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?

league tables have made the polarisation a lot worse. I agree parents need good quality information about the schools so they can choose one that suits but I can't for the life of me see why it has to be in the form of a league table.
It just doesn't make sense, schools don't have identical intakes and then compete with each other.

I would abolish league tables. If a Grammar school doesn't get 100% success rate I would be asking what they were doing wrong- probably taking DCs who are drilled and never have their place taken away from them when they struggle.

People have got so used to the term 'bog standard' comprehensive that they think it is a generic term. The comprehensives in my town are not 'bog standard'.

I also think it is fairly laughable that all Grammar school pupils are wonderfully behaved. My DSs have travelled on the school bus for years without incident, but my friend's DS, at a grammar school, was beaten up, as he got off his school bus, and had his nose broken- and he was beaten up by fellow pupils who got off the bus with him.

The Comprehensives are good in my town because there are lots of very academically gifted DCs whose parents can't afford private and use the state schools-the schools are then good and people don't have to bother with private.

Hi seeker, thought this was interesting:

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.

Why should the fact it's non selective mean that an A is beyond so many of the children?

I honestly believe 'average' children (whatever that means) are more than capable of an A at GCSE if they are prepared to work extremely hard.

I've been looking at 11 plus comprehension papers (helping a friend with a project) and I can see how much easier the papers become with time and practice. Comprehension can be taught. Most children will need to read widely but they can be taught how to do it, what to infer from the text etc. Eventually they can read the passage with an idea of what he examiner will be looking for before they even attempt the question.

I was just given a sheet of questions and told to read the passage and questions through twice!

My children will be going to a Comprehensive school, because I truly believe that that is the best thing for an all-round education.

DS1 is top 2% I think (he's only 5 and tests aren't that reliable) but he will be better at the comp. I believe that elitist education causes more problems than it solves. The local comp has it right - academic courses alongside vocational, and a strong art and sport tradition, all equal status and equally celebrated.

Long convuluted boring anecdotal bit:

I am the eldest of 5, my brother and I went to Grammar, the next brother down went to the Sec. Modern, and the youngest two went to the Comp (it wasn't open when I started or I would have gone there.) I'm one of those who was failed by Grammar schools, because there were no strategies at all in place for young people with behavioural issues - the teachers were utterly unable to comprehend why two very bright children were unable to work in the way that was required. I now know that my brother is probably on the Autistic Spectrum, and I have milder issues that I can largely mask now, but that in school were very hard to deal with - organisation and sequencing of tasks, that kind of thing. Both of us have tested IQ scores in the 150's, neither of us got A grades, and both of us dropped out at 16. Miserable failures but I am glad of it, because I absolutely despise the type of adults churned out as standard by this particular school. I like being me, and I am a better teacher because I had interesting times at school.

I have a friend who is a twin, academically there is nothing much between them, but one passed 11+ and one failed. (on another day it might have been the other way around). Unfortunately it didn't do a lot for their relationship.

a value added curricuum with lots of extra activities does not worsen results.

every time people say 'oh, but results aren't the only thing' - well yes, not the only thing, but using added-value stuff as an excuse for poor results is wrong-heaed.

when i went to our local comp, it had an excellent choir, and 56% a-c. last year it got 27% a-c. Still has an excellent choir. the catchment hasn't changed much - the school has gone down the toilet academically though. No excuse for that.

in short: you can have both. a fun school life, and decent results.

This is where I think we go wrong in this country and schools shouldn't just be there to provide an academic education. There should be a split and all DCs can't (and shouldn't be expected)to jump through the same hoops. We should place as much value on technical and practical skills. We have a complete waste of talent. There was nothing much wrong with 11+ system except that it was taken too young and was too rigid and had no movement.

also: putting choir on your cv will not get you into a workplace that specifies a c minimum in English and maths - having the results can.

why do people think results aren't important?

Any decent school should have the fun part-opportunities to play in the orchestra, act in plays, go on adventure courses, play competitive sport etc.

So many of the supporters of GS completely miss the point.

Today, grammar schools do not cater for the naturally bright. They overwhelmingly cater for the offspring of the middle class. And typically the kids do better there. Great fir them. So, a lot of the parents with children at grammar school will say how clever their children are, and how they would have been held back at a comprehensive. I say this as someone who went to a comprehensive school and got 5 A-levels at A, a degree from Oxford and a PhD, who could have got into a grammar school had I opted for it.

Even back in the "golden age" of grammar schools, there were the working class kids who got in and went to university, etc, thanks to GS. But, there were millions who were held back as failures. It was an egregiously unfair system. Just because you (or your uncle Neville) benefited (and your kids benefit now), doesn't make it fair.

Seeker I completely agree - I mentioned cva and value added on this thread ages ago but I think the level of debate here quite quickly got to 'grammar school good comprehensive bad, me pull self up by bootstraps'.

RitaLyn hear hear!

I agree RitaLynn-how many people who drill tutor their DC for the exam would see a brilliant student from a disadvantaged background and say 'she must have my DCs place because she is naturally a high flyer academically and my DC is average but pushed'-absolutely none and yet they bring out the tired old rubbish about the system giving the disadvantaged DC a leg up! They are schools for the motivated middle class.

I suspect that the presence of a GS in an area has a negative effect upon the other schools.
And that is wrong.

However, if I could no longer afford the fees to DC's indie schools would I be looking for a place in one? I'm almost sure I would.

The whole education system is unfair-I am aware that I 'bought into' good comprehensives-that is just as bad really.

i also disagree that bright kids will do well whatever - ultimately they are not going to 'discover' maths theorems they weren't taught in the time of an exam, nor are they going to magically arrive at the right names for the reproductive parts of a plant unless someone at some point bothers to put the material before them. Teaching is important - the material taught to a class where no-one is expected to get over a B simply may not include the necessary factual information to get a kid - however bright - to get an A.

particularly true of maths and sciences, though i think learning how to structure essays etc is also important to arts subjects - and agian not a skill a kd is going to arrive at as though remembering it from a past life....

I"m amazed to read that people think that any child could get As at GCSE - this is surely not true?

It isn't true seeker-I'm sure that my DS could have gone to Eton and not got more than C for English-he hasn't the ability.

ritalyn if comprehensives are so great - how come such a disproportinately loew proportion of kids from comps got to Oxbridge? or the better universities?

of course i am just playing devils advocates here, as i am pro comps in general....