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?

£600ish for tutoring is a heck of a lot less than moving house and/or £10k a term to go private!!

I love how on these threads the grammars always get a bashing for selecting by ability (or at least, ability and preparedness for the test) while those with sufficient money can simply bypass the whole issue.

As a teacher I am suspicious of the 'raw natural talent' argument too. The attitude of the family to education has so much to do with the child's success, and that's not something you can buy.

It depends upon how you define children's backgrounds. A well-off child to some people would be a poor child to others, no? And are we assuming that being well-off is equivalent to being middle-class and being 'poor' is the preserve of the working-class? Not always. I am not sure that in London this is entirely reliable. Of the six children in DS's primary school class who got into grammar schools or selective comprehensives, four live in rented accommodation and two live in owned homes but not in desirable areas. On paper you might argue that these children actually came from far less affluent backgrounds than others in their class who went to the local comprehensives. However, look a bit further and you will find that every one of those six had at least one parent educated to degree level whereas many of the 'richer' children didn't...

Tiggy you are falling into seekers trap and assuming that something you know to be true where you live is true everywhere else. It is not impossible to get into all superselectives without tutoring. In the same way as its not impossible to get into a catholic school without 100% mass attendance. It depends where you live. London is horrible for school admission in many ways not limited to those eyeing up grammar or faith schools. It's a mistake to assume its the same everywhere.

My Dd1 was not tutored. Nor were her friends.

Of course gazzalw. My response was broad brush. Which is why I said absolutely every other tiny thing in the world being equal, the place should go to the obviously less well off child. We are very, very deep into hypotheticals though!

Sorry, nightmare iphone performance there from me, with missing apostrophes. Luckily no extraneous apostrophes which would obviously be worse. But still. Poor show.

Phineyj makes a good point about a families attitude to education having a big influence on a child's success.

I think many parents choose selective education (whether private or grammar) because they don't want their children to be negatively influenced by children whose families don't have a positive attitude towards education. Which IMO, is a fair reason.

It has been said on these grammar school threads before that a bright and motivated child will do well wherever they go, so grammar schools are not needed. I disagree with this too, because not all bright children are motivated. A child doesn't stop being worthy of the best education for them because they aren't particularly motivated at 10 or 11 years old.

"As a teacher I am suspicious of the 'raw natural talent' argument too. The attitude of the family to education has so much to do with the child's success, and that's not something you can buy."

I really agree with this.

I am on the fence, in terms of this natural talent thing. On the one hand, I will not go down the tutor route for my DD, as I believe tutoring is not giving an accurate view of a child, and many grammar schools spend Year 7 trying to ascertain the actual level a child is at. I also won't have her taking daily tests.

On the other hand, I will (and have just started, as my DD will take the 11+ this year) help my child in the run up to the test. I can't tell her that I really want her to go to the local grammar school, and I can't put pressure on her, I can only tell her that as long as she tries her best, I will be proud of her whatever happens. But I will give her practice papers in the run up to the test so that she isn't bamboozled on the day, and that the papers are familiar to her. I want the 11+ to be "just another test" in a way, so she doesn't place so much pressure on herself.

I just can't be hands off about it. Sometimes she'll come across something she finds difficult, which she still hasn't grasped at school with the teacher. I go through it with her and the confidence she builds from grasping something she's struggled with is priceless. I try to build that confidence as much as teaching her "stuff".

Oh this is starting to give me brain ache....

What I do find interesting from my own observations is that in London quite often it is the non-UK born parents who view the grammar schools as the be-all and the end-all education-wise. Again in DS's class, of the same six now in some form of selective secondary education, five have both parents born outside the UK.

gazzalw In my ds's non London GS a very large proportion of the pupils have parents born outside of the UK.

That's one if the reasons it makes me laugh when people argue against grammar schools by saying that they are full of white middle classes and the children should be mixing with people from all backgrounds. My ds's friends at the GS are far more diverse than my other ds's friends at the comp.

CloudsAndTrees....yes I totally agree! I think that our closest school which is one of the very in-demand comprehensives has a far, far more affluent, white, middle-class intake despite being in the middle of a council estate, just because it is also next to one of the most affluent areas in SW London. Affluent middle-class families play the renting/moving to the catchment area game that some of us can't necessarily afford to do! We live just outside the catchment area (and I mean a matter of metres really) so it wasn't an automatic option for us. Ideally we would have been just as happy for DS to go there as to his super-selective!

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?
That is why so many places use NVR (and VR) .It identifies potential rather than attainment.I don't think raw intelligence in comparison to your peer group, changes much
As a teacher I am suspicious of the 'raw natural talent' argument too

I don't agree with you there.Do you not think Mozart or Einstein were gifted?

As a teacher, you must have seen children who , neither them nor their parents engage with school, put in zero effort and then in tests whoop everyone else.

But yes, he does get to be educated in a more interesting and diverse group as he did in his primary school.

I think at the end of the day most parents want their children to do the best that they are capable of at school and to be educated alongside a good mix of children from different social and cultural backgrounds. Mono-social/cultural education does nothing in my view to promote harmony and tolerance in our society....

I have said many times that if the powers-that-be incorporated selective streams into all comprehensives then all schools would have much broader appeal and provide a stimulating and fast-tracked environment for the most able pupils, regardless of background.

"As a teacher, you must have seen children who , neither them nor their parents engage with school, put in zero effort and then in tests whoop everyone else."

Must she? I would be amazed if she's seen many.

Streaming in comprehensives is great, and should obviously happen in all schools, but I don't think school is only about academia.

Some comprehensive schools are just too big for some children to be able to thrive because they are better suited to a smaller environment. There is also the point that not all academically able pupils will want to apply themselves to study if the option is there not to, which it can be in a school that has a significant number of pupils who aren't interested in their education.

I think at the end of the day most parents want their children ..... to be educated alongside a good mix of children from different social and cultural backgrounds.

Hmmm I am not sure you are right there.It is a nice sentiment to apply to other people's children.But peers have an enormous influence on a child, particularly at 11 and 12 and into their early teens. I think most people want their children to be influenced by children who have a similar set of values.

I agree that a depressing amount of parents don't want their children to be educated alongside a good mix of children from different social and cultural backgrounds!

"I think at the end of the day most parents want their children ..... to be educated alongside a good mix of children from different social and cultural backgrounds. "

No, they don't!

I don't particularly want my children to be educated alongside children whose parents aren't interested in their education and who don't insist that they behave well, do their homework, allow them to play 18 rated computer games etc. I just don't. I'd be much happier if the only people my children came across in lessons were people that genuinely wanted to learn.

If that makes me a snob (which it could according to the bizarre unwritten MN rules) then so be it.

I'd just rather all children genuinely wanted to learn; I'm not so exercised about hiding the ones that don't from my own.

"I don't particularly want my children to be educated alongside children whose parents aren't interested in their education and who don't insist that they behave well, do their homework, allow them to play 18 rated computer games etc. I just don't. I'd be much happier if the only people my children came across in lessons were people that genuinely wanted to learn."

I think the key words here are "in lessons". That's what happens in a properly setted comprehensive school. It's the idea that you have to be in a separate school that's the sticking point.

Most thinking parents don't give a damn about the backgrounds of the DC their children are at school with. They do, however, want DC who apply themselves, work hard and are nice to others.

Well actually I do! But in some places it seems easier to find those schools/comprehensives than in other parts of the Country. But you are right that many don't, Seeker. But I think those people normally send their DCs to private schools, don't they? Or if they don't, they use their financial clout to move to the areas with the best schools.

Unfortunately, in London (and probably many other cities), it is often the case that many comprehensives, for whatever reason, are monocultural and don't have the same appeal to a broad-range of pupils/parents. And, of course, those are often the failing schools.

Thinking is the operative word there though Bonsoir.

I wonder how many parents who are so keen on grammars and private schools are worried about their children catching common.

I'm not sure though, that you can seperate out what happens in lessons from the overall ethps of the school. The culture if you will.

Setting is simply not a panacea for a general culture. To get that, you have to have a critical mass of like minded people. It's the same in any institution.