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?

Yes, it was like that at my comprehensive school too.

Help I don't understand the point about 'getting the best out of the system' though - who do you mean, and why?

But the thing is, going back to my earlier posts, I live in a selective school area. While I'd be open-minded and go and see several schools, selective and non, if DD1 continues to do well academically I'd definitely want her to do the Kent Test and get in a top grammar (if she liked the school etc).

If I was in a non-selective area I'd be making sure we were in the catchment area for a decent school. So the system either favours selection on ability not without a financial element I acknowledge when it comes to tutoring or preps) or who can afford the house prices. I'm not saying either system is perfect, but pointing out the comp one is very flawed also. Particularly under Gove with academies, free schools and faith schools, but don't get me started on that.

Justgiveme- no I didn't go to a comprehensive. And neither do my children. And I don't currentlly work in one. However, as I said, I have a large number of family members and friends whose children go to/have been to them. I know what goes on in their schools- in so far as an outside observer can, so I have as much knowledge of them as most posters on here. And certainly more knowledge of what goes on now than many posters who are basing thir judgement on their own schooldays. And more knowledge than many posters of grammars/secondary moderns as I have a child in both.

In fact grammars are rather Anti-Govian which I rather like.

I do think the biggest flaw with comprehensive education in the way schools are inevitably affected in one way or another by the areas in which they're situated. How you square that circle, I don't know - where you live affects every part of your life and can't fail to do so.

But I see that and the issue of whether it's inherently a problem to have children of all abilitities in the same school as two different issues.

seeker Given your lack of personal experience of comprehensive education then, can you understand why people who did attend one (and I'm old, but not so old that things have changed beyond recognition) do not share your opinion that they are educational utopia?

Ok, Help - but I would say that although we hear about 'moving for catchment' a lot, and although some areas are much more expensive that others, there are a hell of a lot of places where some people are wealthy and some are not, and a lot of schools which have both leafy avenues and council estates in their catchments. As I said above, at the extremes, yes, there is a very problematic issue. But I don't see that as negating the idea that selection at 11 brings its own problems - IMO.

I also don't think most people are quite as basic as to say 'comps are good because my local one is'!

I went to an ugly, rough, crap facilities, low achieving comp n the 80's. Vast majority of kids were WC council estate kids but many were bright and well behaved. Now I have a child going to high school in Sept, I'm hoping it's nothing like the school I attended. Please say, that some of you are delighted with your kids comps and you think they are doing a great job. The vibe here seems to be your doomed if you go to acomp.

The thinking is to let schools choose what is appropriate for their pupils.

Well my school did 8 GCSEs, 2 of which were the completely shite modular assessed Dual Award sciences.

I didn't realise until I was at uni that most of my peers who had gone to better schools had done 10 GCSEs and single award sciences. It made it more difficult for me to get into a Russell Group university, and I ended up going to an ex poly near the bottom of the university league tables. Which made it almost impossible to get a job in the legal profession in the City, but somehow I managed it albeit a couple of years later than people who had gone to better schools and universities as I needed to work my way up more than they did. Also my friends from school with a science bent struggled with their science A-Levels as the GCSE dual award system was so poor. So my school did affect a lot of bright kids life chances. I mean I did ok but it took a lot more work than it did for others. The main disadvantage is to my whole work ethic. I got so used to cruising and pulling a rabbit out of the hat at the last minute that it really affected me in the workplace and I've never been able to get over that.

TBH, I didn't even know Grammars still existed until quite recently.

begonia - Please say, that some of you are delighted with your kids comps and you think they are doing a great job. The vibe here seems to be your doomed if you go to acomp
I'll say that for you . The one I went to was rubbish, but I'm not doomed... and the one the dc go to was struggling even as recently as mid-1990s but got its act together and does a great job.

Well, I went to a comp and I'd be more than happy to send my DDs there. If I could chose between DD1's school and my old school, I would choose my old school every single time. It was a wonderful school when I was there and it's a wonderful school now. But I don't live in Croydon any more :( I think the journey would be a bit far for her every day. DS would have worse options in Croydon than he does here.

Well my thoughts on comprehensive education aren't based on the good things I see in my dds' comprehensive - any more than any of the things I think could be better (catchments, for example) are based on the things I see there and don't like.

However - there's a difference between saying 'my comprehensive is great so there isn't a problem', which I think is what you're saying you've seen on MN, and is v simplistic, and saying, in justifiable irritation when you see people making statements about what never happens in comprehensives, or what is the problem with them, 'well, actually you know, that's not true at my child's comprehensive'. I think it's fair, actually, when you hear endless stuff about how bright children are bullied in comprehensives, for example, to point out that in your own experience that is not the case.

Although then of course you get accused of paying by catchment and living in a 'leafy' suburb, which isn't true either. So it is quite difficult to win.

Finally, I don't agree that non-selective schools 'treat everyone to the same education' - there is an awful lot of differentiation under one roof.

I swear, when my dd finishes this year, I am going to start an honest thread reflecting on how comprehensive schooling has been for her/us, and why I still think it's the best way! (assuming I still do by then )

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.'

What was your ambition - was it a realistic one? Who were the people; were they teachers or other pupils?

DS went to a comp which served a deprived catchment and I was not aware of any pressure from the school on anyone not to perform well. I was aware of children who, with little encouragement from home, did not do as well as they might of done - eg no expectation to attend school regularly, let alone do any extra work that might have led to success in exams. It had absolutely nothing to do with perceived 'coolness' or otherwise. I never heard any mention of geeks or nerds either. I probably live in a parallel universe to everybody else, but if any kids were picked on, it tended to be the less bright.

I certainly don't understand the schools in this area in the state system. The one nearest to my house has 8% of children getting traditional subjects in GCSE. Then in terms of primary schools every morning I drive by two which are very very close to each other. I cannot believe a catchment affects the intake. The "good" one I havbe never seen a non white child entering. The other one seems to be about 90% non white. How do they manage to achieve that int he state sector? I think the white school is C of E so I suppose that's how they do it but it is massively more divisive than the very religiously and racially and wonderfully mixed local private schools.

"seeker Given your lack of personal experience of comprehensive education then, can you understand why people who did attend one (and I'm old, but not so old that things have changed beyond recognition) do not share your opinion that they are educational utopia?"

That is not my opinion. My opinion is that they are the least-worst option.

"I still think if seeker wants educational fairness / utopia then mixed-ability classes have to be the way to go. Selection at the classroom door cannot be right either."

What a very bizarre thing to say!

'Least worst' isn't very aspirational seeker.

By the way, you didn't answer my question, you must have missed it: what sort of school did you go to yourself?

Nothing to stop the schools being aspirqtional.

I was home educated.

Home educated? Gosh. Right through primary and secondary or just for part?