To think that condemming the grammar school system , because it cannot give 100% of pupils a brilliant education is wrong.

[sunshield]

I was watching the 'Secret life of the Grammar School' on BBC four last night and it occurred to me that the majority were successful because of a grammar school education. The debate on grammar schools is centred around the 75% or so who don't pass. The ideology expressed from many, is that if 100% of children can't get a highly academic education either though ability or resources than no one should have the chance. This is surely wrong and ultimately does not do the less academic any favours yet it significantly reduces the chances for bright children, who may need a structured and highly 'disciplined' environment to achieve.

I know many people on this site will disagree with this post and will cite the excellent 'comprehensives' their children attend. The truth is the best comprehensive schools are 'covert' grammar schools operating a more 'acceptable' form of selection .

The grammar school system needs to be applauded for its contribution to the United kingdom from politics , commerce to science and engineering . There is no part of life in the UK that has not been influenced or improved by grammar school educated people.

However, if you read the constant 'diatribes' of people on the left you would believe that grammar schools are worse than 'public schools' in their effect on society. Grammar schools have provided the backbone to society for over 70 years. I believe that it is morally wrong to prevent academic children from all sectors of society a 'grammar ' education just on the basis of it not being available to all.

My apologies. Posted on the wrong thread - should have gone on the Kent one.

Yes lily I would ban tutoring, only way to make it a fair playing field. any child working around level 5 should be able to familiarise themselves with nvr and vr with just one pack bought. And yes I'd also include tutoring by parents in any ban. And I would actually have the kids quizzed on the subject. i agree it wouldn't be foolproof, but it would make it a fairer playing field. At present only the super bright kids have a chance of getting in without tutoring (either parents or paid). It wouldn't be entirely fair, the kids whose parents haven't tutored in any usual way, but have supported their childs education in other less structured ways would still be advantaged, but it would still be a step in the right direction. And like I said exceptions when there has been a proven gap or disadvantage in the childs previous schooling.

I took the 11+ in the early 1970s. I can never understand, maybe it is the area we lived in, why so many people from poorer backgrounds would tell how going to the grammar school changed their lives.
The area was a nice area with a predominance of owned homes. If you were from the council estate or were from a single parent family then it was a waste of time going in for the 11+ as no one apparently ever passed. My best friend was from the council estate, she was top of the class by miles in all exams, she was told she would be going to the local comp. Another girl in my class who lived in one of the bought houses, who struggled to read and write was told she could go to the grammar.

The way education is run in this country is to infer that everyone needs an academic degree but if everyone has an academic degree then surely the degree is worthless. Better to train as a plumber, plasterer, electrician, hairdresser, etc then name your price.

As for King Solomon wanting every child to go to university, surely that is not taking account of what might be best for an individual child. What do they do with the child who would love to be a hairdresser.

Of all of the people I know, the poorest are those with a degree and who have a job in an office. One of the richest couples I know are hairdressers and have created a multiple million pound hair dressing business from starting out on YTS schemes. The rest are plumbers, electricians and chip shop owners. Not one of them has an O Level between them.

"How can you ban tutoring?"

You can't. Which is one of the many excellent reasons for banning selective education!

There is nothing to stop a KSA kid with an Ebacc from becoming a hairdresser. However, train them to be a hairdresser from 14 and they are unlikely to go to uni. One path opens doors, the other closes them.

And that isn't a criticism of anybody who has or is tutoring, if I was in that situation I suspect I'd be going with 'if you can't beat em, join em'
Only way a fully comp system will work is if they start offering the top few % of children the same education a super selective can.
As for less academic choices, I think a few comps locally have the right idea, the kids still have to do basic academic subjects but as part of their options can attend vocational courses alongside. Even a Unfortunately the other comps seem to base their entire timetable around vocational subjects and dumb down everyone to the lowest denominator which is unfair to everyone. By railroading unsuitable candidates into fields (purely cos they struggle with academic subjects rather than cos they want to be a hairdresser, mechanic etc) you end up with those vocations at ks3 earning the reputation as being the 'thick kids' courses, rather than an actual vocation and career choice

I did my TT in Kent. The vast difference between the grammars and the sec moderns was immense. The attitudes of my fellow trainee teachers who were placed in grammar schools soon echoed those of the teachers there, they were better than the rest of us. I trained in one of the biggest secondary moderns in the city and I bloody loved it. It was a school that had a lot of FSM, difficult backgrounds etc but the staff were determined that each child do their best. So many entered the school feeling worthless because they weren't in a grammar and the staff had to work hard to build up their self esteem again.

Sadly the school I trained in is closing at the end of the year.

Like I said banning tutoring would be hard to police, but its the easiest way to increase the % of kids on fsm I can think of.
And ditto camel re independent school. With the exception of a few, the private school parents I've met or know have chosen the independent route because the state isn't suitable for various reasons

I get your point camel but locally all but a few still manage to 'dumb down'. the good ones appear to put the most struggling in for the basics and vocational and concentrate on those, but the rest appear to still want those who really struggle to go in for 9 or 10 quals, half of which in my opinion are meaningless ( not individually but if a child has a genuine interest in eg hairdressing then they don't need btechs or below d level GCSEs in 4 other completely unrelated non academic subjects) and because for some this is just too many, they can't concentrate on getting the basic academic grades they could at the better comps

Like I said banning tutoring would be hard to police, but its the easiest way to increase the % of kids on fsm I can think of.

If you could frame "banning tutoring" in a way that was enforceable (hint: you can't) then grammar schools would be populated almost entirely by the children of middle class university graduates who can do the tutoring themselves. Or are you proposing that people who have the teaching skills should be forbidden from teaching their own children?

"If you could frame "banning tutoring" in a way that was enforceable (hint: you can't) then grammar schools would be populated almost entirely by the children of middle class university graduates who can do the tutoring thze selves"

No change there, then!

What would be fairer would be for grammar schools to give free tutoring sessions to FSM kids. But that is illegal.

It isn't illegal, and it is happening in some areas. Whatever makes you think it's illegal?

Kent County Council state it is not allowed.

They might like to try to quote some legislation. They may not permit it for schools they control, but that's an entirely different thing to its being illegal.

"Illegal" means that if an academy grammar were to do some after-school tutoring in an academy primary (say), then either the police would turn up or a court would grant an injunction. Both seem a trifle unlikely.

Any primary school in Kent found to be offering 11+ tutoring runs the risk of having it's whole exam declared void. That doesn't stop some of them-after all who's going to report them? However, it is usually for the hight achievers. And by Year 5 most FSM children are unlikely to be high achievers.

But no, it's not actually illegal

What would be fairer would be for grammar schools to give free tutoring sessions to FSM kids.

Fine if it's in the regular school timetable of yr5 or 6. Otherwise, some wouldn't turn up, many still have the same problems at home that probably contributed to them being FSM kids. Parents who don't organise anything, lack of aspiration, etc.

phineyj. They have "Grammar Schools" in Australia Government Selective High Schools.

Sydney High for Boys/Girls North North Sydney Boys/Girls High
Macrobertson Girls High / Melbourne High School (boys) ETC are a couple of examples.

It would be interesting to see what the Australian 11+ or equivalent tests are, or how they choose their pupils.

The thing though that stands out to me, on this site is the number of posters who have either been educated selectively by the state or privately.
This means a high number of posters have benefited from this type of education , which enabled them to have a better opportunity to access a good University. However, a large percentage of the posters who owe their achievements whether (academic or professional) to thier 'selective ' educations are fundemantally opposed to the education they thrived from.