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?

But LaQueen, that is gymnastics. There is only one way of performing the various activities. The aim is to cross the floor in the prescribed way not to get to the far corner!

In school work the child at 11 may do well because the techniques taught 'click' for that child.The child may be a whizz at the techniques taught to that point but not be able to understand more advanced techniques or approaches.

Is there someone on the thread who thinks their child failed the 11+ because they weren't tutored?

Begonia - Both here and the Real World we all make fun of people who can't street park, who can't cook, who can't do basic DIY, who can't do things that most take for granted. In fact, there have been whole threads dedicated to drown up DCs who can't cook or do ironing.

So are you really going to single me out and give me grief for making fun of some 40 something who went on a course to use email?

And what has confidence and education got to do with it?

I think gymnastics is different. My brother took off suddenly because he was introduced to Latin and Greek and loved them. Had he stayed at the secondary modern he would never have blossomed like that because failing a test at 10 or 11yrs meant that you were never given the opportunity of doing classics.
Where else do you have a mad system where subjects are closed to you because you are deemed 'not clever enough'?
If you could tell the really clever children at 2,3, 4 years why did so many leave grammar school without A'levels? ( not counting the ones whose families wanted them in work). Within the last 2months I have met 2women who left grammar school with one O'level each.
I lose count of the number of posters on here who think that their 2yr old is incredibly advanced- as if education is a race- in many cases they are overtaken by 6 years by the 'slow and steady'.

Mmm, and I expect one's thoughts about gymnastics and being good at them would be a bit less relaxed if all the children in the district were grouped according to gymnastic ability at 11, and the best 23% at gymnastics went to the school with the nice uniform and the good discipline and the strong reputation and results.

There are also, I suggest, quite a few more subtle gradations between 'cannot tie shoelaces' and 'capable of passing advanced maths [a level??] at 15'! Bit reductive really.

Life would be terribly simple if you could take 2year olds and predict how they will turn out! Having seen so many DCs grow from babies to adults the one thing for sure is that life is full of surprises!

The whole of education is unfair. It all needs a change -BUT - we need change for all and not to separate the more intelligent off as being 'more deserving'.

Very true TheOriginalSteamingNewt- there would be a lot of DCs in gymnastic classes if 23% got better treatment! Luckily parents don't have the angst if they have a DC who can't do gymnastics!

"Add message | Report | Message poster HelpOneAnother Thu 31-Jan-13 21:44:28
"Exotic the comprehensive system closes off subjects due to the postcode nowadays rather than the test; just as unfair, only to a different group of pupils"

Really? Tell me more..

It is very true - there are excellent comprehensives and dire comprehensives and everything in between- and they won't offer the same.

I don't think anyone is denying that some children are clever than others. The issue is whether Fred being cleverer than George means that Fred has be educated in a completely different school. And whether it is good for either Fred or George for them to be told definitively at the age of 10 that Fred is clever and George isn't.

People buy education- whether by using private schools, getting a tutor or buying a house in a good catchment area - it is a fact of life. Everyone wants the best for their DC which is generally a good education, without disruption,and one that opens all doors for the DC. (We just differ on how we think it should be provided)

Education without disruption

I think that really does sum up what a many parents and pupils are looking for.

Perhaps instead of tying ourselves up in knots about academic selective education, we should consider a system which allows those who are disengaged and disruptive to be taken out of the school entirely, and educated separately with an emphasis in gaining a few good GCSEs but enriched with practical subjects.

I think this would benefit both the disengaged student and the well behaved student regardless of the ability of either.

Seeker, Fred knows he is really clever. George knows it too, if he's met Fred. He probably resents it. His mum probably does, too.

Fred is completely fed up of being on a different planet to the other people in his primary school. He doesn't go to a posh school, it's a normal primary, perhaps it's in special measures. He isn't sure about the grammar school - just because he doesn't like a lot of the people he knows (cos they are mean too often) - it doesn't mean he isn't wary of change. Better the devil you know. He's also worried about hubris. But he can't talk about it cos nobody else at his primary school has heard of hubris. He knows he doesn't fancy another 5 years of being the target though.

Of course, It would be a lot easier to slack off a bit, he could still be around the top of the class with zero effort. But he's only 10 or 11 and he still wants to learn and behave the way he knows society expects him to - he isn't rebellious yet. It would be his dream to be in a school where he was the same as everyone else without having suddenly got less clever. Not the top of the class all the time. Not feeling bad about doing well in a test of being given completely different work to everyone else (at least he's in year 6 now. It was worse when he was in y3-5 and working with the year 6s a lot of the time. That was just embarrassing.)

Seeker, you don't know what it's like to be that kid or to be the parent of that kid. I was that kid and Dd1 was that kid and nowDd2 is too. DS wasn't. I know what it's like to be the mum of a regularly bright kid. But I know what it's like to be the mum of that kid too. And it's a completely different thing. But nobody who hasn't been the parent of that kid gets it, because they assume that kid can't possibly be any different to their very bright child. But that kid is. And it's not necessarily a blessing, it really isn't. Especially since being that kid all too often also involves SEN conditions like dyspraxia, AS or dyslexia.

Russian- I have said before that you have hanged my mind about superselectives- I now see that there might be a case for them. But I don't think you are in favour of dividing up the other 98%, are you?

"My broad point to you seeker is can you accept that to remove the unfairness of grammar schools introduces the unfairness for academic children in very poor areas."
I'm sorry- I don't understand this.

Seeker unless you make it 5-10% you wouldn't have one in each county probably. I think that there need to be grammar schools no more than an hour- hour and a half away from everyone except, you know, people living on taransay or similar. I do not think it would be right to force kids to board at 11. But other than that, I think we agree. For the other 90-95% then I'd be more than happy with in some cases vastly improved comps with rigorous streaming and proper music. And I think there should be more liason between schools so that if a late bloomer or someone who had a no good very bad day for the test proved themselves in the top stream at the comps then they could transfer or they could somehow benefit from outreach or extension work organises by the designated grammar. That would mean, I guess, testing frequently during early years at the comps but most comps do that anyway.

And I know you get it now, but since others have been repeating their opinions I thought I'd just remind them that it's not as straightforward as they think.

A child from a disadvantaged background wouldn't have got into grammar school anyway- he would be better off in a comprehensive than in a secondary modern,