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.

Even if I put aside my own negative experience of comprehensive and judge it purely on good ones with good teaching, there isn't a sufficient peer group to maximise the potential of the most able in the same way the potential of the rest of the ability range is. A child only needs to be top 1% (so not genius level) and a top set class aimed at say top 15% isn't going to meet their needs, and no education budget will provide separate teaching for what in an average intake comp will be only a few children. Yes those kids will still get top results, but apart from the boredom it teaches them nothing about work ethics which I'd argue is more important in life than the difference between an a and an a*, and yet good teachers still strive to make that difference in grades. Not a dig at teachers at all, but the current system doesn't seem to offer much to the child who doesn't need to work for those grades

Agree re parental attitudes, although no idea how you change that without allowing teachers more discretion to encourage kids with uninvolved parents, and as already said that's a minefield.

The top groups are large in a good comprehensive. Pupils are in the local paper if they get top results and go to Oxbridge- they are quite happy with this- they are the winners.
As I said earlier my DS did a science subject at a RG university and he was nothing outstanding in his comprehensive. He didn't get invited on any gifted and talented things because there were plenty above him.
If there are no grammar schools then nearly everyone who would have been in one is at the comprehensive- particularly if it has a really good reputation and you don't need to think of private. You have just as many bright ones in your peer group as you would have in a grammar school.

Is there actually any point debating the merits or otherwise of grammars? There isn't going to be any major expansion of grammars and the grammars that there are aren't going to go in a hurry because parents local to grammars mostly love them. I'd have thought there was far more point concentrating on how to ensure real access to the remaining ones.

Molio,

There is no equitable way of ensuring access to the remaining grammars.

philoslothy do you think this was solely down to the school itself, or down to your parents' support of education, good role-modelling and time spent with you?

I would argue that there will have been some kids in that school whose families were chaotic, unsupportive and with low or absent expectations of success and that your family has more to do with your success than the actual school. I know there are exceptions.

My family have contributed nothing to my success, they deliberately held me back and tried to prevent me doing A levels never mind a degree. They were usually indulging in their latest addiction which they had discovered in prison.

I know that most mumsnetters spend their lives trying to avoid families like mine but just at a practical level a good comprehensive education has prevented me from robbing your house. In addition the taxpayer has saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds. I have six children who have not been blighted by abuse, addiction, poverty and low aspirations. My school is completely responsible for that change, not my family.

In an ideal world I would have been taken into care and I suspect that today I would be. However the outcomes for children in care are awful. In the world that we live in the best option would have been a state boarding school. Probably again a lot cheaper than placing me and all my siblings into the care system.

The top groups are large in a good comprehensive.

I was lucky to go to a comp which had 2000 pupils, therefore decent sized top groups which were on a par with, or probably better than, similar groups in small grammars. However, a lot of parents worry about schools of that size, so you have the nonsense of comprehensives of 600 pupils. Those are always going to struggle to run good A*-focussed top groups, and their sixth forms are going to be a disaster area for anything other than mainest of mainstream subjects.

Sunshield- that's not on. Have reported.

Not so Gemauve - my town has three Comprehensives of 800-900 ish - but the A level provision is offered on a consortium basis between the three, so a full spread of subjects can be offered. They all do English, History etc. but it does mean that they can cover a range of History options, and can also offer subjects like Further Maths.

Why shouldn't Philoslothy be proud of how her Comprehensive helped her achieve? Is it because she is not boasting that it was a Grammar School education which enabled her to get on?

SORRY ! I was trying to be respectful .

Consortia are operated around here, too. The outcomes are worrying, and parents "in the know" get their kids out (those two facts may well be related, of course). The commuting's a problem, for a start off.

No offence was meant !. I just made a mistake, ...

The model for 6th forms round here is that only a subset of the schools have 6th forms, and admission is non-geographical, so students can apply to those who do the best combination of A-levels for them.

I did have a previous similar themed username which I have never really tried to hide. I changed because I posted some things about my son and wanted to move on from that. I didn't want to just be known as that lady with the out of control son. I then posted about my son again under this user name and have considered changing again or leaving.

It is not that impressive, much of it is luck to be honest. Being in the right place at the right time. I would never ever be arrogant enough to say that I personally beat the odds.

so students can apply to those who do the best combination of A-levels for them.

That model normally results in the minority subjects have non-viable groups. How many of those schools offer A Level Music?

I also also don't that for my age I am that unusual. My husband has a similarish background. Social mobility was more of a reality 20, 30 years ago. I think it is much harder now. If I was 19 today I would not be going to university.

I'm not aware of our Consortium being a problem locally results wise. As far as commuting goes, two of the schools are in nearly adjacent roads, half a mile apart, and the total distance between the two furthest schools is only a mile, so within walking distance.

Then with a geography like that, it's almost like a split-site single school.

That is not universally true.

Of the 3 schools (out of 6) which have 6th forms, I think all of them? Will check - we are not quite at that stage yet. All are 1000 pupil plus schools, with disproportionately large 6th forms.

If I was 19 today I would not be going to university.

Why on earth not? On any measure, access to university from deprivation (measured by FSM, parental education, parental income, household income, you name it) is better than it ever was.

Lovely to have such a positive story, Philoslothy , and to know that some comprehensives are doing their job properly and giving everyone opportunities, if they are willing to take them.
If someone has already had a poor deal from birth it seems very unfair to carry that on at 10/11 yrs by using selection, in competition with those who have had every advantage since birth.