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.

agree Rash however it is not in a fully comp area. My badly made point was that whilst it may well be the case in Kent, this part of Lincs at least seems to have a better balance in terms of attainment between Grammars and non grammars (to avoid the sec mod term).

Certainly the perception is that whilst getting in a local GS is great, actually the alternatives are pretty good too. One of the reasons we moved here before DS1 went to secondary - irrespective of result, locally here at least, it is not far of being a win:win situation. Anecdote only but at least 20% of DS3's cohort at his primary school who reached the required 11+ attainment level elected not to take up a GS place. The GS here are mainly single sex, so part of the parental / DC choice might be about being in a mixed sex environment perhaps, as well as the fact that the non grammars whilst not at the grammar results level are certainly not too far off in many instances.

It cheeses me off too, Woregasm. We have a sweeping generalisation about comprehensives -as in the rubbish of ' wasn't it widely reported that bright kids weren't being stretched enough and don't do as well as those in grammar?'' and yet when I very quickly find a few that are being stretched and do do as well they are dismissed because they come from a good area- and yet grammar schools cherry pick their pupils and most of them are middle class.
I don't think it fair to compare grammar schools that select with comprehensives from deprived areas and then say they are better! At least compare like with like. You must know that grammar school would take very few children from a deprived background with unsupportive parents.
It all proves it is nothing to do with ability and all to do with background.

Certainly I think the church thing has a bearing. At my DSs school, there are plenty that pass the Kent test and opt instead for a church school.

Add message | Report | Message poster RashDecision Tue 07-Jul-15 20:20:56
ROFL @ all the grammars being in good areas and full of the middle classes. Are you familiar with Thanet and Medway?

I am not an expert in these areas but Chatham boys was put into special measures for poor behaviour and a lack of challenge.

Indeed Philo, that's the one I was thinking of. The idea that grammars are all super duper and in delightful areas is hilarious.

You see I would argue it's usually a combination of ability and background. Natural ability then further polished by a supportive background.

I find it strange, to say the least, that there are between 3,000-4,000 comprehensives in this country, and yet posters can say that a) either they don't stretch their more able pupils, or if they do b) they are selecting by postcode. There must be hundreds which do neither of these things, taking virtually all the children in their local area, serving them well and with children and parents happy with the schools.

As for the poster whose friend went from an inner city comprehensive to a rural grammar and found it much easier - I suspect she would have found the same if she had gone to a rural comprehensive too.

whoregasm similar for my dd, I'm a single parent, no longer fsm but still low income and she's got full fee remission for a selective independent. Which round here is harder than an out of catchment place for a grammar which some parents do with the intention of moving if they get in. Massive long shot but it was always a better shot than the selection by postcode which was never going to give her a chance.
What I find sad though is that amongst the loads of other disappointed bursary/ scholarship kids is that I personally know one who despite the same disadvantages would have got in to pretty much any state grammar if we had them but didn't quite make it to full fee remission. So because we live in our inherently fair comprehensive area she's going to her selected by postcode shite school.

LaVolcan I think in general the comprehensives with the best GCSEs results tend to be in affluent suburbs. This is what is meant by selecting by postcode.

I also think there are millions of parents who are relaxed about which school their children are at and are happy to choose proximity over results etc.

I see nobody has commented on my post citing an anecdotal evidence of my sister.

The suggestion that Philoslothy made that state boarding schools should be available is an excellent one . This would be a potential way for brighty academically focused students to be grouped together with similar focused pupils. This is an option that should be open for bright students from academically and social deprived schools.

Whether a grammar is in a good area or not is irrelevant unless it has a catchment. One of the grammars in my area is in the middle of a very socially deprived area, with lots of social housing and high unemployment. However, since it is highly selective and has no defined catchment, just a first past the post test, it is still full of middle class tutored children.

The 11+ is cited by the schools as being a good predictor of future success. Being middle class and having successful parents is also, by far, the biggest predictor of future success. Take from that what you will.

This though is very unlikely to ever happen, the first reason is down to funding !. The second reason is down to the ideological ban put in place of new selective schools by Labour in 1998. The Sevonoaks Grammar school was seeking to find a way round the ban . This is proving very difficult to overcome despite Kent County Council proving there is a chronic shortage of grammar school places in the west of the county.

This is very sad , no good school whatever its type should be banned from expanding its numbers .

Whoregasm - I really suspect that most posters on MN definitely don't know where good comprehensives are. When the league tables get published if one happens to know an area it's possible to think that yes, this school is doing well and yet it's in an area of deprivation. Take this one for example: Moorside. I know that area; you would be hard pressed to describe it as 'affluent', with the whole area having been hard hit by various recessions over the years.

sunshield Why just bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds? Why do you seem to be more worthy of intervention because you are bright. It would have been wrong to ship me off to a boarding school and leave my siblings at home.

I never understand why the bright child has this special treatment. Why do we miss out the many not so bright children who are are beautifully behaved with a fantastic work ethic? Are they not equally deserving?

I am very much against the Sevenoaks school expanding.

I shall fight any expansion of the grammar school system- it is one thing that really fires me up to get involved in campaigning against.

Mehitabel - would you also be against expanding secondary modern provision in Sevenoaks?

Sevenoaks is the only town of its size in Kent without a grammar school. As op said, there is a severe shortage of grammar places, esp boys places, in the W/NW of the county. So that you have a situation where children pass the test and are either not offered a grammar at all, or one many miles away that is impossible to get to.

All children deserve an equal education. But until a viable alternative is available I see no reason why the brightest should sacrifice their chance just to level it out.
Another point is that for many able kids being top or raw achievement isn't what motivates them, it's the challenge they relish and the competition against peers. Dd got her sats results today, they're very good and they're the best in her small intake, average achieving primary. Because she knew she'd get those results and that she'd score top in her class so there's no satisfaction in it. But when her and my friends ds found an old o level textbook she joyfully shared in great detail every tiny correct answer or detail on how many he beat her by this time. And that's something I want her secondary school to offer. Not the choice between achievements being irrelevant cos it wasn't a challenge, or becoming big headed over an achievement you didn't work for

Why wouldn't a comprehensive offer that? If there was no grammar school then they would all be in the comprehensive- same children.
I am against secondary modern expansion in Sevenoaks. I just tend to say I am anti grammar schools because no one mentions the secondary modern schools. I hear 'Bring back grammar schools' or 'The grammar school system was great' or 'we need more grammar schools' or 'I want my child to go to a grammar school' or 'We should let the present grammar schools extend' . I have ever heard those sentences with secondary modern in place of grammar. I didn't try and sell my house by saying 'it is in the secondary modern area'!
Nearly everyone on here who is pro grammar school wants, and assumes, that their child would get a place. If they think their child wouldn't be stretched at a comprehensive are they thinking they would be stretched at a sec mod? The brightest of children can fail. I don't want to out myself by saying who my friends were in the secondary modern, stlill friends today, what their backgrounds were and what they are doing today but they certainly don't fall into any of the stereotypes that people on here so love.

I came from an area with very high SATs results in year 6 - they all fared very well in the comprehensive - there were lots of them.

No, in reality what happens is that Sevenoaks children travel miles to go to grammar schools. The alternative is an academy with over 2000 pupils and 49% achieving 5 A*-C GCSE.

It's all well and good to say "yah go to a comprehensive", but they don't exist in Kent. Like it or not, we are stuck with a system where the top 25% go to grammar. Except in Sevenoaks, where there is just a secondary modern and a church school with the smallest catchment known to man.

Well if your experience has to speak for all Meh I don't get your beef with others choosing alternative schools.