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?

They are not in the classes that are the equivalent to the grammar school however.

I don't quite understand what you think that people do in places where it is all comprehensive -pay-HE -wring your hands and wail!!
What happens is that people can't afford to send several DCs to fee paying schools, they don't want to HE and they have high powered jobs of their own which they don't want to give up. They use the comprehensives and they are very successful.
You have to choose the right one. My cousin lives in a nice little village-he didn't like his comprehensive in the nearest town and the neighbour's DCs told him that it was OK but hard work keeping out of trouble. This was enough for my cousin-he didn't want his DD having to 'keep out of trouble' so he sent her to a comprehensive in the opposite direction and she is now a very successful vet. She didn't feel odd at university-lots of vets come from comprehensive schools!!
You have to choose your comprehensive school.
My DS1 was at a top university-it wasn't anything unusual. He had friends there who are now doctors, dentists, civil engineers etc-the majority from comprehensives, who wouldn't recognise these hell holes that people are imagining.

In my town most of the DCs go to the local comps-their parents have high powered careers and they are very ambitious for their DCs-people should get over the prejudice.

I was replying in first sentence to LeQueen.

I would support grammar schools if the selection took place at 13+. Eleven is too young and by the age of 13/14 you have a clearer idea as to the whether the child is more suited to academic studies or vocational courses.

13/14+ would make sense and it could then go on school reports and DCs wishes.
It actually worked very well. At my secondary modern people got the choice at that age and went various ways in the same school. I went into O'level class.
The good thing about secondary moderns was that they didn't try and treat everyone the same. They valued things other academic success.

DH failed the 11-plus, and he felt so angry he worked and passed the 13-plus and went to a technical high school.

I didn't take the 11-plus, but both the 9-plus and the 10-plus and the entrance exam for a direct grant school (gpdst). I passed, got offers of a place at a grammar school, grammar school place at another direct grant school, and then an offer of a fee-paying place at the school where I sat the exam. We were outside their very small catchment area for a free place, but later got one when my father's income dropped off the bottom of the scale.

Interestly the local council was always lab controlled and in the sixth form told my parents I was entitled to free school meals. For some unknown reason, I had been ever since I had gone there, they had just never been told.

I chose to go to the direct grant school, and enjoyed it, but could not be described in any way as one of its 'shining lights'. Going from a school a mile and a half away with 150, to one 9 miles away with 800 I felt rather lost, something I think experienced by many.

At the time there girls who were sorry to go to the gs, the head was completely round the twist, being known as Nutty Norah, and others who were glad to go to the comp because it was newly-built.

Some children will be more in tune with an academic education, others with a more technical one, others with a more vocational one. What I think is really important is that ALL children get a really good grounding in maths and English, before going on to the secondary education that is most likely to benefit them, not their parent's aspirations. I mean maths and English - not 'literacy' and 'numeracy' which, sadly, seems to have led to many having no real skills in either.

What many have failed to recognise over the years, is that children at the top end of the intelligence range have, in some ways, the same special needs as those at the lower end, but are often overlooked because they can 'manage'.

Sorry, should be 'interestingly'

There's a reason the public school system has always transferred at 13 rather than 11 (for boys at least). It's because 11 is really very young for many children, and hitting teenage is a natural transition point anyway. When you see the little year 7s in their first term at secondary it makes you weep to think how small and defenceless they are. Many respond to the bustle and comparative roughness by artificially toughening themselves up and trying to adopt teenage values a little early. I feel it's a real shame that the old first and middle school system was declared not up to scratch/ not in keeping with the demands of the bloddy National Curriculum because frankly it suited the emotional needs of most children a lot better.

We still have the middle system here.