior and distinct from the other although they did mix us up for sport. Apparently you could be rather dim but sporty :).

Duchesse, with my educationalist hat on I would very much like to know which school that is so I can check out its other credentials. I would be very grateful if you could CAT me. I would not snitch and it would be between ourselves.

Check your inbox BoffinMum.

A word of warning when comparing GCSE results as all may not be what it seems on the surface. Often, grammars & private schools offer the International (or IGCSE's) which are considered more difficult & are therefore held in higher regard to the GCSE's usually offered by the comps (often the EdExcel GCSE's).

I'm in favour of as much choice as possible when it comes to education & would like to see more grammars become a viable alternative to, although not a replacement for, comprehensives.

LeQ- "I wonder how many people who are vehemently anti-grammar, actually went to GS themselves and now have children who have the ability to gain entry into a GS???"

As a corollary to this- I wonder how many politicians (mostly Labour) and decision-makers who themselves benefited from the social mobility afforded by the grammar school system now want grammar schools eradicated?

Duchesse, good point, I've often wondered about that.

I am vehemently anti- grammar school but my dd goes to one.

I would, by choice, send my children to a true comprehensive school Sadly, this is not possible in the area where we live.

I always follow these debates and wonder what is different about the school system now? I went to a comprehensive school that I can assure you was nothing special. We had some very good teachers and if you wanted to learn then you did, if you didn't then that was your choice. My parents expected me to work hard and it was clear to me that doing well at school was very important. So I worked hard and left school with GCSEs and A levels all at A grades. Believe me when I say that I am by no means naturally talented or academically gifted (and everyone around me agrees!) but achieved results through sheer hard work and quite frankly wanting to meet the expectations of my parents because they were very invested in my education. My DH went to a public school and while he and I got the same results, he is much smarter than me so probably worked a lot less hard than I did. However, I always say that we ended up in the same place but without my parents parting with the best part of £300k for the privelage. I am genuinely interested in what is different about the comprehensive school system that someone with my background (especially not being particularly talented/gifted) couldn't achieve the same thing now?

Le Queen, our school had strict uniforms, expectations on discipline etc etc. Maybe it comes down to that word, expectations. My school expected each person to live up to their highest potential, and equally my parents were clear in their expectations? I dont have school age children so I am just thinking out loud but sometimes wonder whether parents tend to fully "outsource" their expectations and the oversight of education to the school and that's why outcomes such as mine (and my sibblings) are rare?

I volunteer in the local primary and most of the parents have very low expectations for thier children.

They don't read to them or with them.

They don't insist homework or projects are completed, spellings or tables learned.

A sizable minority of pupils are knackered and ill fed.

Many parents don't bother coming to parents evening.

I'm also a governor at another school which faces a host of different but challenging problems to be with an overwhelming majority of the parents being from another country and having language and cultural problems.

Sometimes, I despair.

'pieces having worked in comps, and having friends who are teachers the comp, your example appears rare to my eyes. My friend works in a comp, in a smart leafy suburb, so the catchment is very good'

I moved to an area with good comprehensives and they will often be found in the top 500 list for results-not bad when they take all abilities. Discipline has been good and uniform standards high. It all depends on the Head. The one time there was a problem with on DSs Maths group I kept phoning in and eventually they got video recordings to show parents, who wouldn't believe, how dire their 'little darlings' were and it got sorted out and DS was able to do his maths.

DS1 was what I would call a borderline pass/failure at 11 yrs. By the end of year 7 he was in top sets and went to a Russell group university-if he had had to be thrown on the scrap heap at 11 yrs (I am not being melodramatic-I feel I was thrown on the scrap heap at 11yrs!)he would never have got there. The comprehensive gave him that opportunity.

DS2 is dyslexic and would have failed for sure. He got extra help and C grade for GCSE English-I don't think that a top public school could have got him higher-he hasn't the capability.

When I look back at Friends Reunited to my old class mates at the secondary modern they are, on the whole, doing well and have very good jobs-it was an absolute crime to deny them opportunities because they didn't pass an exam at the age of 11yrs. I was borderline and I took it 3 times because the Head at my primary school said I was suited to a Grammar school education. If I had lived in the village at the other side of the river my marks would have given me a pass. They system is unfair. It should be good education for all.

They regularly go to Oxbridge from our town's comprehensives.

I think it's a lot to do with leage tablea sand people not understanding them.

At my daughter's school, they have 100% A-C Gcess.

And so they bloody well ought to - they have the "top" 23% academically. Anything less than, say, 95% A-C would be shameful.

The local high school has a significantly lower A-C rate. That is because it is non-selective and lots of the children could not get an A at GCSE in a million years. But they can, and do, achieve lots of other things that don't appear on the league tables. The A-C people still get their A-Cs - theyre are just fewer of them. So people who only look at the ehadline figures panic. If they looked at, for example, the value added measure it tells a very different story.