To think that grammar schools should either be scrapped altogether or available in every county?

[Perriwinkle]

How can it possibly be fair or reasonable to have them only in certain counties?

I know that many people will say "how can a system that supposedly favours the brightest ten percent of children, ever be fair?" but personally, I've actually got no beef with that provided that the opportunity to attend these schools is available to the brightest children in all counties.

How can it be equitable that the brightest children who live in counties which do not have a grammar school system are routinely failed by the comprehensive system whilst those who live in certain counties are not because they are able to attend high performing State-funded grammar schools?

I think if you're anti grammar schools altogether you should probably hide this thread. This is not meant to be a thread about the pros and cons, relative merits, inequalities or shortcomings of either the grammar school system or the comprehensive system. It is a simply a question of wishing to hear any reasonable justification that may be put forward for the continued existence of the grammar school system in its current guise.

How can it be fair to continue restricting the opportunity to enjoy a priveliged grammar school education (akin to that which many people pay handsomely for in the private sector) only to children who live in certain parts of the country?

ReallyTired, I don't fail to understand why low achievers get extra resources at all. I work with children that get extra resources and I fully understand why they are needed and completely agree that they should be provided.

That wasn't the point I was making. I was just agreeing with another poster who said we should help the brightest children achieve their best, rather than just helping the low achievers. Who do, understandably, get more resources directed towards them.

I teach in an outstanding secondary school which is 30 miles from where I live. Both my sons will be taking their 11+ as the schools in our catchment area are pretty poor. Failing that, I am hopeful that they will be allowed to attend the school at which I teach, I'm not sure how they feel about that!

Yellow - B was selected for a couple of residential ones (following on from a general one in the city) that cost well over £100. And, she did go on them, and they were really good to be fair. but still.

A good school and a top set cannot meet the needs of all it's children if the needs of a child are a smaller school to be able to flourish in.

Some comprehensives are huge, and that in itself can be intimidating enough for a child to be able to feel unable to settle enough to learn to their full potential.

My children's comprehensives did put resources into the G & T children also. The ones who do miss out, I suspect, are the middling ones - especially if they are fairly quiet and keep their heads down.

I think it's often extremely healthy for a child who's always been 'top' in his primary school to get more perspective on where he is in a broader context tiggy. After all, only one person in the world can ever be properly top at any one time, so getting used to the fact that it's highly unlikely to be you is really quite a useful life lesson. And it's arguable that it's best to get that lesson learned at a relatively early stage in life.

Thank God no-one interviewed my kids and made enquiries about motivation, ambitions etc. Hideous thought.

The trouble is that the school which is left when you've removed the top 23 % might not meet the needs of many of its pupils either.

More!people's needs are met in a comprehensive than in a grammar/high school system.

Maybe the best idea is a comprehensive school and a super super selective for those whose brightness constitutes something approaching a special educational need?

I disagree seeker. A superselective encompassing the top 5% or so of the ability range is about right socially, giving vital normality to those at the superselective as well as a very broad spread of ability at the comp. But super dooper selective would create a weird world at that age. Very unhealthy I'd have thought.

Yellow - absolutely. DD1 hated being 'that kid' at her primary school. Hated it. She loves the anonymity of where she is now, and she's happy to still be 'that kid' in her chosen areas of super-power, and one of the herd in the rest (obviously French now a special case :( )

I agree that comprehensives and super selectives co existing are probably the best way, but I don't think the grammars should take less children, they should take more.

They could still leave enough children to form comprehensive schools while providing for more children than the SSs currently do.

Plenty of people will decide against GS for their bright children because of distance, because they prefer subjects on offer at the comp, or for lots of other reasons.

Why couldn't a school meet the needs of its pupils if it had the top 23% creamed off Seeker? I do think that is too high a percentage, but I don't see why a school couldn't meet the needs of its students just because other students weren't there.

LaVolcan I do agree with you. The middle of the road ' quiet and good' kids can get overlooked.

I do find this such an interesting debate. If only the weren't real life children involved and it was just an academic discussion!

I'm not sure we can have a system that caters for the vast majority and for the outliers as well. Can we?

Top 5% is good. Anything less than that and you'd have kids boarding etc - you'd have to - and it would be a whole other thing that many people (especially perhaps parents from a less posh background) wouldn't contemplate.

There are plans for a specialist maths school to open here. In conjunction with the university. For kids from 16-19, who will be able to board if they want to. Would I have been up for that at that age? Most emphatically NO. Yet, I'd have obviously been exactly the sort of kid they wanted. But I'd never have gone for it in a million years.

There seems to be incredibly little assessment at our school. Tiggy. Very very few marks. They certainly have fewer tests than DS has had at the comp.

Oh HollyBerryBush I think I know the school you're talking about - yes, truly awful

Seeker - I think we almost do where I live. I think if the superselective was allowed to expand by one class - so, 5 form entry instead of 4 form - it would be pretty much ideal. The area that people send kids from is about 50 sq miles, so a 5 form entry would be one form per 10 sq miles which sounds about right. It wouldn't materially damage the comps, some of them are good, some of them are ok some of them are poor, but the ones that are poor aren't poor because of the existence of one superselective grammar school. Obviously its not as great as the Croydon of my memories but few places could be.

Tiggy yes, well, that's your grammars. As I said, ours doesn't do that.

Just to clarify - I have a lower paid job now than when DSs were at prep school, but even so it was good value because I had no child care expenses in the week and generally managed to get the services of one of the matrons in the summer who ran informal summer school for far less than any other form of child care would have been. I do agree prep school gives an advantage but more because of the firm discipline and formal learning environment than the quality of the teachers themselves.

I actually think that reliance on salary (which can be frighteningly impermanent) and having some other form of comfort (aka Capital, most often inherited but sometimes saved) is one of the key differences between true middle class people and people who have forgotten their station like me. True middle class people can't conceive of not having money. People like me can remember it, and we know how transient it can be. And we have no nest egg or inheritance or prospects of either to fall back on. We also tend to be risk averse hence we often don't consider posh school even if we could, on paper, afford it.

Tiggy - our school is a superselective. It's quite a successful one.

"Why couldn't a school meet the needs of its pupils if it had the top 23% creamed off Seeker? I do think that is too high a percentage, but I don't see why a school couldn't meet the needs of its students just because other students weren't there"

Well in our case:

because my dd who is very bright and ambitious would not have ended up in a grammar school due to her inability to perform in test in Yr 6.

because my ds who is lazy would take the relative absence of bright and ambitious students as proof that it is ambition is only for a few freaks.