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 couldnt send a kid to a school that dresses them up in a boater etc.
which i believe in my personal opinion to be gimpy.

Welcome to your opinion. Not welcome to use the word 'gimpy".

Just out of interest, what do people in Scotland think of the grammar school system. It's not something we have in Scotland is it? Do people think it would be a good thing or not?

What's 'gimpy' btw. It brings up images of black leather masks to me, not children in boaters.

why not?

ooh it means retarded! I am so sorry. I really never knew. I htought was to do with a gimp mask or something

Urban slang- on a par with retard and spaz. Very unpleasant indeed. With a bit of luck it will be gone soon. The poster concerned wasn't contributing much of value anyway.

why not?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking for opinions. I don't know why we don't have them in Scotland. I've always thought they were a good thing and wondered why we don't have them north of the border.

Oh, thanks for the explanation of 'gimpy'. I've never heard it used before and hopefully won't again.

Yabu because not all children in private schools would get places in grammars as they wouldn't all be academically successful
No shit Sherlock! Bit still, the cash would buy the tutors and the iPads and the private space to study - so still a head start for the rich.

Thank you some people have answered my question. I do feel though that there would be a reduction in the 7% using private education , what the percentage would be ?.

I am neither pro nor anti grammar schools, having experienced the best and worst of the system. I do however believe that DD2 and DS are benefiting from their grammar schools in a way that would not be possible (except for the Hert's 'Comps') in a comprehensive school. I have also seen the 5 or 6 pupils in DD1s (year group) modern school who deserved better (an academic education surrounded with other bright children).

DD1s teachers explained they had about 5 or 6 'bright' children each year but the drop off in ability after that was dramatic . The school tried to 'segregate' academically as much as possible the bright pupils from the others.

Hakulyt has numerously posted about how bright her DS is, however he is like my DD1 was ,in the wrong school !. Hak has cited behavioural issues on the minibus going to a school football match. This is just one way that the selective system can destroy bright children by confining them to poor behaviour from children who are just passing time 'academically'.

350 grammar schools would be just over double the current number of 164 and would include a large no of them having a large boarding provision.

The benefit potentially of doubling the number of grammar schools ,would be to reduce the annual 'bunfight'. This would be because there would be enough places for any pupil who might benefit from a traditional structured academic education.

That is the positive side of the 'coin' ,what happens to the rest , it is perhaps greater inequality academically and economically.

Hamish, they did have them in Scotland when grammar school were in play across the UK before comps were introduced. I know my late MIL went to Lenzie Academy in the early 60s. Not sure what happened when the comprehensive system was introduced. Much the same as most of England I presume.

I see, thanks myredcardigan. I don't remember grammars existing in my lifetime, but that's after the 60's. My father went to one and really benefited (he was brought up in Port Talbot, which was and still fairly deprived in places). My mother on the other hand failed her 11+ and was consigned to touch typing classes (according to her). Luckily she managed to fight back and went to university.

smokepole - why do you think there would be a reduction in the 7% currently using private schools? And why, more importantly, would this reduction be desirable?

Op, I don't see it myself. If you double the number of grammars you would have to convert comps, as most areas barely keep up with basic need for pupil places. And if you made the worst comps into grammars there is a chance people would reject them anyway. If you made performing comps into grammars you just make the worst ones even less desirable. Unless there is a vast excess of school places over basic need, which would require massive investment when the country is in deficit, then there are always going to be desirable and undesirable schools. And where is the funding going to come from to set this up?

"Hak has cited behavioural issues on the minibus going to a school football match. This is just one way that the selective system can destroy bright children by confining them to poor behaviour from children who are just passing time 'academically'.

Smokepole- please do not use anything I say as evidence to support your bizarre assertion that bad behaviour is confined to those of lower academic ability.

cosytoaster said

YABU - where would all the posh dimwits go?

Just lovely! i do hope you realise you've got more problems than any posh dimwits

I am going to hide this thread as I really don't like to see these "right-on" "I am so superior" comments about other people's children being "thick".

Sneering comments about parents trying to help their own kids - as if any of us wouldn't do it.

And if your kid was "thick" - would you give up on him? If he couldn't swim - would you teach him - or just hope that he didn't fall in the water? If he was ill would you leave him to suffer - or do whatever it cost to make him better?

The private school argument is interesting as a debate but to write off a whole group of children because they are not as clever as your child and their parents pay someone to help them, is just horrible.

And yes, my child will fall into your category of "thick" and I have spent years trying to give him some self-esteem because that view - "thick", (or dense, or stupid or worse...), is shared by people like some of the posters on here in the State Education system.

Just to add, having a bright child with a high IQ of 150 is as much a privilege as being born into a rich family. I don't know who these posters think they are sneering at children who maybe less academic but have rich parents. I have a dc who is not very academic, but guess what? i can afford the very best! so I will support him as much as i can. I wish all parents who have less academic children had that choice. So sneerers and grinners you can all go and chew on that!

Just to add, having a bright child with a high IQ of 150 is as much a privilege as being born into a rich family. I don't know who these posters think they are sneering at children who maybe less academic but have rich parents

Your spot on there.

I hate the hypocrisy of some posters who come on these threads railing about how un fair grammars/private schools are when their own child has attended one

surely comprehensives are secondary moderns where grammars exist? as the top kids would be creamed off?

Yes and no. There is no obligation to put the grammar school down as one of the secondary school choices, and as far as I can see the majority of parents simply don't. I only put it down for my eldest and I was the only one in that year to do so. So, lots of the top kids do not get creamed off and do go to local comprehensives.

Top set in a good comprehensive can often contain children of very similar abilities to those found in grammar schools. They will be doing the higher level GCSEs just like grammars. My understanding of the old secondary modern system (although rather limited, as it was before my time) is that it didn't teach much beyond the old CSE (less academic) level, and sixth forms in them were virtually non-existent. I am prepared to stand corrected if needed, but that is my impression.

The comprehensive would take the place that was once occupied by the secondary moderns, but they are not secondary moderns. They teach a much broader spectrum of academic abilities that secondary moderns did, and I see no reason why that would change.

I said earlier in thread but will say again, just because your not a good all rounder - needed to get into grammar does not mean you are not cream.

You can be over ridiingly excellent in a few things, and be brilliant but poor in others.

I disagree that the old secondary moderns taught a narrow spectrum of abilities. In some areas, they took up to 90% of kids!

"Top set in a good comprehensive can often contain children of very similar abilities to those found in grammar schools"

Of course they do. They are the same children!

Only one person has made the "thick but posh" comments- why not just ignore them and carry on with the discussion?

Well they're not the same children as they're in the grammar.

I liked my grammar school edumacation. I would love there to be anything comparable these days for mine. I cannot afford private, and there are no grammars round here that aren't private. Why did they get rid of so many, when they had proven track records?! I'm actually considering moving country (not county) to avoid the dismal choice that faces my kids in seven years time.