Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 12 13 14 ··· 39 40

Original poster

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

999 replies

Perriwinkle · 27/01/2013 21:22

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?

OP posts:

MordionAgenos · 28/01/2013 20:01

Cory the fact that you believe your DD wouldn't have passed the 11+ is not a good argument against grammar schools. It sounds as though you think it's fine for kids who might benefit more from a selective education to be denied that in order to further the interests of your DD. which is just another version of sharp elbows.

seeker · 28/01/2013 20:05

I think what I don't understand in this debate is why people think children would benefit from selective education in a way that they wouldn't benefit from being in the top set of a properly setted comprehensive.

CloudsAndTrees · 28/01/2013 20:27

Cory, how does the fact that your dd would have been unlikely to pass the 11+ mean that a non grammar school couldn't meet the needs of the children that do attend?

I'm thinking I worded that question badly! What I meant was, Seeker said that the school that was left after the top 23% had gone elsewhere, might not be able to meet the needs of its students. I wanted to know why she thinks that, because I don't understand why a school might not be able to meet the needs of children that are there because of other children who aren't there. I'd still like to know actually

CloudsAndTrees · 28/01/2013 20:37

I think my child benefits from a selective education in a way that he wouldn't benefit from a comprehensive education because

a) from the schools we have available, the GS is smaller. Class sizes are the same, but overall the school is smaller. I think that benefits him because the overall environment is less intimidating.
b) he benefits from being surrounded by people who want to learn. I am not the strict parent who makes him do work when his friends parents are allowing computer games. All the parents encourage education at this school, so there are no distractions and no excuses.
c) there is much less chance that my easily led child is going to be easily led into a a path I don't want him to be on.
d) I believe that a a comprehensive, my ds would be labeled as one of the geeks, or nerds or whatever they are calling it nowadays. I don't want him to have that label just because he is a bit geeky!
e) As a child who finds it hard to make friends, I believed it would be easier for him to find people he could be friends with in an environment where all the children are vaguely like minded. I think it would have taken him longer to find people he could click with if he had to meet so many other types of people first, and it would have been harder if he was in lessons with different people all day and the only consistency was his tutor group because everyone was in various sets here there and everywhere.

StickyFloor · 28/01/2013 20:43

This point has already been made, but for me the importance of getting into the selective is about attitude as much as education. At our primary only 3/30 are likely to sit the exams, and the pervading atitude is inverted snobbery that we are stuck up and pushy and above ourselves for not wanting to go to the local comp which most of the kids will go to. There is a genuine feeling amongst the mums I mix with that education is something to be endured until 16 and my kids have already, in Y4, started to be teased for answering questions in class, doing their homework on time etc. I have aspirations and hopes for my kids and want them to have the opportunities that I had, and we are openly teased for thinking that way.

The local comp is situated on the edge of a well-known rough estate, has poor academic results, and is mostly known for bullying and violence. I don't know what our plan B is if the twins don't pass their exams, but they will not be going there come what may. i don't accept that bright kids will thrive anywhere etc. I don't want them dropped into an atmosphere where they are the exceptions for trying to work and make something of themselves.

Of course not all comps are like this, but sadly in our Borough, apart from the superselectives and 1 great comp whose catchment we miss, the rest are mostly a shockingly poor standard and bullying of academc kids etc is widely reported.

For me the problem is not the grammars, it is that the comps aren't good enough - they need to be dragged up so there isn't such a disparity between the selectives and the others.

LaQueen · 28/01/2013 20:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BeanJuice · 28/01/2013 21:35

StickyFloor Year 4 is incredibly young for teasing about being a hard worker to start already

exoticfruits · 28/01/2013 22:00

It depends entirely on the comprehensive-in our area they have high academic standards and high expectations of student behaviour (and so do the parents).

ReallyTired · 28/01/2013 22:08

Comprehensive can work, but there needs to be good social mix as well as a good academic mix. Many grammar schools have the wealthiest children rather than necessarily the brightest. Lots of children from poor families are put off by the cost of the school uniform and the bus fare.

Comprehensives fall apart when they have too many families on benefits/ free school meals. Ideally a top stream would have children with a mixture of backgrounds. The bright daughter of a cleaner would have a friend whose father is a doctor. Working class children would be exposed to children who have aspirations.

The grammar/ secondary modern system had huge problems. It is inflexible and many children end up at the wrong school. However it is fairer than selection by postcode.

exoticfruits · 28/01/2013 22:08

It helps enormously that there are no grammar schools and so the comprehensive has all the bright DCs who are very ambitious and aiming high.

CecilyP · 28/01/2013 22:10

But, I do think GS should be available to all children.

But by its very nature it is not available to all children.

exoticfruits · 28/01/2013 22:13

I think that those who believe in the grammar school system have every expectation that their DC will be in the grammar school! I have yet to meet anyone who wants their DC in the secondary modern! (that is for the others-for some reason there is the odd idea that the less bright have to put up with lower standards of behaviour!!)

CloudsAndTrees · 28/01/2013 22:14

Available isn't the same as accessible.

GSs would be available to all children if all parents could reasonably choose to use one, not if every child was able to pass the 11+.

CecilyP · 28/01/2013 22:15

I would think that while such a school will have some able students, it may not have enough to form viable top sets. The difficulties won't be so great at KS3 but by the time it comes to GCSE's there may not be sufficient pupils to offer a wide range of subjects at the higher levels.

CecilyP · 28/01/2013 22:18

Available isn't the same as accessible.

So just available for the majority to be rejected by?

exoticfruits · 28/01/2013 22:20

Spot on Cecily-available in theory.

tiggytape · 28/01/2013 22:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CecilyP · 28/01/2013 22:22

I don't give a monkey's about social class - I don't care if my DDs are sitting next to a window-cleaner's daughter (my own dad grew up in a council house, with both parents being factory workers, and he got to grammar school) so long as she's clever and doesn't disrupt the lesson.

That's incredibly magnanimous of you, LeQueen.

CloudsAndTrees · 28/01/2013 22:24

That's a fair point that I hadn't thought of Cecily, but what's a 'viable' top set? Even if there's only five children in the top set, there's no reason for the top set not to exist.

And if the children at the school don't need subjects to be offered at GSCE at a higher level because those students aren't there, then the school can still meet the needs of the children it has got.

The grammars are either creaming off the top 23% (or less with SSs) or they are not. And if they are, then subjects don't need to be offered at the higher level. If they're not, then it's not a problem and there are enough students left to offer higher levels. Z

CloudsAndTrees · 28/01/2013 22:26

So just available for the majority to be rejected by?

No, available for the children that are suited to it. Children don't have to be rejected by it if they aren't forced to take the test. It should be optional, with good alternatives.

exoticfruits · 28/01/2013 22:27

Why should those who are not clever disrupt lessons?
DS2 is not in the least academic but he never disrupted lessons-he always tried his best. He had as much right to have lessons free of disruption as the very bright.

ScarletLady02 · 28/01/2013 22:27

Wow, I didn't realise that Grammar schools were such a bone of contention.

I live in Colchester and went to the girl's Grammar here. It's a fantastic school and I'm happy I went. I went to a little village primary and was the only student to do the 11+ and the only one to pass in about 20 years [oops] (it was a tiny school there were around 20 students in my class/year).

My parent's put no pressure on me, it was more of a "take the test if you fancy and we'll see what happens", and they had the same attitude when I passed. My DD is only 2, so it's a long way off but I'd be chuffed if she could go there as well.

exoticfruits · 28/01/2013 22:29

At 11 yrs (10 yrs on many cases) many DCs have not shown their potential.

exoticfruits · 28/01/2013 22:29

in not on-sorry

DaisyDoodle · 28/01/2013 22:31

I went to a great grammar school back in the day. You're right, either have a new system for everyone, everywhere or not at all.

Flip

1 2 ··· 12 13 14 ··· 39 40