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?

Nope. But the sort of kids who get into grammar schools do well at comprehensive schools too.

And those kids exist in all the non selective areas of the country and do well, go to good universities.

Obviously some comps have good results and some dc are really motivated to do well, there are many issues though that can't be generalised.

My own experience with ds1 now aged 21.
Attended the worst school anybody on here could imagine, both academically and in terms of pupil behaviour. They had a super head who really changed the school whilst he was there.
Ds1 is not the brightest button in the box but made his mind up which way he wanted to go. He achieved 10 GCSE's grade C. Had he gone to better school down the road I am convinced he wouldn't have done as well. There were only a handful that came out with any GCSE's at all, in fact there were only a few left in year 11. I believe his success was because he was treated as an individual not a number on the register. In y7 alone he gained 3 levels in science and was awarded a lap top. Other schools rewarded with a book token.

Maybe they do also do well at a comp. But, I doubt they do quite as well, as at a selective GS.

No way of knowing really, unless you have identical twins and send one to each type of school.

You parachute an academically very clever, studious child with a good work ethic into many comps, and you're signing their Death Warrant, socially.

I am not sure what you mean. Such a child will just move up to secondary from primary school with other children of various abilities. They will generally find like-minded friends. Also, just because you are very clever, doesn't mean you can't get on with people whose abilities veer more towards the average. Of course, teachers like children with a good work ethic regardless of their intellectual capacities.

So, LaQueen- are you saying that clever children only do well in the handful of LEAs the have selective education?

I think that whether a child does well is determined by many factors including the ethos of the school, the teachers and management foremost.
Then of course the attitude of the child and parent to learning, the support and commitment of the family.
Finally, I think its the childs abilities.

My ds1 had absolutely nothing in common with other children in his school thank God, completely different walks of life.

However, I do agree without the support at home and his motivation we would have been signing their death warrant and I mean this literally as there was a knife culture and permanent Police presence. It was so awful, and constantly on the news.
At the end of his time there it had become a beacon throughout the county and even the good and outstanding comps were following their practices.

I'm with you, LaQueen. I bet most parents who want their kids to go to an academically selective school were the bright ones at a crappy comp. DH's experience at a single sex selective secondary school were palpably different from mine. The culture was that everyone should do their best. The culture at my school was to be average, but also it was actually fine to get good exam results, as long as you were not seen to be doing any work for them. This encouraged the bright kids to coast and in fact not reach their potential.

Plus the fact DH's school was half the size of mine. At mine some of the teachers didn't know whether they were coming or going. You could easily skip lessons or not hand in homework. Any extra effort was not recognised. There were a couple of good teachers where you would feel like making an effort, as they genuinely wanted to be there, liked children and wanted to get the best out of you. With the majority the reverse was true.

I bet most of the anti-grammar lot on here have moved house specifically to get near a good high school/academy. So selection by who can afford the house prices around a good school is ok then...?

I'm always fascinated that people seem to know so much about what goes on in schools they don't have children at. How do you know that attitude is prevalent at many comprehensives? How do you know you won't get called a nerd at grammar school? (Sadly, in my experince you will- there is bullying in all schools- in grammar schools it may be more articulate but it's still there)

Seeker. Your kids are in a SM and a GS. It doesn't stop you pontificating about comps.

So do you really want to have a go at parents for talking about schools that their children don't attend?

Not having a go. Asking.

I have a large and diverse family and many friends whom i communicate with frequently. The vast majority of their children are at comprehensive schools.

Suggesting that a child would not be called a nerd at a grammar school suggests that the person concerned has not had much contact with grammar schools.

LaQueen - Have you noticed that many anti selection MNetters are also proud members of the children should be children and home work is the work of the devil Brigade.

These are the same people who laugh when you make the point that at non selectives it's often not 'cool' to be studious.

It is also not cool to be studious at some selective schools. It might be cool to sail through exams- but it is often not cool to be seen to be working. Honestly!

LaQueen - Have you noticed that many anti selection MNetters are also proud members of the children should be children and home work is the work of the devil Brigade I have not seen that brigade, nor have I observed anybody on here who is in favour of comprehensive education saying that homework is the work of the devil - although I do agree with the relatively uncontroversial statement that children should be children.

I would never presume to make sweeping statements about what goes on day to day in 'many' grammar or private schools - probably I wouldn't even go that far about comprehensive schools, since I know what happened in mine 20 odd years ago, I know what happens in a few nowadays, but I don't think that entitles me to say what happens in 'many' of them.

You can be against the theory and the practice of selective education, or against comprehensives, without making big claims about the day to day experiences of children in 'many' of them, which I just don't understand how anyone presumes to know.

Nit - MN is full of posts from people who make sweeping statements about immigrants, MC people, people who send their kids to private schools etc etc.

seeker for one regularly goes on about how selective educ parents don't care about others

So if you want to make an issue out of people making sweeping statements about a class of people then be prepared slap down a lot of MNetters

The problem is, I think, that if I said my views were based on having worked in, gone to and having children in comprehensive schools, and knowing other parents who had children in them, and family who worked in them, and also that I have family and friends who work in private schools, and that I've been in private schools in a number of different contexts (all of which things are true).... well if I then said 'in many private schools X' or 'in comprehensives you tend to find Y' - others might, and quite rightly and reasonably, still take my statements with a pinch of salt and think that my own personal views and ideology had quite probably coloured the interpretations I had put on what I had seen.

It also always amuses me when people talk about what teenagers in different schools consider 'cool' and 'not cool' - I don't think I've ever heard my 15 year old refer to anything as either of those things. Nor, thinking about it, would I want her to base her decisions on over-arching perceptions of 'coolness', whether what she considered 'cool' was passing exams or failing them. I want her to do things because they're the right thing to do, not because they're kewell....

seeker I am genuinely interested in your experience with comps. Did you go to one and am I right in thinking you work in one too? What kind of area do you live in, ie are the comps you have experience of in areas of deprivation?

i was a bright kid at a comp. The pressure of not performing too well was awful. You were looked down on. When I told everybody what my ambition was I had years of people saying 'who do you think you are.'

I like to think/hope that non-selective secondary schools are a lot better now. I think schools in general are better at dealing with pastoral matters and bullying than they used to be. I think teachers are better than they used to be. But it's definitely a postcode lottery, not everyone has access to a great school.