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.

Exactly. Many 16 yr olds do engineering apprenticeships in UK. They need Cs at GCSEs as a basic entry. They don't use the title - but I don't think they do if they are qualified to degree level.

It has has just been shown on here. Obviously a degree in engineering is OK but if you happen to be an unacademic 16 yr old who has an interest in how things work and is good at practicalities it is looked down upon because to be valued you need maths and sciences at A'level and to have a degree and give yourself a title!

Grammar school for me isn't about my dd receiving the best education. I am pretty sure after looking around the comprehensives in our area that they could very well provide her with excellent teachers and facilities to do well. However, after seeing the difference in behaviour of pupils in the two systems, there is no question that the shiny new comprehensives with their outstanding teachers cannot provide the learning environment that the shabby dilapidated grammar can, simply because the pupils' attitudes are different. The minority of disruptive and unengaged pupils permeates the whole comprehensive school system, disadvantaging so many of the other pupils. Grammar is a way of avoiding this.

I always have a wry smile at those who assume that the grammar school has better behaviour.

The problem comes from an aim to have 50% at university. We do not need this.

Virginia I have to agree with you and it's one of the main reasons we wanted our DD at a grammar. I'm pretty sure she would have done well academically at our local secondary school, but I am sure that she will do better academically at her grammar.

I have experience of our local secondary and our grammar and there's no denying that the standards of behaviour are different (though I accept this might be the exception rather than the rule).

The actual learning environment and general atmosphere is different too.

Our local secondary is a very good bona fides comp, by the way, with a very large catchment area and only a handful of pupils in our local area bother going to the grammar instead.

But it is different learning environment to the grammar and wasn't what we wanted for our DD.

The problem comes from an aim to have 50% at university. We do not need this.

Precisely the same thing was said in the 1950s, except of "5%". You're taking a fifty year bet on this country's needs: how well do you think this country would be doing today if instead of 15% of people born in the 1960s going to university, only 4% had done so (ie, if the Robbins Report hadn't happened)?

I always have a wry smile at those who assume that the grammar school has better behaviour.

Why do you call it an assumption? The poster you were responding to went and saw the behaviour before she made her choice. I attended a non-selective school and then a selective school and my god, the behaviour was worlds apart.

Taking vocational qualifications at y10 or so will continue to be looked down on as long as some schools continue to use them for dumping any kid that struggles. All the courses individually are fine, but if you railroad kids into several of them, who don't have any interest in that subject just to give them subjects to do then they will become known as lesser subjects.

On mixed ability teaching I believe research shows it doesn't actually benefit the most able. And certainly my own experience is the same. The only reason I want selective education for my child is because I want her to be taught with her peers at a speed and level that's in her interests. And subject choices that she wants to pursue. Also getting a top grade means nothing to her, it's the challenge and joy of doing it and learning. And I don't want her to get to 18 like I did with the attitude that educational environments are boring

I know my children inside out. I am currently looking around colleges for my dd. As she is at school I have been around a lot on my own. Some of them I have dismissed as although they have outstanding reputations and she would easily get into them the teaching methods is just not for her. She has then come with me on a second viewing just to see what the college is like and to get her own opinion. And without me saying anything has come to exactly the same conclusion on her own as I thought she would say.

I have noticed it in her peer group, parents looking at the reputation of the college and not at their dcs personality and ability. I think all children can flourish but as parents we must put aside what we aspire for our dc but look at our dc and encourage what they themselves aspire to be. I probably am biased in that my dm insisted I should learn languages, I was made to do French, German, Latin and Mandarin. I failed everything including English which I was made to sit my English Language and English Literature O level 7 time to which the best mark I achieved was a U. By insisting that this was the way forward for me I missed out on what I really would have liked to have trained as. I would have loved to have gone to the secondary modern as opposed to the academic school I was made to go to. The secondary modern seemed to have a far wider access to more interesting careers that I was probably more suited to.

I have spent time both in our local comp and DD's grammar. I have also spent time with both sets of pupils outside of school through various sports groups.

The standard of behaviour overall is very different.

I went to a sec mod and a grammar and the behaviour was way better at the sec mod. Not worlds apart but much better at the sec mod. Grammar school pupils are not going to be seen to be misbehaving- they are too clever for that. The only class that I refused to teach as a supply teacher was a very bright one who made life hell- precisely because they knew how to do it and then look totally innocent. Other supply teachers found the same and once I put my foot down about it with the Head she sorted them out and I went back. It it took me 20 minutes to list all the strategies they used and say that I knew what they were up to and it was to stop.
Anyone coming into my lesson with them before it was sorted would have seen a well behaved class and wouldn't have had a clue what was below the surface.
I was an adult and had the choice of not going + a supportive Head who knew me. I would have hated to be a child that they used that treatment on- it was so subtle.

The only girl that I know who was so badly bullied that she went home at lunch times was a girl's grammar school.

It is not the ability of the child- it is the background of the child. In a grammar you are more likely to have a 'good' background.

It is not the ability of the child- it is the background of the child. In a grammar you are more likely to have a 'good' background.

So if you very bright but are deemed to not come from a "good" background then you do not get in. So nothing has changed in the last 40 years.

I am saddened at the lack of knowledge about the qualifications an Engineer needs. It's not possible to qualify as a Chartered Engineer until you are about 28 at the earliest. My DS is a Chartered Engineer - he has two degrees, at undergraduate and Masters level (some go straight for a Masters), followed by registering as a student Chartered engineer, then taking a prescribed course of further study, plus some years of relevant practical experience.

Oh and BTW - he went to a comprehensive (we are not in a GS area thankfully) - just a 'bog standard' one - not one which pretended it was a Grammar School.

I don't know any comprehensives that don't set for subjects and then it is no different from a grammar.
I don't see why those of lower ability have to put up with disruption either.

My post about engineers was totally misunderstood- which shows the snobbery.
My point was that we need more engineers- fact.
People seemed to imagine I was listing unskilled jobs.

Other fact- engineering is a wide range and as well as graduate level DCs can do an engineering apprenticeship at 16 yrs - fact.

It is not the ability of the child- it is the background of the child. In a grammar you are more likely to have a 'good' background.

And therefore have 'better' behaviour. It isn't rocket science. Equally it isn't applicable in ALL situations EVERYWHERE.

We have a selective grammar school near us. It is one of the top ten in the country.

I know a child counsellor who says that almost 50% of her child clients go there and are so stressed by the demands on the, to achieve, and simply cannot cope.

We have 2 comps near us, which many people (including teachers) think are better than the grammar. These two schools are good enough that people buy holiday homes in order to have the 'right' address to get their children in.

We also have quite a few seriously awful comps.

Mehitabel6

I don't think it always depends on the child's background tbh.
You can have a brilliant upbringing and lots of support, help and extra tuition but if you don't have the intelligence you won't pass the test.

My none bio parents ss and LA all worked tirelessly to get me some educational success, but it wasn't to be. My genes dictated I was dim, very slow with several learning difficulties.

We didn't live in a grammar school area but under no circumstances would I have passed the test, in fact having looked at papers recently I know I couldn't now. My IQ is 68, not something people would usually shout about, but you are what you are.

My Dad by the way was an Engineer, he worked at Rolls Royce/ Vickers and designed the bits for the airplane engines, he won competitions for Maths.
I have a C&G level 2 maths despite all his and schools best efforts.

You can have a brilliant upbringing and lots of support, help and extra tuition but if you don't have the intelligence you won't pass the test.

But do you not see how a child with buckets of intelligence from a poor family is at a disadvantage from not being tutored, or having parents with the time and knowledge to help them study, or the support to reach their full potential?

The bulk of children who do well at the grammar near us are those who had private primary education, and thus from school backgrounds where good behaviour is instilled in them (I had private primary education).

TBH I think private primary education is far more important than secondary and would have sent dd with no qualms at all if we had had the money.

There is likely to be less bad behaviour in the top two sets of a comprehnsive or in a grammar school than in a secondary modern. Because there are likely to be fewer challenging children. Not sure anyone's suggested otherwise, have they?