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?

seeker, regarding your figures, In my nearby town a comprehensive school on one side has fsm 3.8% and a comprehensive school on the other side 24.9%. Is that actually any fairer?

Probably lots of reasons Seeker. Most of which have already been discussed on this thread. Such as :-

People from disadvantaged backgrounds don't think the have a chance, or feel they would fit in. Their perception may or not be true, it either way, it's their choice.

People from disadvantaged backgrounds might not want to spend extra money on extra curricular activities and uniforms that they may, or may think they will need.

People might not be aware of, or have the inclination to go through the appeals process in Kent, which does have a decent success rate if you put in the time and effort.

People might not have spent the time in their child's early years doing things that will help their development and increase their ability to concentrate, or to build an interest in more academic activities.

People may not provide an environment at home where their children are encouraged to read, to do their homework in peace and quiet, to expand their school learning as much as possible.

There are all things that are within parental control, nothing to do with the state, yet I'd think that those things do have a significant impact on the fact that the number of children on FSMs is low in selective schools.

Those factors in a child's life would still limit their chances if they went to a comp rather than a sec mod.

No-it's not fairer. But you can see why it's happened- one of your comprehensives attracts the rich kids, the other doesn't. I think that's a scandal too. But both of the schools I am talking about do not have catchments - the only difference is that you have to pass a test to get into one, and miraculously, practically nobody on FSM passes that test. Children from the "area of significant social disadvantage" on one side of town have to walk past the grammar school to get to the high school!

I think I agree with you there russian.. It would be nice if the maths SAT at least could be combined with the 11+, but I can see the timing is an issue.

The teacher above asking what makes a good school (our views)....

For me ideally top 20 A level results in the country.
Fee paying.
Single sex
Extremely good classical music (as that is a big family thing for us) and sport
Nice grounds, fields, lakes, pools
Something in common with the other parents
Most people who apply fail and only very bright children get in
High expectations
Good behaviour
Good destinations of leavers, good number to Oxbridge, Bristol etc.

the thing is seeker, I can't see that having little ghettos where people can't sell their houses and naicer areas with inflated house prices is actually an improvement on your system. In fact what you describe actually sounds a lot better, as at least the kids mix at primary school, live next door to each other, and the secondary mod vastly outperforms my failing comp.

Clouds and Trees- so you don't subscribe to the commonly expressed view that the 11+ is a good thing because it is a test of academic ability only and as such is a useful tool for social mobility?

the only difference is that you have to pass a test to get into one, and miraculously, practically nobody on FSM passes that test

So why do you think the selective schools have a low number of children on FSMs Seeker?

Do you think the only reason is paid for tutoring? Or what?

Do you think these educational disadvantages that some children have will disappear if they go to a comp?

Please, anyone else who shares Seeker's view, feel free to answer too. It seems that Seeker only answers points when she can think of a response that fits her argument.

Clouds and Trees- so you don't subscribe to the commonly expressed view that the 11+ is a good thing because it is a test of academic ability only and as such is a useful tool for social mobility?

Yes and no. I don't think the 11+ only tests academic ability. Because tutoring is so prevalent, it also tests dedication to study, it tests potential academic ability, which I think is more important than ability at 10 years old.

I think social mobility is a red herring tbh. Secondary moderns do provide academic subjects at GCSE, so if a family wants social mobility then they can still support a child's learning at home, just as they have to if the best results are going to be gained from a GS. I think parental input has a much bigger influence over social mobility than schools do. Unsupportive parents will be unsupportive no matter what school their child goes to, and while schools have to meet the needs of all their students, parents also have to support the needs of their children if those children are going to achieve their full potential in the vast majority of cases. Schools, whether they be grammar or comprehensive, can only do so much to negate the effect of disengaged parenting.

I will always answer any point I notice- any I haven't answered are because I've missed them.

I think that generally speaking , children on FSM don't pass the test for all the reasons you list in your 13.14. Which rather goes against the often expressed view that the test is of raw ability only and is a useful engine of social mobility. I also think that the test itself is often more of a test of what you know, not of potential. And that tends to disadvantage a child who for whatever reason, hqsn't read as much or discussed as much.

Life's a competition, and clued-up parents prepare their children from the outset in order to position them as well as possible for adulthood.

Even if you make all schools comprehensive and free, and abolish any other sort, thinking parents will find ways and means to ensure their DC get ahead.

Actually, the child I know who is at grammar school on FSM is the child of two graduates- one an artist and one a musician- hardly typical!

Apart from anything else, it's just wrong to publicly tell a 10 year old that they are a failure.

LaQueen- just be a bit careful about that confidence......that's what I though.

Not average LaQueen, L4 is the expected achievement. Most dc do achieve it or higher. If it was average half would be above and half below (excluding the ones who are at that level), this is not the case.

But that isn't what the 11+ does and you know it. The only person who ever uses the word failure is you and you did promise to stop using it last time I pulled you up on it. My DS didn't even take the 11+ but if he had done I expect he would not have won a place at the grammar. That does NOT make him a failure.

Level 4 at the end of KS2 is actually below average. It just means "OK".

I'd imagine a sizable minority would be achieving level 5 at the end of year 5. DS1 was touching level 6 in English at that stage. That being the case, the race towards a grammar may be far tighter than some people may assume.

If you are happy to answer points, thanks

I posted this in response to you, and another poster, earlier in the thread when you said that you thought people seemed to think that the needs of bright children should be met as a priority over the needs of less bright or average children.

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

Do you think the needs of bright children are less important than the needs of the less bright children, or do you think all children's needs deserve to be met equally?

I promised someone not to use "sheep and goats" - was that you? Don't recognise the name change.

Do you really think children don't notice that they aren't at the grammar school? Or that they are? Or that they don't know what that means? Do you think they really buy the "you have been selected for a high school" line? Do you never hear people on the radio talking about how they felt about failing not passing the 11+ 40 years later?

reads thread...

counts lucky stars that DS will be going to school in Hampshire

Level 4 at the end of KS2 is actually below average.

How do you make that out?

A severely dyslexic child can be very talented at Maths, but hopeless at English. Children don't neatly divide into academic and non academic children.

Children at secondary moderns aren't stupid. They know that there is more prestige in going to the academically selective school.

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

I had a friend at one of the most selective grammar schools in the country. She wasted her opportunity by getting pregnant. Children make mistakes in life wherever they go to school.

If children feel bad about not passing the 11+, then that is largely down to the adults around them, not the test itself.

If passing the 11+ is presented as a big deal, and children are told that they are passing or failing, rather then being assessed, then of course they are going to feel bad about it. But there are things in most children's lives that involve some form of rejection one way or another, they have to learn to deal with it. And tbh, they if they have supportive parents that will give them confidence in the abilities and strengths they do have, then they will be fine.

And if parents don't want their children to do the 11+ because they are worried that not passing might upset them, then they don't have to put them in for the test. It's not compulsory. I didn't put my ds in for the test, he doesn't think that he isn't bright, or that I don't have confidence in his academic ability. He just thinks (rightly) that a curriculum full of Latin and extra maths will not suit him as well as the curriculum that is on offer at our comp.