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?

All the way through apart from some brief periods in schools abroad.

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).

That seems fair enough if you live in a selective area. If your DD is top set material, you would not want her to go to a school if the rest of the top set is somewhere else! I know exactly where you, and seeker for that matter, are coming from. I used to live in Kingston and Tiffin would not have been my choice, so would have proclaimed loftily that I was against selection. However, if I lived in Kent ....

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.

People keep saying that, but I can't see how the 2 are mutually exclusive. In selective areas, don't people do the same thing; unless we assume all the parents of the children who are not selected (80% of the population) are perfectly happy with whatever they are given. If your DD does not pass the Kent Test, do you not have a plan B?

Last questions: did you hate it? And who taught you? (a parent or a tutor?). And were your sibs home educated too?

"Now I think comps are here to stay and provide a adequate enough way to mass educate but I am aware that some pupils are really let down by it. But then life's not fair.. but to say comps as a system are great and fairer, well it just gets me frothy!!"

Some kids are let down by school. The thing is that if it's a grammar school or a private school, people tend to say it's the child's fault- if a comprehensive, people say it's the schools's!
Nobody, I think, is saying that all comprehensive schools are great. But generally, the comprehensive system is fairer.

To be fair, Hobbit's post at 13.52 was about her own schooling, which I assume was at least a few years ago? Also contained some ideas which I think others may take issue with - that dual award is pointless shite, for example.

But yes, I went to a rubbish school too where a truly academic education wasn't on offer. Wouldn't generalize based on that nearly 20 years after I sat my GCSEs though!

I don't think all comprehensives are 'great', but as a system I certainly do think it is 'fairer' than any other.

I didn't hate it- but I wouldn't do it for mine. A mixture of parents and tutors. One sib was partially, the other wasn't, but they are both very much older than me, so their circumstances were completely different. Happy to answer questions!

help, I think there are some persuasive arguments (though I don't know enough about them) that mixed ability teaching can be best, though I'm not sure what I think about that unless the teacher is truly outstanding.

But, as has been said a number of times on MN threads like this, setting by subject is very different from segregating into different buildings. For example, Maths sets often seem to contain different children in set 1 from the set 1 in a lot of other subjects. And even if you were set for everything, you could and would still be moved very quickly if necessary - and would encounter children of different abilities at different times. So although there are snags with setting, I personally don't consider being in favour of setting as being at odds with being against selective schools.

"Seeker, I find your position in being against selection into grammar schools but maintaining that there should be setting within the comp to be contradictory, that's all. Mixed-ability does best for the cohort as a whole.(Apparently)"

I am against selection because it is set in stone and does not allow for movement either way, and divides children and societies in a way which I consider unfair and damaging. I am I favour of setting because it allows movement both ways, without being socially divisive.

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.

No you are definitely not doomed if you go to a comp. Even at a low-achieving school, not all children are low achieving. Support from home makes a tremendous amount of difference. Here, we have no selection and no private schools, so all secondary schools are comprehensive, so all able children who go on to do well (and there are many of them - seemingly all my colleagues kids) will have been to comprehensives. Also depends what you mean doomed. By mumsnet standards, probably means not going to an RG university. For others, probably means ending up in jail!

Except not like grammars because you could be in a lower set for some things and not others, and you would still be deemed fit to play football with the children in the top sets, and allowed to eat your lunch near them, even if you were in the bottom set for everything!

I have a child in a London comp, it's a high performing comp, reflects accurately the social, racial, ethnic, religious and class mix of our local non-leafy area. We are not in a grammar area, and decided not to put DS in for the super-selectives within geographical reach. He's in top sets, and again the demography of these is representative. There are outbreaks of wild behaviour (there were in my quasi private Direct Grant school) but academic aspirations and progress are kept aloft.

It's harder for educationally keen and well supported kids who are in the middle and lower ability groups. Good, IMO, that they are taught at a speed that is right for them, but they do bear the brunt of the more educationally disengaged. But discipline and social support in the school is high, so with enough effort and investment, the middle and lower ability groups are also achieveing well.

In short - I wasn't tempted by the grammars for my high achieving child, he is doing extremely well in his top sets which have some extremely clever kids in them (cleverer then him), but I would be concerned for a middle or lower setted child.

^Hobbitation Thu 31-Jan-13 13:52:03
The thinking is to let schools choose what is appropriate for their pupils.

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.^

Similar experience I think. I found the modular A level system great because you could judge your progress against national standards rather than the rest of the class

Eg.
Teacher: "oh you're doing great. You got top marks in my test set at the average standard of the class"
Me: Ok Ill just chill and wait for the rest to catch up"

Vs

Teacher: teaching
Exam board: "grade not as good as you wanted"
Me: "Ok how about this?"
Teacher: teaching
Books: more stuff
Exam board: "grade you want"
Me: "YAY!"

For some reason I like writing mini plays at the moment.

LaQueen - here's what I posted earlier "- 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."

You notice I don't ask you how you are so knowledgable about secondary moderns, and what it feels like to fail the 11+, and the impact the 11+ has on a community. You are so definite on the subject I am assuming that you have loads of first hand experince.

"I just wondered if you were the only parent allowed to make judgements, based on things you'd heard, people you knew, experiences you'd witnessed. That's all."

Of course not. In fact I seem to be the only one not allowed to do that!

You did say that a child would definitely "not" be called a nerd at grammar school, you know!

Seeker, you aren't the only one not allowed to do that. You are 'allowed' to do whatever you want. But you frequently pull others up (sometimes probably correctly) for talking about that of which they know little or nothing, so it's fair that you should be subject to the same treatment, no?