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.

Lapetit- I'm sorry- I just don't understand the situation you describe. There are two comprehensive schools available to kids in your town. A is a bus journey away and is much better than B but still has spaces for "droves" of children from your town, which leaves B languishing. But the only practical thing stopping any child going to A is the bus fare?

How is this at all comparable to the selective system ? What am I missing?

Err why?
Both are Good.
There are hoards of good comps that aren't the best fit for many kids.I personally couldn't give a stuff where parents send their kids as I fully believe in free choice.However in some areas kids are trapped in poor schools because they can't afford housing or bus journeys to the better schools.

Hak a bus journey or housing stopping kids from going to the school of their choice is as selective as an exam anybody can get materials for.You know it and Sutton et al know it.You just don't care because you benefit from it- pot,kettle and all that.

And if you care to do a search on the many grammar threads you've posted on you'll see plenty of links people have given you to the studies and respected news reports which highlight the issue.

"Hak, a bus journey or housing stopping kids from going to the school of their choice is as selective as an exam anybody can get materials for.You know it and Sutton et al know it.You just don't care because you benefit from it- pot,kettle and all that."

Yes, I know that. And I would be happy to have a discussion about fair admissions policies if you like. Did I understand the situation you are in properly? That there is a much better school with plenty of vacancies a bus ride away? Incidentally what do you think I am benefitting from/ignoring? And what on earth do you mean by the pot,kettle references?

MsShellShocked, I did say when originally making the point that I was excluded children with a SpLD as their profile is far more skewed.

And yes, of course it shows the unfairness of the system. I'm not suggesting it's in any way fair or desirable.

The debate should be about how will select children for grammar schools, not about their existence. Clearly in the area Morethan lives in for example , a couple of grammar schools would improve the education available there. Bright Children who have SEN but with the right help and facilities are as academically able 'if not more so' than other children should be at grammar schools (therefore they require disability specific testing to enable them a chance to show their potential).

The question should be how we select children for the education most suitable for them. The other schools would be quite 'good' if the troublesome or dis interested 15% or so where educated in a third type of school away from the mainstream 55-60% perhaps a school that could be focused around 'vocational' studies linked to businesses starting at 12 . These children would stay in 'Primary' education one year longer to help readdress their issues with numeracy and literacy.

However, in reality we can discuss our views and ideas ,but they are not going to happen any time soon....

The date shouldn't be about how you select. There are only 163 grammar schools left. The debate should be about how to educate all children - in 21st century it is unbelievable that we should select children at 10 yrs for the education suited for them- they are far too young.

LePetit and others,

Do I feel it is unfair that sme schools are better than others? Of course. Do I feel it is unfair that some schools are PERCEIVED as better / worse than others on the basis of raw results, without parents being sophisticated enough to look at differences in intake? Of course (a school I know of has one of the highest value added scores in their county, and has all of their vanishingly tiny numbers of huigh ability children getting 9 A-A* GCSEs...while remaining just below the government's threshold GCSE results overall because children who arrive with Level 3 or below at the end of Y6 m,ake up the majority of their intake.)

I just don't understand why anyone sees the solution as being 'separating all high attainers into a separate school'?

I mean "How do we make all schools equally good?" "I know, we will strip off the most able 5-20% and educate them separately." is an obvious non sequitur.

Of course, on a personal basis, what many people on here are saying is "How can I give my child a life raft out of a local school which has relatively low raw results [I note no-one here has quoted the results for high achievers from the schools they are so eager to avoid]?" "I know, we want more schools to be set up that strip off the most able 5-20% and educate them separately" IS an answer to THAT question, but all those who truly care about education for the whole country should see that is not a solution to improve the education of 100% of the population, in the same way as improving schools within an all-comprehensive system would be.

The local comp will have lost 4 to our grammar out of a masseeeeeve intake.Many very bright kids from our school didn't go for it so they'll have a good chunk going- assuming they don't go to the uber popular comp down the road.

It wast reported widely last month that brighter kids do better in grammar schools.

But do the other 80-98% of children do better in the 'other' schools in grammar areas, or in truly comprehensive schools? As I said, optimising the education iof the few at the exopense of the many is not the way to improve education in this country.

But if they were only focusing on one cohort you can't assume it damages the other.

Across the country a miniscule percentage go to grammar.As much as I love my kids I doubt their presence in their feeder comp would make a jot of difference.

The fact is the vast amount of kids with proactive parents who avoid certain comps and even whole areas they're in via property will make far more of an impact going by your argument but it's never complained about on here.Funny that.

LePetit- could you address my post of 08.04 this morning, please?

I agree that the variation between schools, as it is currently, is unacceptable (but we should look at 'true' varation, ie variation stripped of the effects of intake - what used to be descibed as 'contextual value added' was a good start).

As is the variation in funding between counties, and between types of school (one reason some grammars are very successful is because of their endowment income).

But creating more grammars or expanding existing ones is not a solution to this problem. My local 'fight to get into' comp used to be a fairly poor secondary modern. What turned it round was a succession of visionary heads who gradually changed the perception of the school in the community. What is needed is more of that - and the money to achieve it - not the siphoning off of that money into new or expanded grammar schools.

Hak you benefit from choice and bussing your kids out from their catchment school is no better just because your school of choice is a comp.

Had the discussion with you several times and so have others,you consi?tently ignore points made to you so if you don 't mind in future I'll respond to the posts I choose.

"Hak- you benefit from choice and bussing your kids out from their catchment school is no better just because your school of choice is a comp."

No I don't. Where did you get that idea from? I most definitely do not benefit from choice!

And no, I don't ignore anything. Not on purpose, anyway. You keep on telling me I'm ignoring things, but you won't tell me what you think I'm ignoring!

LePetit, are you sure? Hak is in Kent, and unable to move away from this grammar area despite ideological opposition to this system. One of her children attends a grammar, the other a secondary modern. She would prefer both to go to a comp, but none are available in her county. AFAI remember, she has become a governor and general supporter of the secondary modern, in order to imnprove it as much as possible for all children.

Have you got her muddled up with another poster?

Thank you teacher- that sums it up nicely- except older one no longer at school.

(Sorry - missed that one. Deregged for a bit.)

Sorry must be diff poster.However if you truly wanted to live by your convictions I don't see why they both can't go to the sec modern.

Also Kent does not speak for the whole of the UK,the grammar system differs hugely elsewhere where thankfully we have choice and long may it continue.

There are hoards of good comps that aren't the best fit for many kids.I personally couldn't give a stuff where parents send their kids as I fully believe in free choice

I believe in free choice too. Each school has a feel to it, when you start to look round, you know your child, and what will suit them best. Not every school is going to fit the child.

How would both going to a sec mod help you 'live by your convictions' ? they are part of the system she is opposed to - or , as usual, is it just the grammar schools that count as the system?

Free choice is a complete myth- it is really free choice if room.

as to how anyone can think that deciding to send a child to one kind of selective education (the secondary modern for those selected as the 75% less able) rather than the selective school for the 25% most academic would be a satisfactory route for someone who believes that segregating the 2 groups into different schools is a flawed system.

The point that would answer most concerns on this and other similar threads, is that poor schools must be improved. Poor schools should be improved, for children of all abilities, and the confidence of parents be restored. Once parents of higher achieving children have that confidence, the overall results average will increase and create an upwards spiral of improvement. If all schools are improved, a postcode house-price selection will be irrelevant.This has happened to several comprehensives in my area, with schools that were (rightly) viewed with horror are now hugely over-subscribed. This is far more likely to be achievable than introducing more grammars, and would benefit all children.

"Also Kent does not speak for the whole of the UK,the grammar system differs hugely elsewhere where thankfully we have choice and long may it continue."

The point is that when politicians talk about extending the grammar school system, it is the Kent model they are talking about. Because it is the one that most closely models the "traditional" grammar school system that people remember so fondly. I don't understand what you mean by having choice elsewhere. Do you mean the super selectives? Yes, it is possible to have a superselective alongside a very nearly comprehensive. There is certainly an argument for the really exceptionally bright being educated seperately. I don't, as it happens, agree. But others differ. But make no mistake. When people talk about a grammar school in every town, it's the Kent model they are talking about. And it is hideous.

If it was such a good system they would talk about a secondary modern in every town. They are never mentioned, with any name, as being part of the system.
You then get LePetit's weird view that you can opt out by not sending to grammar school, as if the sec modern wasn't part of the same system!
I don't understand how you can possibly 'live by your convictions' if you are choosing the bigger part of the system. Surely if you don't believe in grammar schools you equally don't believe in sec mods? I don't believe that either are good for children.