To think that if grammar schools were more available , private schools would almost 'vanish'

[smokepole]

The percentage of pupils educated in private schools is about 7% of the school population, similarly 4% are educated in grammar schools. I am wondering if there was a 'nationally' available network of about 350 grammar schools (including Boarding provision) , what percentage of parents would still use private education.

"I wouldn't send my DCs to a comprehensive that wasn't sending as many pupils to top universities as a grammar school."

You have to consider proportionaility, though.

A grammar school contains exclusively those who are top c. 20%.

A truly comprehensive school will only have 20% of children who are top 20%.

So if a grammar school gets 100% of its children into top universities, then he comprehensive should get 5x less, 20%. Or iof grammar school gets 50% of its children to top universities, you should be expecting the comprehensive to get 12.5%.

(Oops. 10% not 12..5%. Sorry. I had started to think of complicating factors e.g. historic departure of lower ability students at 16, though of course that will not be a factor for much longer)

A couple of children from our "secondary modern" were invited to the grammar school's Oxbridge information evening last year. Afterwards they were both the subject of mockery on social media for even considering the idea. Not from their school mates- as I am sure many reading this would assume - but from the grammar school kids. The Head refused to do anything about it as it was "just banter".

Meh many,many grammar schools don't have a secondary modern as an alternative.All 4 of our grammars have an intake from literally hundreds of primary schools and hoards of alternative secondary schools.

Where my sister lives the bunfight is for the Outstanding comp you need a £300k house to get into. Don't notice many of those parents giving much thought to those not in that bracket.

Of course they're secondary moderns. They may have moved with the times (as have grammars) but they are the default school for the 80% who are deemed not to have made the grade. Spin it any way you like but that is the essence of a secondary modern. Surprised to see people denying it.

No, under those circumstances, the grammar schools don't have secondary moderns as an alternative (even if for some inexplicable reason they are still called that) but this thread seems to have moved on to areas, like Kent, where the selective system takes around 20% of children and this does have an effect on dthe remaining schools.

The intake of any school is likely to reflect the families of the surrounding area, (except where a school is unpopular and local families give it a wide berth, as in parts of London); adding academic selection to the mix does not change that.

Er no they're not.

Many primaries have zero kids interested in going,some years the comp may lose 1 or 2 from any particular primary- big woop.Our local comp loses waaaay more( those who can afford the bus fare) to the all singing all dancing better alternative comp down the road.But that's ok.

• A comprehensive by it's very nature includes the brightest kids in the area. If it's run alongside a grammar school who naturally cream off the top 20%, then how can it possibly ave an intake that is truly comprehensive. Pop off, indeed!

As far as I am aware, and I could be very wrong, to get into a grammar school you need to be a certain level amongst all subjects?

So a child leagues ahead in Maths, will not pass, because they may be behind in English?

Is there wiggle room in the exam?

Because if not, then the grammar is creaming off solid all rounders, not THE brightest pupils.

Bearing in Mind, parents who are against grammars will not be sending DC, parents who are not interested, DC who do not want to go and pupils who are exceptional in SOME areas but not ALL, therefore failing the exam, as well as later bloomers.
I would say many bright pupils are Not BEING creamed off.

Exactly Al.

It most certainly isn't the brightest but yes the all rounders.GS wouldn't suit an awful lot of kids hence the maj of parents not being interested.

Great! In that case, why are people so desperate to avoid them?

No, I disagree. They are not taken all rounders in the sense that selective independent schools look for all rounders ie children who are good across the board academically and either sporty or musical or both. The children are not interviewed and quizzed. They sit an exam which includes a maths paper(s) and various English papers inc comprehension, S&G and extended or creative writing. They may or may not also sit VR and NVR depending on area.
I can tell you from teaching Y5&6 for many years that at that age the overwhelming majority of children who are top set for maths will also be top set got literacy barring any SLD. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but most bright able kids will be top set for both. Therefore, in theory the grammar school would cream off that top set from all the local primaries.

Could the grammar school supporters explain why they wouldn't ant their child to go to a "secondary modern"? (I have started to use secondary modern to describe the schools children not deemed suitable for a grammar school education, because it seems to be one people on here understand- I prefer "high school" myself) But whatever they are called- why don't you want your child at one?

Whether the alternative schools are secondary moderns (lacking a significant % of most able) or comprehensives (where the % lost is within the statistical variation of the intake in any case) depends on specific local factors.

In 'fully selective' counties - Kent the one most often described on this board - every 'non grammar' state school is a secondary modern, because it is virtually impossible for a school to be unaffected by 20% of the Year 7s each year going to grammars.

In partially-selective counties, with residual grammar schools, it will be much, much patchier. In towns where there are 4 residual grammar schools, the percentage of children removed from the other schools by selective is significant, and so those 'other' schools are secondary moderns by default. In towns with 1, or none, and in areas which are a long distance from any grammars, the other schools are much less selective, and many have over time become truly comprehensive.

Also, whether the children taken by grammars are gebnuinely 'all rounders' academically will depend on the test used. In some areas, the test has historically been VR and / or NVR, and as these have been very specifically 'coachable' tests, the children passing may in some cases not have been good at either Maths or English, especially if very highly coached (a girl of my acquaintance, attending grammar based VR score alone, has still failed to achieve higher than a D in Maths at GCSE even after taking it 3 times). In areas using tests based more on curricululm subjects, there is a greater likelihood that children entering grammars will be good at both Maths and English.

"I wouldn't send my DCs to a comprehensive that wasn't sending as many pupils to top universities as a grammar school."

You have to consider proportionaility, though

I did mean proportionally. It was all in my link to the 11 myths of grammar schools.

A couple of children from our "secondary modern" were invited to the grammar school's Oxbridge information evening last year. Afterwards they were both the subject of mockery on social media for even considering the idea. Not from their school mates- as I am sure many reading this would assume - but from the grammar school kids.

This is what is totally wrong with the system. Let's hope that those 2 get to Oxbridge and show them! The silly thing is now that they are both probably doing better than many at the grammar. The late developers sometimes get to change BUT those struggling in the grammar never change to sec mod.I know many a secondary modern child who has gone to a top university. Generally they had to wait until 6th form to get that grammar school place.

I can tell you from teaching Y5&6 for many years that at that age the overwhelming majority of children who are top set for maths will also be top set got literacy barring any SLD

I can tell you, from teaching year 5 and 6 for many years that there are a lot of children who do well at one and badly at another. More often some who are great at Maths are very poor with literacy but you also get those who are great at literacy and clueless in Maths. This is born out in the comprehensive where they can be in the correct sets. I would agree that the majority will be all rounders.

I prefer "high school" myself

I have huge problems with 'high school' because in my day the high school was the grammar school.

I would agree that secondary modern is a silly term because there is nothing 'modern' about them. One fact alone that tells you the whole system is out of date-or long past it's 'sell by date'.

Hakluyt. I admit I was very unhappy and tried numerous times at to get DD1 in to a grammar or private at yr7 9 and 12. She refused to leave the 'modern' at 13 years of age or for the sixth form.

The outcome is that her school enabled her to achieve 90%? of her potential, the extra 10% would have come from a grammar school no doubt 3 A grades at A level as opposed to 1A and 2 Bs. However, DD was very happy there and enjoyed being the pupil that everybody (staff included ) looked up to and getting regular praise was great for her self confidence.

The 'modern' school was the right one for DD1 despite my intitial concerns. DD1 really enjoyed her time there and flourished not just academic way but by making friends with kids from all types of backgrounds.

The 11 plus is great if you pass it . Shitty sec mods if you don't. How is that fair.

I think that a lot of what is wrong with it is people's perceptions-based on a test that many take at 10yrs of age.

The soul destroying thing is that if you tell an adult what you want to do as a career as an 11+ failure they say, doubtfully, 'can you still do that?' and you are only 11 years old!!!
I gave up saying, 'of course I can-I do a, b and c' and I stuck with 'I haven't decided yet'-it was a lot simpler and then I just quietly got on with doing the a, b and c, as decided.
Even worse is the assumption by the 11 yr olds that passed that they can be anything they like but heaven forbid a failure should expect the same choice! This is all despite the fact that by the time I got to the grammar school 6th form lots of the 'successes' had left after O'levels and got jobs!

How is that fair.

Especially if you are a set of twins where one passes and one fails (I know 2 sets like this) and there is nothing academically between you apart for the few marks on the day that got you on different sides of the line.

Not so common in twins but very common on families-very divisive.

No one has ever explained to me why my non academic DC shouldn't be at the same school as his academic sibling. Who can tell me? (Bearing in mind that my non academic one is very well behaved with an excellent work ethic.)

Why do people want to risk siblings divided to pass/fail?
It was common
Me fail, brother 1 fail but passed 12+ , brother 2 pass.
DH fail, BIL pass
Best friends at sec mod both had 2 older siblings who passed.
SIL passed, one sibling also passed, 2 failed
Next door neighbour one pass, one fail
DH's twin cousins one pass one fail.
Cousin family one pass, two fails - other cousin family 2 passes, one fail.
I could go on and on........
The really stupid thing is that now we are all 60+ no one could guess which were which!

Hakluyt. My relatives and myself gave sent their children to grammar schools to get better educational opportunities, advance to the best unversities and to mix with a meritocratic cohort (read into that what you will)

Mine too.

My dirt poor incredibly gifted gardeners boy dad went to Skinners a year early.He did extremely well,New Years Honours the lot.He was able to pay for his grandchildren's tutoring to make up for going to an extremely mediocre primary( lowest quintile). They got in.

I even put twins through the 11+ (gasp). Several in our family went to sec modern(shock horror),survived and did well even with siblings at Judd and Skinners.

Oh and in our area there is no grammar catchment so towns don't even notice kids going to grammar as they're miles away.I'm sure they notice the exodus to the better comp next door but funnily enough posters on here don't care about that.

My question was not "why send your child to grammar school". It was why not send them to a secondary modern. The difference is subtle but significant.

Am in awe of the "gardener's boy". I thought I was the oldest living Mumsnetter...........

Our local comps are on special measures, and have a significant feral cohort - where many of e pupuls there have fired racist obscenities at my chdren on school visit days. It's a no brainer really.

Apologies for typos