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?

I see where you're coming from Seeker....

However, you might argue that many of the children who are currently regarded as privileged and receiving selective state education are the children/ grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of less privileged DCs?

I know of plenty of people of our generation who come from ostensibly affluent, middle-class and educated backgrounds, but if you were to look at their parents/grandparents, you would find working-class roots. But their parents went to grammar school, then on to Uni and then became doctors, accountants, solicitors, teachers etc...Look at our future Queen for one!

I come from a staunchly working-class background (there is not one remotely middle-class ancestor anywhere in either my paternal or maternal family lines). I got a good, grammar school education, did a degree and have a fairly good career. However, we are not rich and although we own our own home it is not in a very nice area. Our DS got into a grammar school and I would say he did so on merit. We did not get a tutor for him because we felt if he wasn't capable of doing it on merit he shouldn't be at a grammar school. Would you regard him as privileged, or not? He is because he has educated parents who understand and appreciate the value of a good education, but in other ways he is not - we don't have a car, we don't have holidays abroad and our DCs think we are poor! I would actually say that he is the right type of child to receive the education that he is fortunate enough to be getting, but would you?

Surely he was just practising his Latin, seeker?

No Grammars here, or where I grew up. Guess what - the bright middle class kids were/are still bright, went off to uni etc. Amazing!

If you are poor and bright, or bright but have unsupportive parents, then you get far less of a crack at the educational whip. In any system. You only have to look at the differences in how children are 'prepared' for the 11+ to realise that it is hardly a level playing field (however it was originally conceived).

Mordian.

My dd plays a violin and has proper Romany heritage, although only quarter. Does this mean she will be better than Nigel Kennedy .

I think schools should be either all comprehensive or all grammar/secondary modern. Not sure which it should be though. I went to secondary modern where I muddled through and got 3 C's at GCSE but I was undiagnosed dyspraxic so would have probably had the same result in comprehensive. I was one of 4 in my year group of 240 who went to university. In 6th form I stayed at the SM and my sister transferred from the SM to the grammar. I think the SM was much more welcoming and friendly but the grammar had more facilities and more support with applying for university.

My DC's will be going to comprehensive. I only have 2 at school at the moment but I don't think either of them would pass the 11+ if they took it. I think the grammar/SM system is good for children who end up in the grammar schools but I think comprehensive schools are better than SM's

I think the issue is, gazzalw, that someone like you would probably not get into a grammar school now. And somebody like your son, with the parental support he has will do well wherever he goes.

Know a family with father and DCs with Romany heritage but you would regard them as a very privileged family educationally and otherwise - both parents went to top-six-in-the-UK universities...

Surely he was just practising his Latin, seeker?"

Sadly not.

Yes, you are probably right, Seeker, although I would argue that my parents were very anti me going to a grammar school and I very much motivated myself to practise for my 11+ papers. I think my attitude to my 11+ study was much more serious than DS's. But then he is naturally brighter than I was (but whether that's down to nurture rather than nature is another matter!).

Well, I went to the top 1 in the world university but that doesn't mean I didn't grow up on a council estate! I wouldn't describe my kids as anything other than middle class though. Unless I used the alternative terminology 'professional class'. However the aspects of their personalities they get from me and DH make them, I think, tougher in some ways, and far less expecting of privilege in the way they would define it. Of course, the things they see as normal (primarily music lessons) are what other kids would regard as privileged. And the things they see as privilege (foreign holidays, snazzy cars, branded clothing, Wiis and playstations etc - probably financed by debt) are quite often 'enjoyed' by people who are far less advantaged than them (in the things that matter).

I think (this is a bit of a thought ramble, forgive me) that the issue is that obviously children from less advantaged background or with no parental support could get into grammar schools. But it will be an order of magnitude harder for them, and they would have to be twice as bright and twice as committed as a similar child from a privileged background. And they would have to know it was an option in the first place. Which is a big as for anyone, particularly a 10 year old. Which is obviously unfair.

Seeker you are right about the 'knowing it's an option' issue. Which, unfortunately, logically indicates that the Kent way is best (I don't believe it is though).

gazzalw.

I am really pleased to hear that about the Romany family, the real ones are just like you and I and when the laws changed about roaming, settled in houses. So glad they did well.
Whilst it is in my blood (half), I was brought up by other parents so can't help with the educational side myself, as I wander into nature v nurture. Which is another debate and another thread.
I do secretly hope that dd becomes a really good violinist though as one of our ancestors were Woods the famous violinists, lol. Only learned this recently though, complete coincidence honest gov.

That's me seeker, 30 years ago, went to grammar school with no tutoring and no parental support, went to grammar school and onto uni.....the system and social mobility seemed to work then.

Loads of people don't realize it's an option for their kids in Kent, mordion. And the more the grammar schools are taken over by the privileged (what am I saying- the takeover is complete!) the less they are going to think about whether it's for them.

Sugarbeach- I can more or less guarantee that wouldn't happen these days.

Seeker - don't all the kids take the kent test? The nieces and nephews all did. I got the impression it was compulsory. Isn't it? If it's voluntary then why did your kids take it?

It's a shame if people get hung up on the 'class' argument surrounding Grammar schools, social or economic level or whatever, but to be honest I see no reason why a parent shouldn't have issues regarding wanting their child to mix with people whose behaviour is within certain confines.
If I can avoid having to educate my child in a class with a bunch of disruptive 'don't give a shit' kids then I will. Having experienced it at primary school I can only imagine how it is at some high schools.
Comparing it to 20 years ago "when it didn't do me any harm" is nonsense.

Any relation to Ronnie Woods' family then, Morethanpotatoprints?

I think the thing is that so often it is about expectation. Children who have been brought up in ostensibly middle-class homes, despite having one or both parents from working class backgrounds, have a confidence and an expectation to succeed that is almost inherent, whereas the working-class ones don't necessarily have that.

However, interestingly, in the year below DS at primary school, where there is a larger percentage of middle-class children with UK-born parents, there was a greater expectation that their DCs would do and pass the 11+ exams but the results didn't back that up .

What I do know is that many of the DCs getting into grammar schools don't have British-born and bred parents so it can't be argued that they know how to play the system. How does one account for that? And their DCs may not have the first-language English advantage that many of our DCs have.

No, the Kent Test is not compulsory.

So you have a two-tier system in Kent which entirely favours the aspirant parents, Seeker? Is it the case that the more the grammar schools become the enclave of the middle-classes the less likely it is for working-class parents to want to put their children in for the tests....

Although as someone who comes from a working-class background, I do think I have the right to say that there's a lot of working-class inverted snobbery about 'the snobby ones who go to grammar schools' - I had that as a child, from other children on my council estate!

That sums it up beautifully, gazzalw. And the inverted snobbery is a problem too. But not as big a problem as the fact that the test is discriminatory and unfair, and if children from disadvantaged backgrounds actually take the test they are unlikely to pass.

Yes, you're right, they should be scrapped altogether.
Although that still leaves the selective faith schools, academies etc.

So Seeker, the system means that the top 25% in the Kent grammar schools are effectively only the top 25% of middle-class children - so many children are there who technically would not be if more working-class children took and passed the 11+ exam?

Well, unless you believe that working class/disadvantaged/poor children are intrinsically less bright than middle class/privileged/better off ones, then yes.