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?

Seeker - this would be what it would be like where I live, were it not for the ridiculously high number of posh schools catering for those who don't get into the grammar or who are too snobby to contemplate state schooling. Thus the comps aren't truly comprehensive, it seems to me - but not because of the existence of the one grammar in the LEA (which also draws significant numbers of kids from the bordering LEAs and, I recently discovered in the showpocalypse, from even further afield). I think I have mentioned before that based on the kids on the bus, there would be at most 4 or 5 kids in each year from the grammar at comps in my locality if they all opted for the same comp (and they wouldn't) and if none of them went posh (and some of them probably would). I know that probably only 3 kids from DD1s year would be at DSs comp if they weren't at the grammar (feeder school system).

@yellow DD1's particular needs stem, in my view, from her SEN condition rather than her academic ability (although that is high). Because of her SEN condition and all the complex issues that go with it, some of which are improving as she gets older some of which are Very Not, I don't think she will get results like your older kids have turned in. She has real issues with two or three subjects not because she doesn't understand them - we are regularly told she is one of the brightest in the class, even at her school, but because of the problems she has in producing the work in some cases (and in others because the connections in her brain are just different). But in her 5 or 6 top subjects she is even in her environment shit hot. She could do with extra stretching in these subjects even where she is (and that has been provided, a bit, by teachers who 'get' her). DSs comp would have been a disaster for her, it really would. But it's great for him and I'm not entirely convinced it wouldn't be fine for DD2 (she is very different in some crucial ways than her sister).

I think that it's possible she would be less meltdowny about french if she was at the comp. Because where she is now would be close to or at the top of the class there. But the subjects she excels in would just completely not be appropriate for her there. And this is the dilemma really - SEN + very bright is a bugger of a combination but it's very common. Most kids like this are let down by the system. :(

Help - although I was addressing you, the 'great' came from justgive upthread.

@Yellow - this is why I think our school has it right. top 5-10% ish is the right level to strike.

RussiansOnTheSpree

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.

It's interesting that you say this because I have a relative in the same position. After much heart searching his parents decided that for him allowing him to go to a specialist music school was the right option. He was however 13 when he went, not 11, and his parents have been in the fortunate position of working from home so have been able to up sticks to be nearer to his school, so that they are able to take him out and visit easily. I should say, he's an only one too, so they haven't had to face balancing his needs against those of any siblings.

Back to to the OP

I think that GSs should be available in every county but in a partially selective form. A couple of the schools around here allocates about 25%-30% of places based on an entrance test. The remainder is based on proximity.

Very bright kids have access to an education that is geared towards very bright kids and the other 70%-75% have the opportunity to get 'promoted' into the highly academic stream. What is there not to like?

No doubt someone will proceed to tell me what they don't like about it.

All kids should have the opportunity of a grammar school education no matter where they live. But I would not get rid of the ones we have to make it 'fair for all', that's a bit of a twisted communist conclusion IMO.

Kids should have an education that suits them, whether they are more academic/ arty/ sporty/ practical.

I was academic: at my old comp, school life was better when lower set kids left after GCSE's and our sixth form was the more academically capable kids. Better behaviour, better work ethic: it was 'cool' to get good grades and aspire to a good uni place/career. So I would have been v happy at a grammar (if I'd passed!).

I am not sure if I buy the whole 'grammar creaming off the best kids ruins the local comps' argument, whether it's at the 5% or 25% mark. Don't all comps stream? The idea that kids with very different literacy/numeracy skills can all be taught effectively together seems ludicrous.

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.

Would you have been prepared for your child to board though? Because that is what able children from the Western Isles had to do to attend selective schools - not just super-selectives - just normal grammar schools taking about 20-25%. Of course, there are some children who live so remotely that they still have to board to attend comprehensives, but the numbers are very much smaller.

And this is off topic but have to say - plenty of lower ability kids, academically speaking, still want to try hard and achieve to their own best potential, but in my own and DCs school experience, less academic kids are as a rule more disruptive. Teachers should IMO be a lot stricter about ensuring kids behave themselves in the classroom; or are taught in a way that suits their needs. I feel sorry for the quiet middling kids who lose out thru having disruptive influences in the class while the brightest kids don't suffer from this.

The people who think that there are no disruptive pupils at grammar schools are sadly wrong.

Totally thanks for advice, may name change

Russians of course there are but I'll bet there are more at non selective schools. And I'll go further and say in the lower streams at non selective schools. And I think that's because a sit down and listen all day model of teaching does not suit some children.

Of course there are disruptive kids at grammar schools. I think what most people are saying is that they are less as opposed to none.

If the experts are to be believed, a lot of kids are disruptive because they are struggling academically. Well, you are going to get less of these kids at a GS for obvious reasons.

The sit down and listen model of teaching is not used at DD1's school.

Russian - I don't see the relevance of that comment. I thought we were talking about secondary education.

seeker - I know that you said it a few days ago but I've only just caught up.

I went to a comp. DP went to a comp. All my nephews and nieces went to a comp. All the kids in DCs class (bar them obviously) went to a comp. Most of my friends send theirs to a comp. I imagine a lot of other posters share the same profile.

Here comes the question.

Despite not having kids at a comp you regularly pontificate about the benefits of the comp system. A lot of parents obviously have more direct experience of comps than you. Yet you regularly dismiss their views and insist that your knowledge of comps trumps theirs. Isn't that incredibly conceited of you?

But Seeker doesn't say 'this is what life is like in a comprehensive school'; she says 'these are the ideological and practical features of comprehensive schooling with which I agree'.

I have all of that knowledge of comprehensive schools you list with the added one that my children do go to one. Why don't we talk about that, instead of blahing on andon and on about whether Seeker has been in a comprehensive? It is pointless and boring.

BS people on here with no direct experience of the grammar/secondary modern system regularly "pontificate" on how wonderful it is- isn't that really conceited
of them?

The comprehensive system is, as far as I can see, the least worst system of education currently on offer. If somebody comes up with a better one, then that would be fantastic. Maybe the superselective and nearly comprehensive is the best? What I do know is the wholly grammar/secondary modern model (by which I mean a system where 25%ish go to one school and 75%ish to another) stinks. Yes, some children do very well out of it. But the collateral damage is too severe. Not always academically. But psychologically and societally.

Seeker as far as I can see it's the idea that academic achievement trumps all else that is the problem, not the provision for academically superior children to access the best education available. That's why children who don't attempt or pass the entrance exam feel inferior - when in reality they may not be suited to grammar school (and again this is generalising cos as has been said grammar schools vary hugely as do comps).

Denying a 'private' standard of education to those who can't afford it, just because it doesn't suit all children, is not fair, not least because there always will be people who can afford to go private and all the social advantages that entails, not least lifelong networking opportunities. That's why I think everyone should have access to a grammar school style education whether at a grammar or having a very academic 'top' stream in a comp.

I hate the idea of 'least worst' anything as it smacks of compromise and bringing everything down to the average instead of prizing excellence.

seeker - and isn't really conceited of you to pontificate on how a fully comprehensive system (of which you have no direct experience) is the best option? Again and again I read your POV, which entirely bypasses all the inherent difficulties of a fully comprehensive system - because of course you have no experience of it!

I am not sure that you get many pontificating about how good Bucks/Kent Sec Mods are.

Up and down the country there are good comprehensives which don't fail their children - both academic ones and those less so, but I haven't got that impression from Mumsnet.

I don't think there is necessarily one model though. What is necessary in London may not work elsewhere. Maybe more emphasis should be put on finding out what makes a good comprehensive work? I would suspect it's a balanced intake across all ability ranges, backed up by a good senior management team that have high expectations for all their pupils.

It's the system that's least worst. The education provided shouldn't be!

And if the comprehensive system was not capable of delivering excellence, there would only be A*s and As emerging from Kent, Bucks and from a few schools in various other parts of the country.......

In my five years at a comp one kid moved from the second stream to the first stream (I've no idea what happened in the other streams) so, at least IME, people don't suddenly 'click' and shoot up the streams only to hit a glass ceiling because the clever kids have been creamed off.

Also my comp had no orchestra, MFL was French and that was it. Science was Physics. No options for biology or chemistry were on offer.

By your account, your Sec Mod is superior to my comp. Reading other people's post suggest that many of their comps are similar to mine.

If you had actually experience of a comp then perhaps you wouldn't continually go on about what a great model it is.