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?

What I dislike about the 11 plus is the idea that you "pass" or "fail". I have a friend who "failed" the 11 plus (long time ago) because of the huge pressure put on her by her parents to get a grammar school place. She then opted to come into the Catholic comp I went to (she was a catholic). She got 4 A levels, (including two modern langs she would never ever have got the chance to study at the sec mod) and a univeristy degree. But at 11 she was deemed sec mod material???

I don't think a school can cater for such a huge range, I know me and DB suffered at both ends of the scale before secondary/grammar. For us going to different types of school suited us better. Btt this does depend upon the schools being good. As with everything.

yes, they should think of a more diplomatic way - maybe say "your score suggests you're suited for technical/vocational qualifications" or something.

it goes the other way, too - kids who swat for the exams to pass and then struggle in a grammar school.

i favour mixed-ailiy schools with setting according to ability - that way you push the academic but without separating everyone at the age of 11 in an unfair and unnuanced way.

However - unfortunately comps do not and have not delivered in terms of social mobility- and yes probably the demise of grammar school and assisted place schemes seem to have had the reverse effect of that intended.

Mixed ability teaching puts a much greater gap between state and private school education - i was arguing about this with my sister - and she insisted that the only reason private scools have setting is because they are results driven - well i bloody hope state schools are results driven! If not why not.

when you apply for jobs no one cares if your school was socially inclusive, they just want to see that you got C or better in English and maths.

I am a teacher and did my main teaching practice in a Bucks secondary modern.

I went through a bit of an emotional rollercoaster when I learnt of the system but, in reality, the school did the best for their pupils.

There were top achieving pupils in the school, who were perhaps late developers or late entries into the system. Generally, however, the top of the school were B grade candidates, which is still pretty good.

What the school did well was the range of vocational courses, such as motor mechanics and child care. Reality says that you need a significant number of these people in the workforce.

I don't think the pupils in my school felt down on themselves.

anyway OP in the real word, its not about the theory - it's all about the local school and whether that school is good/bad.

so i think if a school is delivering results - most people are happy to send their kids to it. If it is failing, then the won't be.

Its true, though - the whole 'pass/fail' thing of itself implies that grammar schools are the best, and the others second rate.

I suppose an alternative would be children choosing to apply to either a grammar / technical / modern school and then the school setting aptitude tests, and asking for reports from primary etc. Of course again that opens up a whole can of worms with potential social selection. And there has to be a school for someone who isn't selected by the others, and then that will be seen as 'worst' - I have no idea what the right answer should be.

I do wonder if well streamed comps that are large enough to offer genuine variety of options, and where children can be mobile between the different streams might be a least - worst situation.

I also think that it is a shame that more FE colleges don't take 14 year olds who want to go for more vocational studies. The one near us does, although it is always a marginal thing (because taking under 16s means all sorts of extra police checks etc I believe, and they can't be in classes with adult students). It is very popular, and I know several young people who have chosen to leave school and go to college, and much prefer the options and atmosphere.

"I also think that it is a shame that more FE colleges don't take 14 year olds who want to go for more vocational studies

DS has just started his gcses and this year onwards some children are doing part of their BTECs at colleges usually for the non academic subjects.There are more vocational subjects available

I do wonder how people rate schools as bad, do they just go on exam results. Surely you can't expect every child to get 10 A*s?

Dcs go to one of the most improved comprehensives in the country. It's a really lovely school which is so much more than it's exam results.
They would both get into grammar schools with no problem, but we don't have any in our area.

My Ds didn't get a place at the local grammar school but I still support them. They are brilliant in helping the brightest children who are often from poor backgrounds to maximise their potential

If the selection process was truly meritocratic then grammar schools wouldn't be stuffed predominantly with children who've been tutored, with children who have been to private primary schools, and with children from pushy middle-class households.

Unless you think that children who go to private schools and who're tutored for several years before sitting the 11+ are also oddly somehow more talented and academic than their untutored, state school pears.

It's complete nonsense to say that children who don't pass the 11+ will often or usually be better off with a non-academic education.

..and in our area if you have a 11 yo and can afford to move catchment...(and if you don't want to send your kid to a failing school with a bullying problem) ...you move and they don't go there - so even a 'comp' - a school that doesn't select - has its pupils pre-selected to some extent.

The selection process is meritocratic, the children who do the best in the exam get offered places

Grammar schools just hand the privileged even more privilege.

Just look at the stats on free school meals at grammar schools and at the high schools in the same area - it's shocking.

I like grammar schools even though there isn't one in my area. They allow children who are at a higher academic level to be taught in a way that suits them. I don't think that the one size fits all methods should be applied to those in education.

"They allow children who are at a higher academic level to be taught in a way that suits them."

No they don't. They allow the children of the middle classes to be educated alongside other children of the middle classes.

seeker that was never the case at the grammar school I went to. Nor my brother's secondary school.

It is possible that in the past grammar schools offered, as they are supposed to, a step out of disadvantage for clever children from difficult backgrounds. This is no longer the case.

we have two grammer schools - one Rugby one Stratford - some chidlren sit the entrance exam and some get in.Some sit the entrance for private girls and get scholarships - two granted each year and I know two families who have had children go through scholarship and gain free entrance. The secondary modern schools are good, so it doesn't really matter, one secondary modern is under the impression it is a grammer school and hasn't got a clue it isn't really the case, though the results are good.

I sometimes look at the results from the area where I was brought up (a grammar school area), to where we are now. If you exclude the grammar school, and compare the others, the results from the other schools in the grammar area are still significantly ahead of the comprehensive results here.

Anecdote does not make evidence, but this pattern did leave me wondering about the other variables and their relative importance.

No, a one size fits all method shouldn't be applied. But I do think every school should be able to provide for very able students and and those who struggle academically. I think many secondary moderns are failing both very able pupils, and low achievers.