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.

Banning tutoring is not an option.
Making a tutor free test is impossible.

Oh and re your idea regarding giving 11 year olds an A level maths question,if those who perform well enough are shite at writing or reading are they not allowed to brush up on those skills?

I did actually say I'd ask similar questions for other subjects. And my original post saying I'd ban tutoring did state with some exceptions, such as Sen, medical reasons etc basically wherever there was fair proof the child hadn't had the same access to primary education as others.
If all academically selective schools were banned, you'd still see selection by house price, and like in my non grammar area those that can afford it opting for selective independents, meaning the less affluent kids instead of competing for grammar school places compete for the minuscule number of generous bursaries/ scholarships.

I did actually say I'd ask similar questions for other subjects.

Yeah, because famously Oxford interviews present the same challenge to confident, articulate children of affluent families as they do working class children whose parents left school at 15. There's no literature about the problems interviews cause.

No child has the same primary education as another.

Perhaps Oxbridge should also be banned, and all universities accept everyone who wishes to go there.

Essentially the German model: open access first year, savage chuck out at the end of the first and second years.

It's pretty much the European model, modulo a few exceptions like the French Grande Ecoles. It's very, very inefficient because you teach a lot of first years for a year, degrading the experience for everyone, in order throw a lot out. British universities select their intake and have quite low non-completion rates, with Oxbridge (the most selective) having the lowest non-completion rate. The British system is efficient: the largest proportion of entrants get degrees. But it's discriminatory, because you have to get admission.

Fix this, and you win the Internets a job as Higher Education minister, or at least a job as admissions tsar.

Of course no primary is the same and still some kids would have an advantage. But same as the schools I believe have started taking a lower pass mark for fsm, it would at least be a step in the right direction

The whole argument gets rather silly when it is very simple. Don't separate children at 10 or 11yrs of age, it is too young. I would do it at 14 yrs - but as some people still think this is too young then do it at 16 yrs, which is what happens now. I really can't follow why you would ban Oxbridge by the time they are adults.

No it wouldn't.

The 11+ curriculum isn't covered in time at primary so those kids in private preps teaching a year ahead or the pushier primaries( more likely to be Outstanding schools in affluent areas) would have a ridiculously big advantage.

selection for admission at University age feels different to me because Uni is paid for by the applicant (tuition fees). The possible duty of the state to strive for equal opportunity at paid-for-Uni is different from nominally 'free' state education for under 17s.

Moreover, English universities are so focused in their degree aims, they don't have faffing about try to see if you like introductory year or 2. You sign up for a 3 yr intensive course on a narrow subject, no time to find out if you're suited to it or not, must be selective before start.

Because uni applications are the unfairness system of the lot.

Those with degrees often have more power and better paid jobs.

Children from poorer and less educated families are hugely disadvantaged.Many won't bother applying as they won't want to be saddled with debt and have no support system.

Do fsm kids have spaces kept for them in I is out of interest like the new regulations with grammars?

If you don't select at 11yrs and you have good schools for all then they would all have the same opportunities.

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.

I have benefited from a fantastic education precisely because I went to a comprehensive. My parents would never have taken me to sit a test never mind tutored me. They would never have paid the premium for school uniform or the extra bus fair. I escaped the cycle of deprivation because of a comprehensive education. It would be wrong of me to seek to deny that opportunity to others.

Do fsm kids have spaces kept for them in I is out of interest like the new regulations with grammars?

Most universities offer massive bursaries and contextualised offers. My own university has schemes for both; we are not unusual in this.

They would have the same opportunities academically had they all had excellent education- whether they can afford to take them up is another matter entirely.

I think that that there are many like you, Philoslothy. My children have done so well because they were lucky enough to have a good comprehensive system.

Great I'm glad for you. By contrast dp and I along with all our siblings had a shite comprehensive education.

Why do you assume that a sec mod would have served you better, Lily, or are you just assuming that you would have had the grammar part of the system?

By contrast dp and I along with all our siblings had a shite comprehensive education.

There was plenty of shite grammar education back in the days of the bipartite system. My parents (who went to grammar schools immediately after the '44 act) taught in grammars, comps, secondary moderns and FE colleges and say that the worst teaching they saw was in grammars. You didn't need a PGCE until relatively late in the days of the universal 11+, and the outcomes for people in the B and particular C streams in grammars were shocking.

The claim that grammars work well would have some merit if the educational outcomes in Kent were good. They aren't, by any measure.