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?

"Lincolnshire is on the list at 3.1!!!"

Doh! So it is.

The comp/grammar thing has already been explained.

Interesting article TheBigJessie, thanks for linking.

Five years ago [so in 2005], the Trust published a ground-breaking study which for the first time compared the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) - a basic measure of deprivation - at the top performing 200 secondary state schools, with the proportion of children on free school meals in the postcode areas in which the schools were sited. The findings revealed significant differences between the intakes of schools and their local communities: 3% of children at the schools were on free school meals, compared with 12.3% in local areas, and 14.3% nationally.

www.suttontrust.com/research/worlds-apart/

Socharlotte, because when only a small minority go to the grammar school, and the students that go there come from such a wide area, you still have a comprehensive enough intake left for other schools to be comprehensive.

While I can see it may be true that the majority of children at super selectives come from middle class families, it also has to be pointed out that all those children deserve their place there.

Even with tutoring, competition is still fierce to get into one of these schools, and I do not believe that a child who isn't bright would get in. Not when you have so many more children that have scored highly enough that they would be considered suitable for a place at the school who don't get a place because they are limited.

I think it's quite unfair how it can be implied that children from middle class families who may have had extra help either from parents or a tutor, don't deserve their place at a grammar school as much as a bright child from a working class family. If they have been tutored, they have still put in the work. They are still a child who deserves a good educations.

The problem isn't that parents coach, it's that there aren't enough GS places for every child that would benefit from one. If there were more grammar schools, enough so that every child who was bright enough could get a place, and that the standard of education at the alternative schools was still high, then there would be no need for tutoring. Parents shouldn't be blamed for trying to get their children into the school that suits them best. The government should be blamed for not creating a system where every child can have a school that suits their needs and where every child receives a high standard of education.

Thanks Jessie. So the top comps are bastions of social exclusion as well.

Gordon Ironside is a single HT, not a spokesperson for grammar schools heads tiggy. I think you may be over generalising from the London experience, where clearly there's some madness going on.

Clouds no social group should be excluded of course but if a better off kid gets the place which should on raw merit go to a less well off kid purely as a result of tutoring - that's wrong.

So, today's grammar schools. Do any of them still send the poorest third of their intake out into the world without any A*-C GCSE passes?

By that, do you mean that the less well off child should get the place on raw merit over the more well off child, even if they have the same level of ability?

Genuine question, not a dig, just asking!

What is the point of grammar schools? The official one I mean. Surely good comprehensives are far preferable?

I find it hard to believe that a test sat at 10 is a fair arbiter of cleverness, tutored or otherwise, anyway.

I haven't noticed anyone saying that here, noble. And not all the people supporting some form of grammar school provision are middle class.

Socharlotte - well there is a bit of a difference. The grammar schools that top the tables are super selective.

Jenai a lot of people think that bright children will be held back by less bright ones being in the same building, and can only really thrive in an atmosphere of exclusively (well, relatively) high achievement, I guess. I don't buy it, myself.

Having been through the Grammar School system my self - from a coal mining
yorkshire family, I count myself very lucky. I was introduced to so many different aspects of life. I had NO tutoring, bloody hell my parent's thought it was OK to keep me off primary school to look after my youngest brother - and had no interest at all in my education.

As an employer today I do often wonder at the standards of education that our
'work experience' kids come with, totally inadequate for their hopes, and more
worryingly their 'belief' in the standard of work that they are able to produce.

Clouds it's a no brainer. The cleverest child should have the place. If there was an absolutely dead equal tie with all sorts of scientific tests run on both children and they were interviewed into the ground with no discernible difference even then, then I expect most grammar school heads would opt to give the place to the obviously less well off child (I would too).

After reading all the above posts, I'm glad we don't live in a grammar area and we live 'up north'. We didn't have any of the presssure of 11+ and there is enough pressure later with the GCSEs. My 2 DCs go to the local comp which is very good and they are very happy there. There will be a mixed bag of results as it is not selective at all. 75% A-C incl maths and English - some will be all As and most won't. They also do less academic qualifications for those who need them. The sports, art & music provision are all very good. 200 per year intake split between 8 classes (25 per class), set initially for maths (2 set1s; 2 set 2s; 2set3 & 2set4), and then for sciences, English etc. Plenty of movement around the sets. DD2 gets given extension work for maths even in set 1. I think the problem is not with having grammar schools but with not having enough good comps.

p.s. forgot to say that my DCs school is only 2 miles away - whereas people seem to have to travel long distances when SS and Grammars are involved in the mix.

But mollymole, with all respect, the grammar school education you had bears no resemblance to that which exists today.

Selective or super-selective, the vast majority of children who go to grammars are tutored. This simply makes a mockery of the "system".

Can understand why parents want to get their kids into grammars but if your child will only pass and get the necessary points for grammar through coaching and tuition, then surely it defeats the purpose and isn't really offering places to the brightest kids. Doesn't really sound like a level playing field for all.

Hello, it's this old chestnut.

Firstly, I like some of the other posters on this thread am from a northern mining village with parents who left school at 14. I was the first person in my family to go to a grammar school and to get a degree. It was quite the norm in the 30s/40s/50s/60s/70s (right up until the point when grammar schools were turned into comprehensives or went private in most of the counties) for grammar schools to promote social mobility and I am a positive example of that.

I think the contentious issue is that the systems differ in different parts of the country and this causes a disparity in education which can have far reaching and adverse effects on many pupils.

I still believe ideologically that a good comprehensive with the right type of leadership can produce the best educational outcomes for all of its pupils. But that probably relies on a very school senior management team (and governors), flexibility in approach (which is presumably where the whole academy idea is attractive?) and a socially and culturally diverse intake of pupils. I can't quote statistics but I do wonder whether the best comprehensives outside London are in towns/large villages where the comprehensive caters for all the local children rather than specific demographics?

In some counties where all the children sit the 11+ and there is the perceived divide and associated stigma twixt grammars and secondary moderns/comprehensives, then there is an issue. And I can well see why people are disgruntled with the options. Fine and dandy if you have bright DCs but not if you don't....

In London boroughs you could argue that there is generally more flexibility and we potentially have the best of both worlds. Around where we live, are two of the best performing comprehensives in the Country, several good comprehensives with selective intakes and seven of the super-selective grammars. Also the non-selective comprehensives are up and coming generally.....

And yet looking at the an article in the Daily Telegraph earlier on this month, in SW London we have five or six of the most sought after (in terms of applicants per places) schools in the top twenty state schools in the UK. And bear in mind that this is a part of London where many children go to private schools too so are excluded from those numbers. I think that says something about the panic to secure places at the good schools and I'm sure it must be evident elsewhere in the UK too.

I have to admit that we did debate long and hard about school choices for our DS and although we did include three comprehensives in our list of six on the CAF he has gone to one of the super-selectives. For us the decision was about ensuring that our bright son does the best that he can and he himself was very keen on going to a grammar school. Even at nine/ten/eleven that was his goal.

And whilst we did practice papers with him in the lead up to the exams, he was not externally tutored (we couldn't really afford it and as graduates felt that we should have the right skill-set to help him ourselves). He passed all three 11+ exams he took. It seems from what he says that many of his peers are still being tutored - it is also very apparent that the teachers dislike it but what can they do to stop it?

It seems as if the grammar schools are actually trying year-on-year to alter the goalposts to reduce "the tutored effect" but I'm not sure if they will ever manage it...

Yellow, I agree with you with that the system the way it is at the moment, the cleverest child should have the place.

I very much don't agree that a poorer child who has the same level of ability as a well off child is automatically more deserving of the place. In a hypothetical situation where two children score exactly the same but one comes from a family with a higher income than the other, so many other things are important to consider. How much richer does one child have to be than the other to be considered less deserving off a place? An annual family income of a couple of thousand higher, or significantly more than that? What about social considerations, where maybe the less well off child is only one of two children and has both parents around for a decent amount of time after school each day, and the better off child is one of four children of a single parent? Or where the more well off child barely sees one parent because of the hours they have to work to bring in that income that is now working against them? What about considerations such as parents having caring responsibilities for another family member?

Financially less well off children can well be at a social advantage compared to a child whose parents are higher earners.

This is why there needs to be the right type of education available for every child, whether that be more academic, or more practical, or more artistic, or more able to cope with special needs. Children shouldn't be in competition with each other for their education.

What happens when a child who was an early bloomer plateaus? I was clever at 10, average by 13. Do they get booted out and their place offered to a late bloomer, like my ds?

but if your child will only pass and get the necessary points for grammar through coaching and tuition, then surely it defeats the purpose and isn't really offering places to the brightest kids.

Not really, because the lack of grammar school places means competition is so high. Just because a child only gets in because they have been tutored, it doesn't mean they aren't extremely bright and worthy of a grammar school place. It means that they are up against other extremely bright children who are also worthy of a place, and there are more very academically intelligent children than there are grammar school places. So even the brightest children need tutoring to teach them the exam techniques, and how to make the most of the exam time they have available.

Grammar education shouldn't be just for the brightest children. It should be for every child who is best suited to that type of education.