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 have a friend who moved from a pretty rough city comp to a rural grammar and she absolutely loves it, and feels that for the first time in 10 years she can actually 'teach'.

But I also have a friend who moved from a rough city comp to a grammar and was underwhelmed and bored after 3 years. She's now moved to a large independent/boarding school and is much happier.

And I wouldn't necessarily agree that the grammars always have the very best teachers. I would guess that teaching at a grammar is often a bit of a sinecure. You have pupils who are above average academically, usually with a lot of positive parental support etc. I think that statistically there are lower incidents of violence or very bad behaviour in grammars.

So I would say that to be an outstanding teacher at a rough city comp is harder than to be an outstanding teacher at a grammar.

Bracknell 5 students to Oxford last year

noble - of course there are crap grammars! Certainly in Kent I know of one that had an unsatisfactory or whatever it's called Ofsted.

I think the cream of the crop talking about pupils is a bit mean. There could be many reasons that children that get into grammar aren't performing. It could be crap teaching or management. It could also be mental health issues, problems with home life, kids that are over tutored to get in and shouldn't really be there etc etc.

A level results at Lincoln

Lincoln,Winchester and Berkshire,yes really challenging and affordable areas.

Sixth form [[http://www.wymondhamcollege.org/Sixth-Form Wymondham College.

I am not going to go on and on trawling web sites, but these pupils would not have done any better in the grammar school and at least they had time to develop - they were not arbitrarily sorted by an unfair exam at 10/11yrs old.

link Wymondham.

Wymondham is a boarding school in Norfolk. All of those links will select by money to some degree as they're all in affluent areas.

I think you are missing the point Lily you told me that it was reported that comprehensives didn't stretch their pupils. You were quite happy to include all Comprehensives in that.

Are you telling me that all the grammar schools are in challenging and affordable areas ?!

Day pupils- fully comprehensive.

And some boarders - same as Keswick.

I think it was Ofsted who highlighted it,you best take it up with them.

It really doesn't matter where these schools are - there are masses of them - it would take me days to get all the links and yet people insist on saying that you need a grammar school for results and good behaviour.
I wouldn't mind if the grammar schools were serving the rough areas and were full of the bright, underprivileged children but they are not. They are in good areas, and full of the middle classes,
and then you discount my schools as not counting! We should at least have like for like. Most people here seem to be comparing a comprehensive in The worst part of Manchester as representing all comprehensives! I am addressing the balance.

Mehitabel

Westgate not too scruffy either. Or Thornden.

The comp system seems do well in this area, never heard anyone lamenting the lack of grammars.

It would be easier to pull teeth than get people to admit that there are good comprehensives!
They are all dismissed as 'being in good areas' and yet we haven't dismissed grammars as ' being in good areas'- and many are.

Your prime argument against grammars is the lack of access and thus fairness (in your view)to PP kids.I'm simply pointing out that such kids will find access to schools like those in your link actually more difficult due to the selection by wealth but you clearly like to gloss over that fact. Selection by wealth in comps is a far bigger problem than a few paltry grammars according to Sutton.

I don't dispute lots of comprehensives are great. But from my point of view then as long as lots aren't, and again usually the best ones are selection by post code, then it's hypocritical to say selection by ability is unfair and a fully comprehensive system is best.
I hate the fact that a bright fsm child has less chance of a grammar place than an equally bright middle class child, but at least with academic selection the super bright fsm child would still get a place over the bright middle class child. But a fsm child could be the next Einstein and not stand a chance if it's selection by postcode for the good comprehensives

ROFL @ all the grammars being in good areas and full of the middle classes. Are you familiar with Thanet and Medway?

What type of schools do bright or hardworking pupils who go to such schools in Salford or Hull deserve.

My sister has told me some very upsetting stories, of how moderately bright students have been spat on punched and ridiculed , just for asking for extra Maths homework.

Posters on here can wax lyrical about how good Southern comprehensive schools are in getting their brightest top grades and into the best universities .
There are lots of schools that when they finish at 2.30 the police wait ouside the school, until all the pupils have left the area. This is pretty normal where my sister teaches and totally out of kilter with the experiences of the posters on here.

meh William Farr is not a comprehensive in the true sense of the word. It is located within a Grammar School part of Lincolnshire, and so really I suppose should be tagged as a secondary modern.

That is not to in anyway to downplay its excellent results, rather it begs the question how in that part of Lincolnshire, North Kesteven, certainly not an affluent area with a largely agriculture based economy and average wages below the national average, and even lower house prices, can Grammar Schools (it has 2, one with certainly results way higher than WF) seemingly co-exist with non grammars to no-ones apparent detriment. And with results higher than the apparent educational nirvana that is Hampshire, and presumably a lot better than the much maligned Kent.

The combined local GCSE performance is here www.research-lincs.org.uk/jsna-Educational-Attainment-KS4.aspx

That said the Hants results www3.hants.gov.uk/hcc_-education_data_for_dait_website-2014_final-_ks4.pdf show some significant variation when broken down to its constituent districts. Winchester's relatively poor showing for example genuinely surprised me.

I think people hedge their bets with grammar and 'assume' there will be good results and good behaviour.

Say what you will, most people hear 'grammar school' and assume academically able children with high standards of behaviour and very few discipline issues.

This might be a lazy assumption. It might be true in many cases. It might be incorrect in a few cases. But I do think that grammar schools are painted with a broad brush in the same way that 'comps' are.

And I'm sure it's very frustrating when you 'know' your comprehensive is filled with plenty of academically able, well behaved children. But you're aware that when people hear 'comp' they give it a negative association. This is unfair and would cheese me off too.

ignore the Winchester comment, looking at the wrong column

Agree with you about selection by postcode lurker

One of DD's new friends at her grammar is from a single parent family, her Mum only working part time and claiming benefits. Not a cat in hell's chance this Mum could afford to move into the catchment of the 'nice' comp.

Living where she does, the secondary schools in town are grim. As it stands, she passed the 11+ and is at the grammar and is one of the best mathematicians in her year.

Granted, she's possibly the exception rather than the rule but it's still great

and the wrong map too, as WF is just north, not south of Lincoln. and posting not a great mix :) Desperately trying to work out which Lincs district William Farr actually is in, possibly West Lindsey, which to be fair to me does have a similar socio economic profile to North Kesteven, and also has a number of GS.

William Farr is a church school though, and certainly from Wiki hardly seems to be a "standard secondary modern".