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.

I would like true specialist schools. There are children who cannot get a bursary to a specialist school, but whose parents won't pay. My son would have loved to have been a chorister at a cathedral school, but finding 8k a year would have been unfair on his sister. She would have no benefit for the sacrifices we would have to make as a family. Families who can afford fees for one child will often send all their children to state schools rather than favour one child.

It has been proven to work with Music, Dance and Sport

FSVO proven. The number of people who end up as, say, professional musicians from education at Chethams is alarmingly low, and the impact on those that don't make it can be quite severe.

so why not Maths, Computers, Science, History etc.

Because selecting at 11 based on facility in one subject and then focussing education on that subject is even worse than the grammar system. It plays to the "child prodigy" meme, which is appealing to the Daily Mail but has almost no traction outside that. Ever wonder what happens to all those "I took A Level Maths at 6" children and what amazing success they have? Aside from JG Ballard short stories ("The Comsat Angels") the usual answer is "not much".

For what it's worth, Ruth Lawrence ended up as a mainstream maths researcher, just like thousands of others. She did, however, have her childhood destroyed.

It would be bad to have specialist schools that focus on one gift/ talent and pretty much ignore the rest, but done properly it could work. Provided the other subjects were taught well too, no reason a child can't have what is basically an allround education but also have an appropriate level of teaching in their gift, whatever that is.
Because basically many of us do that to an extent now anyway, given any choice most of us pick a school that we feel suits our individual child. Except at the moment there's massive competition for the places/ bursaries etc if the education you feel is best suited isn't provided by your catchment area state non selective and I'm sure lots of deserving kids don't get them.
Also well done morethan

I agree the 11+ is quite a blunt tool. But it can't be that blunt because the vast majority of pupils go on to garner GCSE and A Level grades that are well above the national average.

Same with tutoring. It might give an unfair advantage in terms of timing and technique. But then once at a grammar school the same child will typically go on to get GCSE and A level grades which are again well above the national average without requiring any further tutoring.

Gemauve

it isn't the impression we have got and nor does that tie in with their leavers destinations regularly published. Although in fairness it is only a school not a college or uni and obviously some will change their minds during their childhood.
I agree, some people will have regrets over what they perceive as a missed childhood, but for each of these there are those who are perfectly suited to such an environment.
As such schools would be for the few not the masses it isn't going to harm anybody else's education.

" agree the 11+ is quite a blunt tool. But it can't be that blunt because the vast majority of pupils go on to garner GCSE and A Level grades that are well above the national average."

But no more above the national average than the top set of a comprehensive. Or the minute top top set of some secondary moderns.

Apologies gemauve

I didn't mean to sound complacent as I appreciate there are several issues we need to be aware of with dd specializing so young.

Thanks Lurked, she has worked hard and is getting so excited now. Not sure I share her enthusiasm but you have to do what's right for them.

In terms of academic subjects I'm not saying we are right but our opinion is if she gains enough GCSE's to gain a place at a college or uni if that is her choice then she'll be fine. They only take 8 or 9 GCSE's 3 or 4 AS and 2 or 3 A2 depending on their chosen route.

I suppose a school that specialised in an academic subject would offer fewer extra curricular or vocational courses.

I agree that even in state schools such as where we live where they are all pretty much the same, parents will choose the best fit school that offers certain subjects their child would enjoy.
The school nearest to us wasn't outstanding in fact was satisfactory on last report, but it was the only one in the borough that offered GCSE's in Psychology and Latin. Under performing or not people sent their dc there for those subjects.

I agree with BertrandRussell. The top sets of comprehensives do equally well -and hoards of 'failures' end up with top grades despite having to overcome the handicap doled out to them aged 10/11yrs.

This whole subject gets massive time on MN when the number of grammar school is negligible. Anyone would think that 90% of parents have access to them and not that 90% don't have access! They are completely irrelevant to most parents and pupils.

One thing is for sure, morethan , you won't get offered Latin at a sec mod- that door is closed aged 11yrs- apparently they couldn't cope with it! (Without anyone finding out if they could).

If all children who get into the grammar are tutored to pass, then I don't get the argument that they will struggle when they get there. This would only be the case if the tutored children were in the minority? Which seems to not be the case.

I agree the 11+ is quite a blunt tool. But it can't be that blunt because the vast majority of pupils go on to garner GCSE and A Level grades that are well above the national average.

In terms of predicting academic achievement at age 16 from age 11, the best tests would put 22% of kids in the wrong school. That's very blunt.

The 11+ and the whole selective education system is excellent at selecting for parental income and education levels, so the system is good at selecting out pesky FSM kids and keeping in ones who can afford tutoring and are interested in education. No surprise that they go on to get good gcse results, but then they'd have done fine in a comp too, kids of those parents usually do.

But the comps in pricey, leafy suburbs are equally as good at selecting pupils based on parental income and ergo parental educational levels too.

Don't the best teachers usually opt for the Grammar school given the choice? If you want a great career path working for Tiffins etc looks good on the CV. Isn't that the elephant in the room? This has certainly been my experience, not always, but in general.

Yes, and comps in leafy suburbs tend to get good results too.

I thought you you were deriding comp pupils as grunting, bovine epsilons, incapable of eye contact last week Whore?

Or is that just your local comp?

Add message | Report | Message poster Hamishbear Tue 07-Jul-15 16:37:26
Don't the best teachers usually opt for the Grammar school given the choice? If you want a great career path working for Tiffins etc looks good on the CV. Isn't that the elephant in the room? This has certainly been my experience, not always, but in general.

It must vary by area but locally if you are a talented teacher you tend to be in one of the comprehensives/ secondary moderns on the edge of the grammar system or you teach over the border. Around here the grammars are packed with mediocre teachers or teachers who want less to do. I have also noticed that tend to employ PGCE students that a comprehensive would not employ. I can see that it might be different in some of the more famous grammars.

How do you know all that about the teacher's talents Philoslothy?

I would say that there are definitely some teachers who want an easy ride in a grammar school. There are definitely some very poor ones- I know of friends who had children in grammar schools who complained about them.
Last time I commented on this I was totally misunderstood so I will try to make it clearer. Grammar schools are so few to be negligible and so the best teachers don't opt for them - they don't live within commuting distance of one. Maybe some people can't understand it but some teachers love teaching in a 'rough' area and really want to make a difference, have a challenge etc.
Personally, I think that being an excellent teacher in a tough school is miles better than having a grammar school on your CV.

Miles better on your CV that is.

Add message | Report | Message poster VirginiaTonic Tue 07-Jul-15 16:49:12
How do you know all that about the teacher's talents Philoslothy?

Until recently I have been involved in the training and recruitment of teaching staff. I have also spent time working in/ with grammar schools. I have worked in a variety of schools . I have also had 4 children experience both sectors between them. I also have lots of friends who are teachers in both sectors ( and the independent sector) and we often discuss our experiences. I am quite happy to accept that our local grammar schools seem to be particularly poor.

Going back to a few threads ago about "Eysenck's" theory that culture identity links to intelligence and likelihood to commit social disorder.

I would like to know what he would make of my DD number 2 who was adopted by me when she was 4 and whose birth mother and family are druggie's drunkards and criminals and culturally "Romany" . The rest of DD2s family have never set foot in a school. DD2 has proved all of his theories to be rubbish.

DD2 should never have passed for grammar school based on "Eysenck's" findings , yet she passed near the top of the year . This brings his ideas in to dispute and proves its the family background and environment that decides what opportunities are available.

I wish DD1 worked half as much as no 2 , no 1 gets away with doing 1 hour a night homework in year 9 (was 45 minutes) posted about that on a previous thread . She is constantly "laughing" at DD2 year 8 for the amount of work she does !.

I thought i should post this because it shows that children who come from "disadvantaged" backgrounds can make it to grammar, provided there is a solid and focused support network.

Er, sunshield, outside the world of racists, much of Eysenck's work (I'm not entirely clear why you feel the need for quotes around someone's name) is largely discredited for exactly the reasons you outline. IQ testing is itself problematic, and racial explanations of it are piling pseudo-science on quasi-science. Eysenck's PhD supervisor was Cyril Burt, and one might argue that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree; even if you assume that Burt's dishonesty didn't rub off on his students, much of his mindset clearly did.

You appear to have wrestled a straw man to the ground and given it a good beating, but it is a straw man. You don't need to provide counter-arguments to discredited hypotheses.

Thank you Gemauve . Occasionally i make (more often than not) punctuation mistakes , reasons outlined in previous threads..