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?

Sidebar, please!
Russiansonthespree- here is my 18.33 post
"Maybe people don't call for secondary moderns because they are closer to comprehensives than grammar schools are, so there is no need for them to be brought back."

The fact that people can actually say things like this makes me despair. You really have no idea at all, have you?"

Whenni said that Clouds and agrees had "no idea" I was referring to her statement that comprehensive schools are nearer to secondary moderns than to grammar schools. Which is just factually incorrect.

I notice that you are avoiding commenting on the fact that nobody is ever called up for talking knowledgably about grammars and secondary moderns when they have no direct experience. I at least have many friends and family members who are or have been at comprehensive schools. I suspect many posters on here could not say the same about secondary moderns!

And, once again, with respect, if you haven't experienced grammar and secondary modern, is your opinion that that is the last worst option therefore less valid than mine?

Well, seeker, you know that I have experienced grammar schools. I have also had family members and friends in sec mods because of my age - most of the people on my estate who were older than me went to the local sec mod. I also have in laws who went to sec mods in the past and some members of DHs extended family go to kent sec mods at the moment.

I don't think anyone who doesn't live in kent can comment on kent - even those of us who have rellies there. But sec mods as a historical thing? I suspect most of those of us of a certain age either went to one, or had friends or relatives who did.

I must say that I have certainly noticed people talking inaccurately about grammars being pulled up on it. I this very thread, and others running concurrently. By, among others, me.

Are you just skim reading the thread? Because you don't really seem to be following it very well......however I suppose there isn't any need to if you aren't prepared to actually converse with people but just want to tell them they don't know anything every time their opinion is different to yours. :(

seeker the thing is some comprehensives in poor catchment areas have pretty much the same intake profile as secondary moderns. There's one fairly near me and I just looked up its latest figures: low attainers 35%, middle attainers 57%, high attainers 8% with just 12 high attainers in the cohort. That sounds to be very similar in profile to your son's secondary modern, yet it's a comprehensive. In what way do you think it's different from a secondary modern?

"Are you just skim reading the thread? Because you don't really seem to be following it very well......however I suppose there isn't any need to if you aren't prepared to actually converse with people but just want to tell them they don't know anything every time their opinion is different to yours."

I'll try again. I only said somebody knew nothing when she had said something factually inaccurate. It wasn't an opinion. It was just plain wrong!

Where do the other high attainers go, gelo?

But I don't think she was necessarily factually inaccurate. Sme comps are very like old sec mods. Some comps have aspects which are like old sec mods. Very few comps are like grammars although some do have aspects which are like grammars. When she drew a comparison between comps and sec mods she wasn't entirely off beam.

Mostly they just don't live there seeker, it's the kind of school people move to avoid (very cheap, quite nice houses in catchment as a consequence). Some may get into other schools on appeal if there's space I guess. There's one catholic school not too far away, but it takes kids from a very wide area so I doubt it removes many from that particular school, but if you can get baptised early enough and pray regularly that's a way out (for any ability).

The problem with comprehensives is that they have segregated education due to wealth. Formerly it was segregated by ability. A lot of the same people would have ended up the same way anyway but at least under the sec mod/grammar school system a few bright kids from poorer backgrounds got to go to a good school. Now none of them do.

I am not sure that grammars/sec mods were really segregated by ability - it was surprising how few children on free school meals went to grammar schools. There was a link further up thread about this.

It depends on where the comprehensive is - some comprehensives do have a good balance. I think we have to be wary of prescribing solutions which would only work or be necessary in London on the rest of the country.

There was some logic to the old sec modern/grammar split when only 25% of children were expected to get O levels, and those that went to the Sec Mod were expected to leave at 15 but there was work for them to go into. Since then first CSEs came along, and then the school leaving age was raised to 16, then GCEs/CSEs were combined into one exam, and now that all schools have targets for GCSES (can't remember but is it 50% getting A-C?) the reason for the split seems to have been eroded.

To be fair Harriet, some poor children do go to good comprehensives, but there are some that are almost exclusively wealthy and others that are the opposite and so there is degree of segregation by wealth and the system tends to exacerbate this. I'm not convinced that polarising neighbourhoods into rich and poor is less bad than segregating children by 11+. Neither are good.

Seeker, have you accepted that a ropey comprehensive is no better than a secondary modern yet?

Seeker - don't you ever get tired of popping into every thread about selective education and lecturing people about the difference between true comps and sec mods?

The subject is GSs. So what if a poster inadvertently calls the non selective school a comp instead of a sec mod? We all know that she is referring to the non selective school.

The vast majority of comprehensive schools do not have the same intake as q secondary modern. The vast majority of comprehensive schools have an intake which consists of a Secondary modern school and a grammar school in the same building with nobody having been told they were a success or a failure base on a test they did when they were 10.

Something obviously needs to b done about schools like the one gelo describes- unless it is getting fantastic things out of it's cohort? Is it?

"The subject is GSs. So what if a poster inadvertently calls the non selective school a comp instead of a sec mod? We all know that she is referring to the non selective school."

That's not what happened in this case. Read the thread.

seeker - I have just caught up with all the posts and I see that you are wheeling out the same crap as in all those other past threads.

Your DD is at a GS. Your DS tried and failed to get into the GS. And you constantly complain about your sec mod and how, for eg, the WC parents don't value classical music and as a result your DS has no orchestra to join.

But none of the above seems to stop you coming onto threads like this and go on about uncaring pro GS parents. You was prepared to say 'feck you guys, my DS is going to GS'. Now that your DS isn't going to the GS you are slagging off parents as being uncaring because they want their DCs to go to a GS.

What do you see when you look into the mirror?

"Seeker, have you accepted that a ropey comprehensive is no better than a secondary modern yet?"

Brief pre answer mission statement-a ropy school is a ropy school and should be sorted out- whatever sort of school it is.

I'm sure there are some that have very similar intakes- although I would stick my neck out and say probably not many. Unless you believe that poor children are inherently less bright than better off ones? But I still think they are very different animals. Not least because the children in the comprehensive have not been tested and found wanting at the age of 10.

Have you accepted that a good comprehensive is better than a grammar school and secondary modern combination yet?

"Have you accepted that a good comprehensive is better than a grammar school and secondary modern combination yet? "

Better for whom? And are there more "good comprehensives" now than there were good grammar schools back in the day?

TotallyBS- read the fucking thread.

fantastically awful unfortunately seeker. They've been trying to fix it for years, but nothing seems to work. I doubt it's the only one though, I suspect most areas have one school like it and at the opposite extreme there are comprehensives with very leafy catchments (or very, very tiny city catchments) that are very nearly grammar schools. I find seection by catchment like that even less desireable than an 11+.

Seeker does have a point. I only know the situation in Bucks/Oxon and I can assure you that most comprehensives in Oxfordshire aren't the same as Bucks Sec Mods.

"Better for whom? And are there more "good comprehensives" now than there were good grammar schools back in the day?"

Better for everyone.

And I don't think I understand the next bit.

Really? Are there comprehensives where the intake is all at level 5 or above?

I have read the 'fucking thread'. It's full of your usual hypocritical rants

And are there more "good comprehensives" now than there were good grammar schools back in the day?

Impossible to say with 3000 or more secondary schools in the country, but don't delude yourself that all grammar schools were good and that all comprehensives are so-so.

The comprehensive that my old grammar school turned into is substantially better now than it ever was as a grammar school. I know that last year it for example that it got candidates into Oxbridge, whilst in the seven years that I was there it got precisely none in. At the same time they are also rightly proud of students who have done well in their BTec exams. But that's only one school.

So in answer to your question, while I'd like my children to attend a 'good comprehensive' (one does in fact), the good ones I know have such naice catchments they may as well be grammars. Not necessarily an improvement on 11+ for society.