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?

^Up thread exotic talked about a well off family who bought her house because it was near a good GS and how the DC proceeded to fail the 11+. Elsewhere seeker talked about how her DS failed the 11+.

So why do people keep on going about how the MC have a secret handshake when it comes to getting a GS place?^

Obviously some MC class children fail as well. Inevitable really as more than 23% of the population is MC. I'm not sure if exotic said the family were well off, though prepared to pay over the odds for a house in selective area. (Cecily now realises she missed a trick when she sold her house near Tiffin Boys)

Elastamum, I agree.

Seeker. There is an approx 8% difference in fsm levels between the grammar my DD attends and the local community school. Please stop quoting 25-30% difference as though it is the standard difference across the country. It may or may not be the difference in Kent, or in your bit of Kent. It isn't everywhere.

Am I right in thinking that FSM levels in your local community school are low?

Opps, you can tell by my rushed spelling and typos that I have had the benefit of a crap 70's comprehensive education!!

@Totally yep, based on what Seeker said upthread her son's sec mod is better by some big margin than every comp in my county. Go figure.

@cecily It's not my local community school. It's the one local to the grammar school. I live 30+ miles away. The levels are what they are. (and under-reported is one of the things they are, but that's a county wide problem)

Cecily - one only has to poke one's nose into the other forums to see that MN is not dominated by chattering MCs.If they were so inclined I am sure that those parents can find their way here.

Anyway, there are no shortage of MC parents posting how they believe that their naturally bright kids will past the 11+ without tutoring and that all DC needs is lots of visits to the museums and the like.

So not all MC kids will be tutored.

Cecily this talk is endemic in area I live and pervades all primaries as far as I can tell. The less well off parents can only join that boat if they can pay for that boat. The prevailing wisdom is that you can't pass the test without tutoring and I imagine it seriously undermines the confidence of a great many parents in being able to prep a child on their own.

So it's not just seeker on MN gelo it's everywhere here and no-one voices the need more strongly than the sharp elbowed well heeled mums at the school gate.

Cecily - the family paid a property premium for being in catchment. They employed legal counsel to handle the appeal. It is reasonable to infer that they are well off. :)

Cecily there are top comps and languishing comps in the same geographical areas.

During year 5 I was approached by a mum at the school gate who I didn't know, and who didn't know me, because her child was in the older 'split' of the year. She had heard on the grapevine that we were thinking of the grammar school for DD1. She proceeded to tell me that DD1 had no chance at all since she 'obviously' wasn't that bright and she would be massively disadvantaged what with not having been taught with the older kids ever, she obviously 'looked' bright compared to the kids in her class but if she was with the other group it would be obvious that children x y and z were far ahead, and of course her background what with having a working mother who was often away yada yada yada yada

I just ignored it. This woman was obviously trying to nobble the 'competition' months before the actual 11+ But another mum was almost put off by the same tactics. This happens ALL THE TIME. It's very sad.

If it's everywhere, then you shouldn't single out seeker for special criticism. The right way to approach the problem is to consider firstly if there's a grain of truth behind it, and I would hazzard that for many/most superselective grammars, most children that pass do need some tutoring and secondly, what is the way around it?

Perhaps the test should be compulsory again? Make it part of SATs, so not a separate and feared thing perhaps (and so that schools will prepare children for it, lessening the need for tutoring) and make grammar application something that any child with the appropriate scores is encouraged to consider. I know SATs are different in that they measure attainment, but it might be possible for the same suit of tests to do both.

Ok, humour me. And I apologise for using my town as an example, but it is the one I know I can be accurate about figures for. Same catchment, two schools about a mile apart. Largely the same feeder primaries.

Grammar school- 2.4 FSM
High school -21.7.

Why?

competition does bring out the worst in some people russian, and some are more afraid of failure than others too. But those who are 'put off' may well have other valid reasons for not applying not just the attitude of other parents - I would be a bit put off by the journey times in your situation for example.

I'm all for a national 11+ test to replace self administered SATs.

I know that some state primaries in GS areas do prep their kids for the 11+ but most don't, either out of principle or because of a lack of resources. If the league table rankings were based on the same tests used by the 11+ then I don't doubt that most of your privately tutored kid will be enjoying that much of an advantage.

Gelo Many people are put off by the journey times but to me, they seem standard, because it used to take me longer to get to and from my London comp (if I was using the bus) than it takes DD1 to get to her school. This is primarily due to the nutty bus routes in my old borough though.

I'm sure the journey is fine russian, but it's the kind of thing (that and having lots of local friends are the common ones) that do put people off as well as fear of failure. Would you prefer a compulsory test?

And for what it's worth, I would never discourage anyone from taking the test- rather the opposite. As a primary school governor I conducted a covert guerrilla campaign to try to up the socio-economic mix of those taking the test. But it's no use on a forum like this or in any sort of debate on the subject denying that the playing field is far from level.

And I know that Kent is different from other selective counties in that there are no comprehensive schools at all. But it is a big LEA and a lot of people are affected. And it is the model that most people think of when they think 11+ because it operates in the way that the whole country operated back in the day. So it is what most people, I suspect, are talking about when they say bring back grammar schools.

"I know that some state primaries in GS areas do prep their kids for the 11+ but most don't, either out of principle or because of a lack of resources."

In Kent it is neither. Primary schools are specifically forbidden to do more than offer two practise papers. Any school proven to have offered preparation could have its 11+ results nullified.

@gelo yes I would. Definitely. Well - I'm not sure compulsory is the right word, I suppose a test that you had to opt out of rather than opt in to. Run at the same time as the SATs. So that kids weren't overawed by their surroundings or the strangeness of it all.

Actually, it would have to be earlier than the SATs. But done in school, and practised for a few times so it just seems like yada yada yada another test save me from this monotonous regularity rather than oh my god this is new this is different this is scary please can I hide?

Seeker many people don't know Kent even exists. I think of Bucks when I think of the standard GS model. And I have actual relatives in Kent!

soverylucky

Personally I would judge a school on the basis of exam performance and the behaviour of it's pupils. Not all pupils are going to acheive 11a* but if the pupils are attaining a decent amount of A-C GCSEs I'd assume the teaching is good and the children are being stretched to the best of their abilities.

On the issue of behaviour, there is a school less than a mile away from me where a pupil was recently stabbed. I would prefer not to have to send my dc there and I don't think anybody would blame me. Similarly a friend lives very close to another school near to me and she says the behaviour of the children is poor. Again, I would prefer not to send my dc there either. All that remains are faith schools, which having been to one myself, and having sent the dc to a state Catholic primary(and found nothing has changed in twenty years) I have a problem. The private school with the amazing results is becoming more and more attractive by the week, but obviously, if I send my dc there I am selfish and elitist.

'achieve'