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?

If money were no object, then they would be able to provide all subjects at all levels. As they have to work within budgets, it is not really anybodies fault. It is not exactly the grammar school's fault a such, other than that there is no flexibilty to be able to move between levels if pupils are in different schools

Not sure if this should be a new thread, but I am fascinated by the fact that there seems to be a near mumsnet consensus the tthe needs of the bright/very bright child should be met as a priority over the needs of the average or less bright. Does it look like that because mumsnetters are often the sort of people who are likely to have bright children, and it's just a pragmatic attitude, or is it a more widespread belief. And if the latter, why?

Who said it was a priority over average or less bright children?

Agree seeker, always wonder about that.

Especially as a mum of. 2 averagely bright children, who can go from average to high achieving with the right teachers.

I believe in teachers, I believe the right school can make the difference between my, and anyone's DC, doing o.k. or doing very well.

That is precisely why schools are so important, and such a hot potato on MN.

And also, the reason I moved my kids to private school as the local state school let them sink completely. I do not tink my kids need special education because they are bright, I believe they are completely average but STILL deserve a cracking education. All those extra super bright kids of MNers ( I think yours are very academic seeker?) will surely do well wherever they go.

To answer your question, I think it is an MN thing. Most MNers either have super bright kids, or they think they do ( did not mean that to sound bitchy....).

No, Seeker, not as a priority over the needs of less bright children. Just that provision should be made for the bright children as well.

Not instead of, as well as.

Personally, I don't believe it's true that super bright kids will do well wherever they go. Do you really think that a super bright child will do as well as they possibly could in a school where they are in the vast minority, and where they are ridiculed for being studious Chandon? You don't think that being in an environment where they don't feel secure may be detrimental to their education? You don't think that there are ever bright children who waste their talents because they are teenagers who are easily influenced by other children?

There is more to success than being bright.

I went to a (mildly selective) private school where people actively downplayed their intelligence because it just wasn't 'cool' to be intelligent, and at that age, people cared more about fitting in with their peers than getting their homework done.

@seeker who is saying bright kids should have priority? Not me. If I thought bright kids should have priority I'd be advocating that classes move at the pace of the brightest. Believe me, that isn't what happens now. And I would never advocate it either. What I want (and I suspect what others want too) is that all kids should be given an appropriate education and not made to feel like freaks for whatever reason.

In terms of monetary priorities, our grammar school gets rather less funding per pupil than the comps do. So clearly 'the rest' are getting the financial priority. But that's fine, I can live with that (I know some people think it's unfair but since I have a foot in both camps I can see both sides).

The idea of grammar school system was equally to benefit those that don't end up in them.A school of say 800 pupils can only offer so many courses.The idea originally was that grammar school pupils follow an academic education preparing its pupils for university, and the secondary moderns could specialise in offering more vocational courses so that those who are not suited to academic education are not forced down a route where they are doomed for failure and the low self esteem this brings with it.

I think the 'Not for us' attitude is a huge problem.

Our neighbour's eldest is a bright, bright boy. He would have been eligible for a very generous bursary at my son's school, possibly even 100% of the fees, as both parents are in low-paid work. Son's school is academically selective and very good at music (neighbour's son plays in several bands).

Our neighbour refused to apply because she says they would stick out as being different. They wouldn't. Parents rarely go in to the school apart from for parents' nights and occasionally concerts. Nobody really gives a damn where you come from. Her son is a lovely boy: gregarious and easy-going and would fit in anywhere.
He hasn't worked hard at the local comprehensive and hasn't been pushed. If he'd applied for a bursary at the selective school he probably would have achieved perfect grades across the board.

I don't know what you do to persuade people to take a leap into the unknown. If they won't apply for bursaries how are schools to get them to do so? Our previous primary head was ideologically opposed to private schools and even when the heads of the private schools came out to meet her and explain their bursary scheme, refused to encourage Y6s to apply. I think if she had done so, it might have encouraged one or two more children of working-class background to apply.

abra1d
If you have not been a poor person in a 'rich people' environment, you will not have the slightest clue how that feels.You think there is no feeling of being isolated, looked down upon, because you haven't been there!!
Even the uniform and incidental costs are beyond the reach of some families.

Another thing- it's interesting that people always say "oh, it doesn't matter what class you are or how rich you are or what your background is, you'll fit in at our private school". And your're a reverse snob if you don't agree. But those same parents don't want their child in the same school as all the " disadvantaged" children.........

I certainly know that when I fought with my parents for my right to take up my grammar school place, the issue was the school uniform. Even though they got some type of uniform allowance for me (I was a FSM child even though my Dad was never without a job) it was still very expensive and they were very reluctant to have to pay the extra bit.... But my determination won out in the end.

You are right though that generally the middle classes punctuate every discussion of their children with the "of course he/she is G&T" but not all middle-class children are, surely?

I sometimes wonder, Tiggytape, whether all the children applying for the super-selectives are of the right standard, though? It's generally only a third or so who pass, isn't it? I wouldn't have said all DS's primary school classmates, who elected to take the exams, were necessarily, but the middle-class parents definitely got caught up in the competitive side of it .

But isn't it the case that as parents, those of us who are interested in our children's education, will fight the corner for the type of schools which suit them? For DS a grammar school was the right environment based on his ability etc..but our all-singing, all-dancing, switched on but less obviously academic DD would probably suit a comprehensive that would nurture her dramatic side!

What I want for my children is schools that bring out the best of them academically and socially in an environment that is nurturing. Some comprehensives do this probably better than either many of the grammars or private schools but many don't, particularly if you live in large cities with school-age gang cultures. Just imagine having to send your children to the Academy in that Estate in Pimlico where that poor 16 year old boy was stabbed to death yesterday? And this may be why you find that London-based parents and Mumsnetters are more pro the grammars.

I think people piut far too much trust/empathise on the school when it comes to the success of their DC. The bottom line is you can pay £20,000 a year for a school but if you the parent aren't there to encourage opening the books to complete homework, supporting the revision, keeping up the motivation then you are wasting your money.
Grammar and private schools expect kids to keep up at quite a pace and if that's not your learning style you're stuffed. They expect that the children come to school with the right uniform, the right equipment, there will be no issues at home and no issues in school. And if there are they expect that you won't bother them with them.
I can totally understand why some parents wouldn't apply thinking they aren't for the likes of them, they aren't IME.

I have never got involved with my DCs homework or revision(unless they have specifically asked for help), they have learned self motivation by mixing with children of the same mindset.
Schools and particularly schoolmates are immensely influential
There is and old saying along the lines of

'tis the schoolmaster i pay, but the schoolboy who educates my son'

I have a feeling, Tiggytape, that you are virtually a Borough neighbour....We have less desirable comprehensive options and interestingly about 50% of DS's classmates are now at secondary school in Sutton Borough....that's for a reason methinks!

I think DS was very, very, very lucky and is a lot brighter than his laziness (still a work in progress!) gives many to believe, luckily for him!

socharlotte the uniform is available either secondhand through a very good and well organised and advertised secondhand shop, or at M&S. It is not fancy stuff. We never buy new sports kit. Nor do most of our friends.

seeker 'But those same parents don't want their child in the same school as all the " disadvantaged" children.........'

Erm, yes we do. That's why I told my neighbour about the bursaries.

*There is and old saying along the lines of

'tis the schoolmaster i pay, but the schoolboy who educates my son'*

There is an old saying spare the rod ruin the child but we don't take any notice of that old bollox any more either.

"seeker 'But those same parents don't want their child in the same school as all the " disadvantaged" children.........'

Erm, yes we do. That's why I told my neighbour about the bursaries."

Well we have three comprehensives on our doorstep which we wouldn't touch with a barge-pole for our DCs... Fine and dandy for DS as he got into a super-selective. But we are already getting nervous for DD (who is one of the babyboom years) - firstly there is going to be significantly more competition to get into any/all of the secondary schools and if she doesn't get into a grammar school (or selective stream of Greenshaw/Graveney), where we live might not even be in catchment (by then) for the girls' comp we have our eye on....

For what it's worth, I don't think disadvantaged children are the issue in themselves. I guess I would have been regarded as such when I was a child, but none of us ever got into trouble, all did well at school and all went on to get degrees. Being disadvantaged might predispose to certain behavioural and academic stumbling blocks but there are loads of perfectly decent children out there who are not the rough diamonds or scallywags that they may be labelled as by all and sundry....

All schools have their issues with bullying, bad behaviour, drugs etc....these issues are not solely the preserve of the "disadvantaged" It is naive to think that getting into a grammar or a private school will enable your DCs to totally avoid deviant teenage behaviour!

Sorry, seeker, I'm not reading you. I want bright children in my children's schools, regardless of where they come from. Why is that so risible? So unbelievable?