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?

I think that you will find things have changed somewhat ScarletLady-if you want a place for your DD you will need to have a tutor or do lots of practise papers-the whole system is manipulated these days.

You're probably right, all the things mentioned on this thread are alien to me! I'm 29, so left the school in 2000.

I did do some practise papers, but only for fun (I was a big geek who loved maths and word puzzles).

You won't get the same everywhere. Grammar school areas will cling onto them and comprehensive areas are not going to go back-not when 75% of parents will then have DCs in a secondary modern. (the 75% who will be against)

"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."

Comprehensives in rough areas often don't have enough children to run a "viable" top set. What's the difference between a level 6 child arriving at shitty inner city comp and a level 6 child arriving at a secondary modern.

Bright children being at shitty comprehensives because their parents can't afford a house in the catchment area of a good comp is why social mobiltiy is at all time low.

He had as much right to have lessons free of disruption as the very bright.

Absolutely! Getting rid of grammar schools won't achieve this though. A lot more needs to be done in schools to make it clear that disruptive behaviour is unacceptable, and disruptive children simply shouldn't be allowed in lessons when they can't be bothered to make an effort. The problem is that they can't just be removed, because they are entitled to receive and education as well, no matter how detrimental they are to everyone else

We're pretty well serviced by Grammar schools in Essex, I just assumed it was the same everywhere! There are a few good private schools as well from what I remember.

If you read MN you find that people won't do the sensible thing and say 'my DC isn't suited to a grammar school' they will say 'Help-I must get a tutor from year 3 and drill him for 3 years so that he gets a place'! They miss the point that passing the 11+ isn't the end it is the start.

What's a viable top set then? Surely in any cohort there will always be some nearer the top and some nearer the bottom?

Absolutely! Getting rid of grammar schools won't achieve this though. A lot more needs to be done in schools to make it clear that disruptive behaviour is unacceptable, and disruptive children simply shouldn't be allowed in lessons when they can't be bothered to make an effort. The problem is that they can't just be removed, because they are entitled to receive and education as well, no matter how detrimental they are to everyone else

Luckily that is exactly what happens in my area.

I doubt if many state schools could afford to run classes of five. It is not that no children at such schools will want to access GCSE in a range of subjects at higher levels, it is that there will not be enough of them to make it viable to run classes within the usual economic restraints. The pupils' needs won't all be the same. Even a school which takes 77% of children will have a wide ability range. The grammar schools aren't creaming off the exact top 23% - academic selection at 10/11 is a fairly inexact science.

I think that there are only about 164 grammar schools in the entire country ScarletLady and we have all this fuss when about 3% of DCs go to one!! There are more DCs in the private sector than in grammar schools. They are not available (even in theory) to most DCs.

Since there are so few grammar schools it would make sense to concentrate on improving comprehensives and making it a fair system, whatever the catchment area.

I don't think that's true exotic. There are plenty of parents I have spoken to that don't think the GS is the best option, even for their bright children.

I put my oldest in for the 11+ because I felt he was capable and that it was the best option for him. My youngest is very nearly as intelligent as his sibling and would have a good chance of getting a place at the GS. I didn't put him in for the test because it wouldn't be the right school for him. I'm not alone in feeling like this, and I've had the secondary school choices conversation with loads of parents.

Even a school which takes 77% of children will have a wide ability range. The grammar schools aren't creaming off the exact top 23% - academic selection at 10/11 is a fairly inexact science.

Then why would the presence of a grammar school make it impossible for another school to provide for the children they have? If the science is that bad, there will be enough children to make a top set. And on the off chance that they can't, they can still provide differentiation like they are supposed to anyway. Or provide extension classes in the same way they would provide extra reading classes for those children that still struggle.

True in RL but on MN people have a lot of angst and they do tutor from year 3.
When I say that I am not in a grammar school are-there is a super selective that you have to travel to and many of the brightest just elect to go to the comprehensive because they are good, they want to be with friends and they don't want to travel.

FAO HollyBerryBush: My son is one of the "ADHD's" and in one of the most sought after Super Selectives.

Full of mistakes tonight-sorry 'area'.

That's what happens in my are too exotic, people choose the comp because its good, and because it offers a more varied curriculum.

I wish I could say that it was the same in that all disruptive children were removed though! They might be, but I should imagine that a fair amount of disruption would take place before that happens.

Cloudsandtrees- that might be the case in areas where there are superselectives, which leaves a near as dammit comprehensive for the rest. But I don't think it's very common in areas where the school everyone else goes to is a secondary modern.

I have nothing against grammar schools taking the top 2%-but not more.

I think people are accepting that you can tell at 10 what sort of education is suitable for a child at 14 or 15. And if you put that child into one sort of school at that age, then the chances are that child will conform to that schools's expectations. However in a school where movement is possibly- who knows what they might achieve.

Clouds, the science is inexact; it is not so bad that the school which takes the 77% is effectively a comprehensive. Schools can provide differentiation up to a point but it does become harder by the time pupils are taking publicexams. I am not sure your analogy with extra reading classes works because pupils are only withdrawn for a few lessons a week and often these are with a TA.

I take your point about extra reading lessons sometimes being with a TA rather than a teacher, but if a school can provide extra lessons for those children then it should be able to provide extra lessons for any child that needs it. If they can't, then that might be their fault, the head teachers fault, the LEAs fault, the governments fault. But it's not the Grammar school's fault.

LaVolcan - you asked a few pages back about the Stoke grammar, yes I think it is like a SS in other parts of the country. It's not an option for the vast majority of children in the city, in any case.