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?

laQueen- do you really think that all the A*s and As only come from 164 schools in the country? really?

And do you really think that the needs of the brightest trump the needs of the majority?

Sounds like a crap gym club, by the way. And I notice you didn't address the bit about sequestering the 25% and not letting the 75% even spend their breaks with them

Or the bit about being a gymnast who was brilliant at floor but bad at vault?

LaQueen that was exactly my point in an earlier post: when at my comp in 6th form the less academic kids went off to jobs, college etc, and us swots that were left suddenly found that we all had the same goal of trying to learn something, which was emphatically not the case when we were all bundled together pre sixth form.

I was top set for all apart from one subject where I was bottom set and although that class was the most fun, ie. kids having a laugh and the teacher being a bit flaky, if I had not been academically able and had been in lower sets for all my subjects I don't think I'd have come anywhere near learning much cos there was so much messing about. That's why I feel for the kids who want to try hard, aren't super bright, and can't learn cos of disruptive kids who (as I've confrontationally mentioned) are IME more represented in lower sets.

Not wishing to complain without suggesting a 'fix', I would have grammars or equivalent for the pure academics/gifted musicians/artists and comps which stream not only for ability but also for attitude. I wonder how controversial that is?! Of course there are many many ways in which that could go horribly wrong. But why should kids who want to learn have their formative years wrecked by some kids who genuinely don't give a flip about learning? Ditto, those disruptive kids should be helped as much as poss eg counselling as appropriate.

Seeker - because it would have to be a gigantic school, in order to get a critical mass of the really bright kids. It couldn't be a catchment school. You could do fair banding I suppose but then there would be just one school in a typical city with the very top band. Unless you made the bandings pretty wide which would immediately and disproportionately disadvantage the ones at the top of the scale. And massive schools are intrinsically a problem for kids with certain SEN conditions - conditions which seem to be disproportionately found in the kids at the very top of the scale.

LeQueen - I'm more concerned that my kids get a fair go in the education system than worrying about their out of school club (tie myself up in knots enough about that anyway). So if my kids don't get to a grammar or superselective (and they won't be going to one) are they consigned to a school where they don't get to use the 'proper equipment' as other kids are more worthy of it? I'm surprised more parents aren't up in arms about the equalities throughout the system I don't plane parents for using the system to their advantage and for the best outcome they can get for their children but it all seems a bit unequal, especially as the tax payer foots the bill no matter what quality of education is on offer to their children.

LaQueen I'm with you, it's the opportunity for excellence that should be available to all even if only the top x% get in.

As to the German model, gearing different schools towards different abilities seems eminently sensible. Of course the odd kid will end up in the wrong place. But the solution to that would be to make transferring kids between schools easier, not lump them all in together. People do move to different parts of the country and change schools.

Apart from anything else, as long as private schools, Eton, Harrow etc exist, the best chance working class kids have of competing with these students is going to a grammar for that truly top flight education which, like it or not, most comps don't provide.

bringmeroses I'm probably as experienced as it gets in terms of superselective experience and I completely and utterly agree that had my eldest six gone to the local comp they would have got nothing like the results they achieved (or been as happy - a major point), if only because nobody ever gets results like theirs at the local comp. Perhaps once in the bluest of moons. And it's a pretty good comp.

"Seeker - because it would have to be a gigantic school, in order to get a critical mass of the really bright kids. It couldn't be a catchment school"

Why on earth? It's what happens in most of the country, after all........

most comps don't provide. Love your generalisations. You are back to your 'I would imagine'.

BTW No one has yet shown that it's only the grammar school areas where children can get As & A*s.

LaQueen that tutoring story... while I admire the guy's honesty, that must have been hard on the parents and boys. Unless he's upfront about his probation period when taking someone on, it seems a bit too brutal TBH.

I think a tutor should focus on helping a child achieve their own best potential and lessons should not be about passing 11+ if it's clear they're not academic enough. But I suppose if tutors sell themselves on their pass rates this doesn't work.

Haven't read all the thread, but some things strike me

Most people will have gone to comprehensives - it's very easy for a lot of people to say "if only I'd gone to a selective school / private school, of course, I'd be a brain surgeon now / top barrister".

But then, I'm one of those people who went to a comp, and got straight As and a place at Oxford, so I'm biased towards the comp system

And seeker any notion that the top 2% model could be rolled out nationwide is rubbish. Some areas of the country are rural . Top 5% or so is good.

Hello LaVolcan, wasn't sure you meant me at first :)

As I said, each to their own opinion. Is it really my 'I would imagine'? Can you imagine that instead of saying I would imagine, I just stated it as fact? I am trying to show I am balanced and open to persuasion but your attitude is not winning me to your POV

So, it really does come down to the wishes (not needs) of the brightest trumping the needs of everyone else. Children A-F might get a couple less A*s at the comprehensive (although I still can't see why) so children H-Z have to be given a lesser education in order to accomodate them.

Thŵt's fine- but at least be honest about it.

Actually, thinking about it, if you really think childrenA-F will do better separated from children H-Z, why not put children H-M in a different school, so they won't have to mix with N-Zs. And what about N-Rs..........

Yellowtip - firstly, kudos on having an eldest six! - and secondly yes that's my experience of knowing people who've gone to comps and grammars, the grammar kids are overwhelmingly positive about the strong academic focus and work ethic at their GS's, and the life opportunities provided them.

Oh, LaQueen, can't you just discuss things properly without being rude and smart arsy about it? Please?

seeker - I use the phrase 'keep going on' because that is what you do.

By your accounts, your SM is equal to my local comp in some respects but superior in others (the gcse A-C is nowhere near your 95%). Yet you keep going on about.how the comp model is better.

Schools do well/badly because of various factors that goes beyond what appears on the sign at the school gate. But instead of discussing how to improve my comp so that it has the same A-C grades as your SM , you, and others keep going on about how your SM would be so much better if only the MC GS kids went to your school and how the school would be enriched if only it had classical music loving parents.