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?

My friend taught at one with just 2% low attainers and 100% 5A*-C

Comprehensive schools like Holland Park and others in extremely wealthy areas are not "comprehensive" at all. They are private schools at public expense.

Blimey! Lots of level 4s in the middle attainers, presumably?

Mind you- ds's high school got 95% a*-c this year. With English and maths is a different story though........

kent grammar intakes aren't all at level 5 and above either seeker, but around 60% high attainers is beginning to look like a grammar to me.

They are private schools at public expense.

I have heard the same sentiment expressed of the Bucks Grammar schools (by someone who taught there.) Very nice for those who get their children in and save the £15K a year that they would have to stump up elsewhere.

Just had a quick look- the high attainer % at the grammars round here range from 85 to 97%- so 6O% is not quite knocking on the door. But with only 2% low attainers and presumably very low FSM rates, I can see what you mean.

Yes 'only' 90% inc maths and English this year - that was slightly down on the last couple of years (could be the English issue, not sure). I've seen grammars that get low 90s for that metric too.

"They are private schools at public expense."

Isn't that just as true of grammar schools? Even more so because of the selection element?

I don't pretend to know what the solution is seeker, there are not easy answers. but comps do have social segregation problems too in some areas.

Absolutely. And the system can always be manipulated by some to their advantage. But a system that segregates 10 year olds into successes or failures can't be right, surely? And that' s the harsh reality of more grammar schools.

How is it true of grammar schools? At least there is some kind of selection by merit there.

Whatever the selection criteria is, wealth, ability, religion, sharp-elbowed parents will game the system in their favour. But ability is still the fairest criteria.

The comprehensive system segregates 10 year olds into ones with rich parents and ones with poor parents. That's the harshest system of all.

"The comprehensive system segregates 10 year olds into ones with rich parents and ones with poor parents. That's the harshest system of all."

So does the grammar school system.

The other thing you have to wonder is how many of the 85-90% high attainers at kent grammars would have scored lower on SATs and so been middle attainers if they hadn't had all the 11+ tuition they are supposed to have had. THat must raise SATs scores in 11+ areas a bit I would think.

Harriet, you are rather assuming 11+ is a fair uncoachable test.

I'm not assuming 11+ is a fair uncoachable test, but I am assuming that the kids that pass it won't ALL be from wealthy families and the kids that fail it won't ALL be from poor families. At the moment, wealthy families send their kids to good schools either privately or by means of living in wealthy areas, and poor families cannot do this.

well you said ability was the fairest criteria, but if you can't measure it fairly then it isn't. And since the 11+ isn't uncoachable, grammar schools are as socially undiverse as even the most extreme comprehensives that seeker & I have been discussing.

How are grammar schools as socially undiverse as extreme comprehensives like Holland Park? Just because a test is coachable doesn't make it entirely unfair. Selecting by wealth is entirely unfair. So which is better?

Well, Holland Park, that you mentioned upthread has 28.2% fsm. Colyton, which I understand is one of the less socially exclusive grammars around has 2.8% fsm. Which do you think is more accesible to poor people? To be fair, my friends leafy comp had only 2.3% fsm (as seeker rightly surmised very low), I'm sure seeker can fill us in on typical kent rates (maybe in the morning), but they won't be an improvement on any but the most extreme comprehensives and will certainly be worse than most 'good' comps.

Seeker - comp and no grammars at all is not the least worst system. Super selective grammars and comps is the best system. And if there were no private schools at all then it would be the ideal system.

Seeker - it sounds like your DSs sec mod is a lot better than my DSs comp.

Seeker - the grammar system doesn't segregate by wealth. You might wish it did since your DS would be at a grammar if it did. But since he is still clearly at a brilliant school I really do not see what your problem is.

Private schools segregate by wealth and catchment comps segregate by wealth. Grammar schools segregate by ability. Except possibly in Kent.

It would be lovely to think that grammar schools were level playing fields and DCs got a place from raw ability, but they segregate by wealth in exactly the same way as comprehensives. I know many people who put the money into private education to secure the place for free secondary education and many more who spend out on tutors.At the very least they buy past papers and do it themselves. You will find very few (a token few) at grammar schools on free school meals.
No one has yet told me why my DS who went to a Russell Group University and my DS who left at 16yrs and got an apprenticeship couldn't be in the same school. They were in the same school and it was very successful for them both. I am very proud of them both - and if you want to put success in terms of money the one who had the apprenticeship earns the most- and the world is his oyster- he may even take his job further later on by going to university. I can't see the need for segregation.
I got an email from a friend last night and her DD has the offer of a place at Cambridge- she is not an oddity in her comprehensive - there are no grammar schools and it is a high achieving school and of course the top streams do exactly as they would in a grammar school- they just have the same uniform and are under the same roof as everyone else in the town.

She is also a highly popular girl and doesn't feel that she has to hide her cleverness to fit in- she needs to show it to fit in!

There are a couple of highly ranked comps near-ish where we live. In order to buy a comparative house we would need to stump up an extra 20%. I don't doubt that this property trend is repeated elsewhere as well off champagne socialists buy their way into a highly ranked comp.

Ok, your average so so ranked comp isn't going to have much of an impact on near school gate property prices. Even so, it's very 'naive' for seeker and friends to argue that GSs, unlike comps, segregate by wealth.