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.

Why should they have been educated in the same school as me, just to satisfy some misguided belief in equality or fairness.

I think that generally speaking fairness or equally is a good thing to go for.

In my own experience as a child, parent and a teacher I think that if we were going to segregate education we should provide more specialist support for the bottom 15% particularly those who have chaotic homes. I think that is what would have the most societal and personal impact. These are the students who are being failed, these are the students who leave 11 years of compulsory education hardly able to read or add up, unable to fill in an application form or give out the correct change. If anybody needs a different environment it is them and the difference that you could make would literally change or even save lives and I suspect drastically cut crime and help people break the cycle of deprivation. I do think that state boarding schools have a role here. But it won't happen. Most people who think that they are going to get their children into a grammar school vote and therefore governments are more likely to keep them happy. It is the same reason why the present government will take money from the poor but not from pensioners. The average illiterate parent with a child who is constantly in trouble is probably not going to vote and therefore they don't matter.

The research does not fully support what I say, although you can find research that supports most views. The research I am familiar with suggests that mixed ability teaching helps lower ability students, I am not sure it helps the most vulnerable and those at the extreme end of the ability spectrum.

I think that generally speaking fairness or equally is a good thing to go for

Fairness via (equally esteemed) aptitude-dictated specialist provision would be fabulous though.

We now have academies with specialisms but only minimal aptitude testing. Which, let's be honest, is a bit bonkers.

That group is targeted more and has more thrown at it than any other group.

I'd like to see a super selective in each area, taking only the top 2 or 3%. Firstly it's a level it would be harder to hot house a child to, thus more likely to be ability. Secondly it's that end of the most able that most comprehensives don't cater as well for. Thirdly it would still leave a strong group of able kids at comps.
Also no argument from me the least able aren't catered for either. But if we just ignore the most able in state schools, social structure will remain the same with a disproportionate number of the most powerful jobs going to the minority of ex independent pupils.

Top in what?

Maths,reading,writing,science,computing or everything?

They may be targeted but what we are providing does not work Lily and so it pointless and a waste of money. Our stepson is bright, he went though the comprehensive system and got to a top uni. Maybe he would have managed an extra A* if he had gone to the grammar - not my local one but a good one. The impact on his life would have been neglible. I can think of students I have worked with who have that toxic cocktail of low ability, mental health issues and chaotic parenting and we have spent thousands getting nowhere with them. In the process the school has failed to give other students the time that they need, the students have had their own learning disrupted and they have then left with very few qualifications and had to start again. If you leave school as a NEET you are more likely to commit suicide, have an unplanned pregnancy, become involved in crime or have an addiction. Even if you don't care about the individual they could be holding your child back and possibly making you a victim of crime.

Pupil premium is just starting to have an impact.

I do soooooo love a GS thread. You can always rely on the facts never getting in the way of a good narrative.

I'm sure whether it is disingenuity (sp? is that even a real word ) or not but surely to suggest that the grand total of 8 GS in Birmingham constitute a significant bloc within the overall sector is surely taking things a tad far? I will however pass on a wager on Pate's :)

Lurked

Oh, I totally agree about the ss for all subjects, and for them to be available for all, irrespective of where the child lives.

Fairness via (equally esteemed) aptitude-dictated specialist provision would be fabulous though.

You mean like setting? It's certainly a better option than streaming.

lurkedforever. Have you read my 2 postings about Australia's Selective schools which in reality are "Super Selective" . On Page 19.

This might give you some hindsight. The posting is from the Sydney Morning Herald . dated 25 Jan 2015....

The thing that stands out is that large numbers of non "white" middle class children are not attempting the selective high school test in NSW. This links to what is happening in areas such as Kingston Upon Thames, in particular the Tiffin Schools which are seeing larger numbers of asian applicants year on year. However, ouside metropolitan areas , grammar schools are still made up predominantly of white middle class children. This is certainly true of my daughters girls grammar school. This is also evident in Tonbridge where my elder sisters daughters go to school.

On a much more serious note though does anyone on the thread have any insight into why there was no impetus for referendums on GS at a local level when the legislation was available. I know there was one in North Yorkshire that was overwhelmingly defeated, and that in Kent the anti Grammar group failed to get even remotely close to the (quite low) threshold to trigger a vote. Given the Kent system seems to generate a lot of passion I would have thought it would have been a given there of all places? Can anyone shed any light?

Op - why shouldn't they have been educated in the same school as you? They'd have been in the top sets and you'd have been in the middle. It's not at all exceptional for comprehensive pupils to get similar grades.

Um Sun that maybe to less ethnic minority groups living outside of metropolitan areas. Not sure that either Tonbridge Wells or Devon could be described as a melting pot.

I am in Buckinghamshire lilly , but I take your point.

Pupil premium is starting to have a long overdue impact but I am not sure that it is having an impact with the hardest to reach. You are right that it is new. Pupil premium is about income, that often correlates with the hardest to reach but not always. It is not always about ability, but again there is often a correlation.

In my own experience the more able pupil premium students tend to do OK, not surprisingly it is poverty and a chaotic home that often signifies underachievement. A chaotic home with no financial issues can have a similar impact.

You mean like setting? It's certainly a better option than streaming.

No, I mean let's stop getting hung up on a outmoded grammar system. Academic/less academic binary selection is so old fashioned.

Creative aptitudes; linguistic aptitude; technical aptitude etc etc could all be tested for and catered to separately.

lily I'd make the entrance exam harder than the average 11plus to give those with a big disparity between subjects a chance to show it. Then take the overall score same as anywhere else. At that age the majority of able kids have enough residual intelligence to do reasonably well even at their weaker subjects. And of course the timetables and teachers at such a school would have far more freedom to cater to the individuals.
sunshield yes but I know too little about the area and population to comment, but I'd guess from the numbers it's covering a larger population than I'd say made it a good example of how a super selective should work

Creative aptitudes; linguistic aptitude; technical aptitude etc etc could all be tested for and catered to separately.

I'd place money on those aptitudes being closely correlated. Which is the elephant in the room.

I think the problem is that selection of the basis of ability isn't happening anymore it all to do with if your parents can afford to send you private for primary or pay for a tutor.
I went to grammar school but now hardly anyone from the locat primaries are getting in which makes me sad. We don't currently live in an area with grammars so not a issue for my dd.

Pp for able kids is a joke, they see sod all educationally for the extra funding. Very able kids entitled to pp are the minority I know, but the ones that do fit that criteria usually come from supportive homes, so they still make my re than adequate progress. And nobody is going to pull a primary over a y6 pp child who gets level 5's let alone 6 and demand exact accounts. Yes the school may use it for trips, uniform etc but the rest I suspect is ploughed into the budget for educating lower achieving pp kids

Am I the only one here who failed the 11+? My brother did, too. We were FSM kids who didn't get any tutoring or preparation. The first time I saw an 11+ test question was when I sat down for the exam. We did both end up getting good degrees (my brother got a Masters) and good jobs, but both of us went circuitous routes and had to be a bit bloody-minded, unlike those kids who were on the academic production line.

Now I live on the borders of a LA which still has grammar schools (Tiffin, beloved subject of a million MN threads!), and I see the ridiculous efforts that parents go into to get their children in. A number of my dd's classmates are getting intensively tutored already (Y4). The fallback plan is private school. This despite two good comprehensive schools in the area.

I think grammar schools serve a very different social function than they did in the 50s. And the social context has changed, too. I think it's unarguable that they entrench privilege.

My DB failed the 11+ and now ironically is head of Chemistry department at the grammar school that rejected him!