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.

Camel, the issue is going to be making Progress8 the measure parents 'see' and value

"Value Add" was gamed with crap like spurious ICT qualifications which was "worth" four GCSEs in no world other than that of gaming the system, or doing early entry followed by teaching AS modules quickly and badly in Y11 to get a C which is worth a shedload of GCSE "equivalence", or removing access to GCSE science and replacing it with entirely internally assessed BTECs which make access to A Levels hard.

Progress8 is going to have to prove itself as an honest measure.

Comp

"You can throw as mic money as you want at schools, if the parents don't support their kids or the school then it's pointless. You can have a class of 8 who are totally disengaged."

It's such a chicken and egg situation, isn't it? If we have schools that cater specifically - or select for, directly or by proxy such as desirable catchment into which motivated parents move - parental engagement, then the 'other' schiools miss out. But until we can improve the outcome for chidlren of disengaged parents such that they become engaged parents for the next generation, then the situation isn't going to change.

Depends on how much you value the ebacc suite of subjects as subjects that every child should have at gcse level.

I'm sure that some schools will game it.

The post-mortem on the 2012 GCSE English non-scandal shows the sort of techniques that will be used to game Progress8.

Lily, given that there are good and less good schools in every sector - I should know, DS was turned into a selective mute by state primary school A (who claimed he would have to go to a special school) and emerged from state primary school B as a confident child with excellent results - what makes you convinced that the badness of your educational experience is likely to be replicated in every comprehensive today?

I mean, I absolutely understand that a traumatic experience in a school can affect your view of that type of school forever, I really do. But have you visited a range of comprehensives where you now live to verify that the same experience is likely for your own children? Or is that just viscerally impossible for you?

(I have no leg to tand on here, Lily - my experience at an educationally excellent all-girls boarding school means that i have not sent my DD to one. I'm just interested)

So you are expecting your children to be in the grammar part, Lily.
You could be in for a shock. I marketed my last house as 'in grammar school catchment' and the buyers then found that 'their very bright son' failed. They appealed, they even got a solicitor on to the case, and he still failed.
I remember a huge shock when a very bright girl moved to Buckinghamshire and she failed. All the staff at her old primary school were incredulous. She ought to have been suited to a super selective.

"Glad you find it so humourous Bert.Being bright in a comprehensive was no picnic for any of us which is why my DC won't be going through the same if I can help it."

What I am finding amusing is that grammar school supporters are just that. Grammar school supporters. They conveniently forget that that means being a secondary modern supporter too. BecUse they assume that their child will make the cut. And they often (obviously not always) have a private option up their sleeves if worst comes to worst. We actually have a private school in our area where the middle class 11+ failures all go.

Just thinking about this part of the OP
" significantly reduces the chances for bright children, who may need a structured and highly 'disciplined' environment to achieve."

IME as a teacher, it is actually the middle to lower attainers who benefit most from a structured and highly disciplined environment.

If you need to hear every word to understand it, to go through everything in a very structured step by step manner for it to make sense, to have constant reinforcement, in a very structured way, of EVERY key concept - all typical of lower or lower middle attainers - then that is when a structured and disciplined environment will really make a difference. Many higher attainers don't need that level of structure - in fact I would say that some are stifled by it and would often benefit from a more informal atmosphere where leaps of creativity are possible.

I'm not sure that many of us would feel that our house brochures absolutely reflect our personal values, Camel....

"If he plays, being young and unskillful
For shekels of silver and gold,
Take his money,my son, praising Allah,
For the kid was ordained to be sold"

I imagine that there is very little difference for middle ability and below pupils educations in 'modern' schools to comprehensive schools (whatever they are).

I would also 'guess' that in comprehensive schools, the 'bright' pupils have their own groups of friends and have little if any contact (outside PE or school) with the less bright.

The middle and lower ability pupils are still frowned upon by the high ability and those from 'culture' capitally advantaged families.

The idea that high ability middle and low ability study together in bliss in comprehensive schools , is a figment of imagination of socialist dogma.

Comprehensive schools may educate children from all abilities and social economic circumstances together. However, comprehensive school educated children still end up in socially divided groups based on income and academic ability.

It is negative to me! I am out to sell my house for as much as possible and there are plenty who want their DC at a grammar and not a comprehensive - as is proved on this thread- but the buyers DC got the sec mod which was not something they had contemplated! I never know why people are so sure of the outcome- I know 2 sets of identical twins on each side of the pass line with nothing to choose between them.

I am hardly going to market my house with ' I am moving because I want better opportunities for my children in a comprehensive area'!

teacherwith2kids has it spot on. I went to a grammar school myself and had a very poor education, leaving with a pretty average clutch of A' levels. For the most part, the teaching was awful and the selection system was obviously weighted to take in as many pupils as possible from the town in which the School actually was. (We were bused in about 20 miles). Fast forward 25 years and I have taught in every type of secondary school myself. By far the worst teaching I have seen has been at the oversubscribed grammar school nearby. Children here mostly go to prep schools or are tutored to ensure that they gain entry to the school of their choice. I have personally also known mothers to rent out flats with their children and claim to be separated from their DH so that they might gain entry to their chosen Grammar. The whole system STINKS!!!

sunshield, the statistics nationwide do not support your imagination!

My understanding is that in wholly segregated systems, such as Kent, the performance of middle ability children in particular is slightly lower than in comprehensive counties of similar economic make-up, and it is this that results in the overall outcome for the whole cohort being slightly lower in segregated counties than in comprehensive counties.

People are particularly hide bound in their thinking. I went to a sec mod and we had the best reputation in town for behaviour. Since I later went to the grammar school I know that it was true.
It was the best behaviour because the sec mod served a very good area and there was another sec mod that was a sink school. The grammar school took across the town and so got a more mixed selection (early 60s when you didn't tutor or prepare much).

It all boils down to parental support and expectations - and it doesn't matter if it is selective,or non selective, the best areas get the best schools. That is what needs to be addressed.

I think it is possible, but slow. I have taught in a school with a very high number of Traveller children. None of their parents attended school, very few were literate, many were scared of even coming in to the school environment.

However, by constant work with the community and their children, we ended up with 100% of school age Traveller children being in school, and many attaining at average levels for their age. Some began to speak of aspirations to be teachers, nurses etc, and girls began to speak of being in school after the age of 12. Yes, it took a generation, but it was a HUGE change in attitude, achieved through consistent hard work and valuing other value systems

Camel,
I think that is true. In those cases, I think it is only by altering catchment areas or admission arrangements to make schools more mixed that a change can be made.

I do wonder how different my life may be now if I had gone to a selective school for secondary as well as sixth form. I didn't even know selective or grammar schools existed when I was in Yr6 but I may well have got in, tutoring or not. I ended up in a small CofE secondary where about 45% of pupils got five A-Cs at GCSE, and being clever or getting good grades were not things to be proud of. I was bullied so badly that I tried to commit suicide and spent half of Yr9 in hospital. Still got three Level 7s at SAT, though.

I did go to a very selective sixth form and it did wonders for my shattered self-confidence, although it was too late to really repair the damage. To this day I struggle with depression, confidence and security issues that all arise from my days being bullied mercilessly for being clever.

I'm in a good place now but I do think if I had gone to my selective sixth form in Year 7, I would be doing 10x better than I am now. What does this mean for my children? Well, that I'll use everything at my disposal to get them into a school where they can achieve their potential without being torn to shreds over it. If that means a grammar, then so be it.