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.

I should probably have phrased it 'ban 11 plus preparation' with just one of those packs that give a few examples of nvr/vr given out the morning of the exam. Introduce interviews same as independents, ask the kids what prep they've done at them. And at interview throw in academic questions/ problems. Eg give them a top tier maths question (way beyond the level most kids will have covered) with a worked example and then ask them to tackle a similar question, and judge them not on necessarily the correct answer, but on how they tackle it. and similar for a couple of other subjects.
I do think though it would be better if comprehensives could just cater to the brightest as well as a super selective can.
Fair enough camel, but even as recently as last autumn, it was fairly obvious to me that their was a massive difference in ethos between local comps, even though the ebacc passes at a glance are similar. The good ones have above national average passing with top grades, and from local knowledge those that fail have a fair few with d's and good vocational quals. The bad comps have very few with above c's and the failures (for want of a less harsh description) have very little to progress with in life.

I should probably have phrased it 'ban 11 plus preparation'

I talked to my children about what they'd done at school that day, all the way through. Lots of teachable moments, and I recall a pre-GCSE walk in the park turning into a tutorial on the causes of the first world war. When they were at primary, I certainly talked through maths issues with them, "give them a top tier maths question (way beyond the level most kids will have covered) with a worked example and then ask them to tackle a similar question" would be well within their experience.

How would you ban this sort of "11+ preparation"?

it is illegal to charge for any form of education for children up to 16 years of age in Finland!

it is illegal to charge for any form of education for children up to 16 years of age in Finland!

So no private instrumental lessons? No private sports lessons? No private ballet lessons? No private drama classes? No brownies and guides and scouts?

I like the idea of free tutoring for fsm kids, but I'd extend it to those just over the threshold who still have no disposable income. I'd also want teachers to be allowed to encourage kids/families to sit the exam so those from disinterested homes get a chance.
For the record I'm entirely in favour of selective education, but I believe the system as it stands isn't as fair as it could be. I'm the product of a comprehensive that was considered good. I left there with the knowledge and proof I could get top grades with zero effort, a reputation for disruption and complete antipathy for education because i was deathly bored. So I'm the last person to be against selective education. My issue wasn't failing the 11plus, but unlike the local children with motivated parents, I never got to sit for an assisted place. My child isn't effected, but amongst the local kids I can certainly spot the next generation of failed bright kids being sent to comprehensives that won't cater for them, and won't be held to account because they'll still leave with very good results

I do similar gemauve, so I accept its not foolproof. But it would still stop those children who really aren't grammar school material being excessively coached so they can take the place of a brighter but less hot housed child. I get your point, but I think if you throw eg an a level exam standard maths question at an 11year old, with just one worked example it would be easy to see from how they tackled it which kids were average ability and hot housed, and which had raw ability. Not perfect certainly but I think fairer than the current system of basically seeing which kids can get the most level 5 or 6 questions right in a short time

I agree camel, but if teachers were able to encourage a group with actual information there'd be safety in numbers

Teachers are not impartial, unfortunately. They may well encourage the well-behaved FSM girl who isn't as able as the boisterous and a bit naughty FSM boy. Especially if the teacher will then spend extra time with those kids coaching them.

I quite clearly said that all the good teachers were not in grammar schools, camel - therefore I was very surprised to find that 2 people thought I said that they were. There are a mere 163 grammar schools in small pockets of the country- ludicrous to think all good teachers flock there.

It's not an easy problem to solve, it just seems so massively unfair that the only disadvantaged kids with a chance are those with financially poor but educationally rich backgrounds, or those kids that are super bright and ace the exam with little or no preparation

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.

Maybe so, I'm not tallying it up.

But not me.

I thrived at poor-attaining schools I attended, even got degree from Uni-you-never-heard-of, while My one & only experience of a selective school was horrendous and ruined me psychologically.

I turned out to be a high achiever, High IQ, high scores in national exams, all that malarky. True that my parents socially secure status helped me a lot in terms of achievement, they came from poor backgrounds and didn't attend selective schools either.

"It's not an easy problem to solve, "

Yes it is. Just get rid of the remaining "rump" of grammar and secondary modern schools!

Yes, admit that the grammar school system can't work, the flaws are too fundamental.

If interested parents who spend time and money on tutoring put those efforts and resources into their kids' comps, then everyone would benefit.

The country would do so much better if we didn't have such a narrow idea of 'success'. What we need is more engineers and yet going down a technical line rather than academic is looked down on. Similarly we need the artistic. A good hairdresser is a skill. Mine does a wonderful cut in minutes without any clipping bits out of the way and fiddling around- she is full of confidence. We need far more carers for the elderly - those who have proper career structure and are well paid - a hugely important job and yet classed as one for the 'failures' and unqualified.
By 14 yrs pupils have worked out whether they want a very academic education or whether they want a practical or technical skill. This still needs to keep up Maths, English, Science etc
It is sad that all abilities are not valued.

Of course it is an easy problem to solve! Stop deciding children at 10/11years.

It was a good system in 1944 when they really were secondary modern schools, but that was 70 years ago, they are not 'modern' and we should have moved in in 21st century and not harp back to the 'good old days' when grandad made a success of his life from very humble beginnings- because had he been taking the exam next year he wouldn't stand a chance against the child who had had massive advantages since birth and then tutoring on top of that.

By 14 yrs pupils have worked out whether they want a very academic education or whether they want a practical or technical skill.

Bollocks. A lot of 14 year olds want to do what their mates do.

And now they don't leave school/training till 18, there's no need to rush them into closing doors at 14. You can't do any meaningful work experience at 14 anyway.

If interested parents who spend time and money on tutoring put those efforts and resources into their kids' comps

What extra would they get for their money?

I think that we had better leave it but I expected anyone to pick up immediately- from my utterly ridiculous statement ( + the fact that I had already given my very anti grammar school posts) that I was being ironic!
I thought I had made it very clear that I had moved to a comprehensive area and was very pleased- I at no point said that my DCs education was mediocre or that they were not stretched.

You have a very poor view of 14yr olds.

BertrandRussell YY - and stop counties like Kent trying to create more by opening 'satellite schools'.

Re banning.

You do realise that vocabulary plays a huge part in the 11+ so the parents who have read to their children nightly will have given their DC an unfair advantage for years.Is that included in the ban?Also disadvantaged kids with low levels of literacy in their family will very likely not perform well in an interview.

Then what about those in weak year 5 classes or poor schools are parents not to teach their DC at home to bring things to a level playing field?What about those in schools who simply haven't covered the curriculum,can we?

Would love to see how you'd police kids saying they'd been working at home as I'll wager a fair few parents would dispute accusations as the say so of a nervous 11 year old ain't a lot to go on.

Also how about SEN,are those of us with kids who have SEN allowed to do a bit extra?