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 sold my house in a grammar school area at a premium because it was in the grammar school area.

I was very hypocritical- moving out because it was a grammar school area and using the school as the main selling point! Of course it added to the house price. The people who bought it loved grammar schools because they fully expected their DS to pass. He failed- they had a terrific fight and even employed a solicitor for the appeal. He went to the secondary modern- not what they expected when they bought my house!

As there are only 164 grammar schools in England, and none in Scotland and Wales, and they only serve about 3% of DCs and private schools take about 7%, and HE is too minuscule to mention, then a huge proportion of the other 90% are doing very well at comprehensives! Of course private pupils and grammar school pupils take up an unproportionate number of places in the best universities, but so they jolly well should when they cherry pick their pupils!

gelo the FSM indicator is a useful tool but is a very crude measure. The level of household income required to claim it has to be exceptionally low, the way income is calculated is flawed and in some areas and communities there's a far greater reluctance to claim it than in others. A school can be relatively socially inclusive without a high percentage on FSM. In addition, there are a great many families on low or lowish income who don't fall below the exceptionally low level of £16k and who aren't 'middle class'. And whose kids are nevertheless at grammars, some without even having been coached.

Of course a few are- the majority at any grammar will have comfortable backgrounds.

It is unfair to say that our grammar schools are full of DCs on low income who are there with no coaching! They don't stand much chance against the pushy parent who starts preparing in year 3, if not well before.

Not that that there is anything wrong with pushy parents- we all want the best for our DCs.

exotic I don't know the precise level of income of each and every family at the grammar my DC attend but I mix with other parents and know the DCs friends too and can make a reasonable judgment. I don't think I said anything about an overwhelming majority being on low income with no coaching but the reality is not the black and white MN version at all.

It's a strange world (country) that we inhabit where parents who want their children to be challenged and pushed academically have a special label to distinguish them from 'normal' homework is the work of the Devil parents.

Both the comprehensive and the selective systems can be manipulated by the well off/privileged, as all systems can. The difference is that th grammar school system actively discriminates against the poor/disadvantaged. Any system which involves a test which can be prepared for, a very high reading age and
Vocabulary, and which requires parents/carers to become involved and deal with complex beurocracy is automatically screed against children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
And the FSM thing might be a broad brus measure, but when grammar
Schools have 1-2% FSM and high schools 30-odd% something's going wrong somewhere!

L

seeker - you keep beating the drum about how GS entry discriminate against the poor and disadvantaged.

You are neither and yet your 'privileged' DS didn't get in. Is it possible that the system does work and that it does select the most able as opposed to the best tutored?

gelo the FSM indicator is a useful tool but is a very crude measure. The level of household income required to claim it has to be exceptionally low, the way income is calculated is flawed and in some areas and communities there's a far greater reluctance to claim it than in others. A school can be relatively socially inclusive without a high percentage on FSM. In addition, there are a great many families on low or lowish income who don't fall below the exceptionally low level of £16k and who aren't 'middle class'.

It is true that FSM is a crude measure and doesn't tell you anything about the other chilldren who attend the school. However, other things being equal, a school with a high proportion of FSM is very likely to also have a high proportion of children from low income families who are above the FSM threshold. Conversely, schools with low FSM are likely to have proportionally more children from relatively wealthy families. Of course there is the odd exception; Holland Park mentioned up-thread is probably one them, where children do come from both extremes of the income spectrum.

Seeker, I increasingly get the impression that you think kids from a poor/disadvantaged background aren't as bright as kids from your sort of background. :(

Not so sure. The next tier up, those who would qualify for fee reductions and bursaries at Oxford and Cambridge, would be worth looking at too, if only to reduce the stridency of the anti grammar brigade who argue only in headlines.

seeker your argument is based on the Kent model; my defence of grammars is based on a different model entirely and I don't see any point in comparing the two.

I also slightly take issue with your patronising approach to what used to be called the 'working classes' and the assumption that none wish for a decent education for their kids, none encourage their kids and none can speak proper.

Cross posted. Cecily that middle tranche, who aren't 'middle class', are extremely important.

"Seeker, I increasingly get the impression that you think kids from a poor/disadvantaged background aren't as bright as kids from your sort of background. "

No. I leave that to the people who think that a 25-30% difference in the numbers of children on FSM between grammars and secondary moderns is absolutely fine and not an indicator of unfairness!

There are so many other factors. Where I live the posh schools have a very very generous bursary/scholarship scheme and they actively seek kids from very low income families to go there. I have known 3 or 4 from my DCs primary school go on this route, and 2 of them have been in classes with my DCs. The currently (but not perhaps for much longer) unusually large posh school sector in this part of the world really does distort things. There are very few kids from wealthy families at ANY state schools in this county. The posh schools do less well than the grammar but it's such a faff getting to the grammar that most of those who can afford to go posh do.

To play devils advocate
1)Like other traits,genetically more intelligent parents are likely to have more intelligent children overall
2) overall Intelligent people are likely to be more economically successful

Therefore wealthier parents have brighter kids?

seeker on your own preferred measure of FSM uptake, why not compare the FSM uptake of the top comps and that of the languishing comps and see how much intrinsically fairer that distribution appears to be. Given that entry to the top comps is based overwhelmingly and in a much purer measure on income or capital. chance. Then justify it.

I'm with the GSHA on this.

chance.

soch, yes but if two clever children breed the IQ of the child is slightly lower apparently. However one could argue that ultimately if there has been very good social mobility since WWII ultimately you reach a point where those at the bottom in a sense are rightfully there, the ones with very low IQs. I am sure most of us don't think we are at that point but it is technically possible - that a state has such good social inclusion and mobility that the bright poor rise right up and move class and ultimately all you are left with amongst those at the very bottom are those who could never do better due to very low IQ level no matter how good the environmental conditioning.

Why the state thinks children in Buckinghamshire have such special genes they can benefit from (or be hurt by) grammar schools but not children in say Northumberland is beyond me? Either you think it's fine for children whatever their region or you don't as it is a state system into which everyone pays taxes.

Yellowfip- I can't justify it. All systems are manipulatable by people with knowledge and money. But people still believe that grammars both "ordinary" and super selective select on ability alone and everyone has an equal chance. And that's just not true.

But Xenia that theory is all messed up by clever but weak man marrying thick but beautiful woman (always that way around).

xenia, it's historical isn't it?

Grammars were abolished, as per national policy, but some (presumably mainly in Conservative areas, but i don't know) LAs resisted.

I know fsm is a crude measure, but it's the one that's commonly used and reported and I don't know any others that I could look up unfortunately yellow.

I did find this article though which is interesting, it suggests looking at the difference between the fsm rate of a school and the fsm rate of the postcodes it serves rather than the absolute values. That makes some sense to me (though it unfortunately corrects for wealthy catchments). If you then look at this difference for the top 200 state schools and average for school type, they found that grammars and comprehensives have equal scores. In other words top comprehensives are somehow selecting on wealth to the same extent that grammars are. Quite how they do that (ie: get out of taking poor children in their neighbourhood) I don't know, but it does serve to illustrate that neither system has a monopoly on fairness.