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?

The ballet and music schools are very very restricted in intake. And unless you live in the right place, if you aren't prepared to send your child off to board then that is it. This would not be a solution for general education. The superselective model is the best one - one superselective for each x number of population or for each x square mile area.

Yes, it would be good to compare areas with grammars and those without in terms of what percentage of children receive better grades BUT it is hard to do comparisons as I think the grammar areas are the richest areas and most of the best exam grades come from schools in the South East.

Even if you compare comps in inner London (which have hugely improved because of teach first etc) with Hull there is now a 2 grade difference - grade B in London is D in Hull.

This would not be a solution for general education. No Russians, but so many of these "bring back the grammars" debates are from a London/Kent perspective and would not necessarily apply to the rest of the country.

I'm not talking from a London/Kent perspective. Although I am as guilty as anyone in thinking where I truly belong (Croydon) is the only bit of the world that genuinely matters at some kind of deep atomic level I don't live there any more :( The top grammar at GCSE level is not in Kent or London (or indeed in the South East). Other top grammars are in Essex (Colchester and Chelmsford), not Kent. Pates which might have been top but for the english exam hoo hah is not in Kent. Tiffins is rarely at the top of the league tables.

The people advocating setting up 2 or 3 boarding schools for the sort of kids who currently attend rather more than that number of super selectives, and clearly wish to punish those kids and their families.

Mumsnet is very South East centric. As long as state education is great there, it's great everywhere apparently

LaVolcan - if drawing a line at 23% is unfair on the 77% then drawing the line at 5% for example is still unfair. All that happens is that there are less people complaining about not passing.

Also I don't see the logic. If you think that the bright won't suffer if they are educated in the same building as the average then why do you think that the super bright will suffer if they are educated in the same building as the merely bright and the average?

If you believe that segregation is bad then decreasing the percentage being segregated doesn't make it good.

In my book Croydon is London.

Essex isn't really a grammar area in the same way as Kent or Bucks. Pates is where - Gloucester? Most of the grammars are concentrated in Kent/Bucks/London Boroughs.

Those other areas e.g. Staffordshire/Stoke on Trent has one catholic grammar school. It hardly classes as a grammar area because most children won't be eligible for the school anyway not being catholic, so would only cream off perhaps 6 children out of an intake of 200.

No one is advocating setting up boarding schools for the sort of kids who are really super duper bright, but they were saying it could be a solution (if you were in an area with a high population density).

The sort we are talking about who would have to be accelerated by two/three years in lower juniors, but not have the emotional maturity to cope, or would then spend years 5 & 6 in utter boredom, (unless a sensible or sensitive head had the gumption to talk to the local secondary school and sort out some work for the child). But this is the odd definitely gifted child - not the averagely bright of Mumsnet.

There are some children who are so bright that their intelligence amounts to an AEN. The parents of these children say that they need to be educated in a specifically created environment- like very talented young dancers or musicians. There is a case therefore for superselective schools to cater for this group. The number of children involved is small- so the schools the rest go to would be virtually comprehensive.

"the logical conclusion of the comprehensive ideology is mixed-ability teaching."

No it isn't!

Also I don't see the logic. If you think that the bright won't suffer if they are educated in the same building as the average then why do you think that the super bright will suffer if they are educated in the same building as the merely bright and the average?

I wasn't arguing for them - see my later post. The sort of super bright child that can be regarded as having a special need does need to have provision made for them - e.g. the sort of person mentioned by RussiansOnTheSpree Thu 31-Jan-13 22:43:30

Just- State education in the SE may be better compared to other parts of the UK but it is hardly 'great' :)

A lot of posters live in moderately well off areas far away from areas that have failing state schools. They then conveniently ignore posters who live in said failing areas and instead go on about how great state schools are and how kids/friends (from their affluent mainly white MC) comps go onto great unis and jobs.

So if you tune into their anecdotes and tune out those who complain about their comp then of course you get the impression that state education down sarf (sic) is 'great'

Yep- everyone's drawing their knowledge from leafy affluent middle class white areas like Swansea, Leeds, Bradford...........

TotallyBS the comp lovers also like to insist on "top sets" , whereas the logical conclusion of the comprehensive ideology is mixed-ability teaching.

No they don't. They say that setting allows a child to be educated at the appropriate level, so the whizzo at maths who is not good at English, will be in the top set for Maths and perhaps a middle set at English. Furthermore (I can only speak for those comprehensives I know) the initial year 7 setting is based on the first half term being observation of the whole intake before the sets are allocated not a one/two day test at age 10.

Help - Please excuse our pedantic friend seeker. Here

I know that by 'mixed ability' you did not mean that children of mixed ability are taught in one class and that you are aware that streaming does exist in comps.

seeker does so like to correct people. I've decided to find it 'quaint'

And there is movement between the sets.

North Staffs I grant, while not being 'leafy' is spectacularly beautiful being on the edge of the Peak District, but is an area which has been hit hard by industrial decline. But my old school in that area manages to be a good comprehensive despite that. (And I was pleased to see in the league tables that it did better than a number of private schools.)

I think it was helponeanother rather than BS who thinks comprehensive means mixed ability, wasn't it?

Surely if somebody gets something factually wrong in a debate like this it's appropriate to correct?

I'm sorry, helponeanother- I thought when you said mixed ability teaching you meant all abilities in one class. Is that not what you meant?

seeker I absolutely don't consider any of my kids to have anything even remotely approximating a 'special educational need' but I still believe the education they're getting or have had at their superselective is appropriate for them. But to characterise these schools as only for the hugely, hugely, scarily academic type of child would be to get the character of the school all wrong. And put off even more people from applying.

La Volcan - Croydon is indeed London, and doesn't have grammars. But I don't live there any more. :(

I know the sort of child we are talking about - I have two such kids. DD1 was desperately bored practically her whole primary school life and was rather more than 2 years ahead of the rest of her year. DD2 is the same and also suffers from being the youngest (and by some margin the smallest) in her year. The primary school is also Not Good by many measures (including provision for the very bright). If we lived anywhere remotely close to a music specialist school DD1 certainly would be there. But we don't so she isn't. This is why I am particularly concerned about talk of following the specialist music school model as it is one that completely disenfranchises us, because of where we live and our refusal to contemplate boarding.

Yellowtip- as you know, I think that all children should be taught in the same school. But I have been persuaded by others own here that there is a case for the superselective. However, surely that case can only be made for children who are an order of magnitude brighter that normal bright? (Or average mumsnet )