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.

it sounds as if Sevenoaks needs a new school for all. A good new school for all.
My beef is that they don't choose, Lily - the exam chooses and no matter that it is inaccurate and places pupils in the wrong one, they get stuck with that choice.

There are lots of comprehensives that I wouldn't want mine to attend.
A good grammar is obviously better than a poor comprehensive - because it cuts out the 'undesirable' element. They are not better than a good comprehensive where the top end is exactly like being in a grammar school, just as ambitious, hard working, challenging etc etc.
I dislike the fact that all comprehensives are lumped together -and then when I do point out good ones they are sneering dismissed as not counting because of the post code. I am sure that if you compared like with like grammar or comprehensive would make little difference. A comprehensive in Tonbridge Wells would be just as good as one in Marlborough i.e as good as a grammar school.

Sevonoaks has every type of school apart from a grammar ! Public/Private Preps ETC. The town used to have a state boys school and a girls school which have become one. The girls school was very well thought off, the boys school not so much. This was an example that not passing your 11+ did not mean you were going to a poor school.

The headmistress of the "academy" claims to be vehemently anti selection, yet she actively promotes its "grammar" stream at ever opportunity.

I actually think whats she is trying to do is laudable, sunshield. I'm just not sure Sevenoaks is the best place to do it. Geographically its location in the middle of a grammar county, surrounded by some of the best private independents in the country etc. She really wants that top tier, and needs it, if she's going to achieve her aim.

In reality, the top tier are not children that have passed the 11+ though, CamelHump. There are one or two. The majority in the "grammar stream" are those that either failed by a point or two, or did well in a test they set just before school starts in the summer term.

Knole Academy - 49% 5 A - C. Half an hour north in the neighbouring LB Bromley, Hayes co-ed Comprehensive - 82% 5 A - C. This is what happens when you cream off the GS stream. (And Bromley does have 2 Superselectives tho' many come from out-borough.) I don't think that Sevenoaks is any less leafy than Bromley.

I'm more concerned about the fate of non-GS children in areas like Folkestone where the modern schools struggle to keep up their numbers.

My understanding of it Camel, is that if you pass the 11+ you are guaranteed a place in it for your school life there. Everyone else can move in and out of it each year. Supposedly. Not sure how provision varies if you aren't in it, and therefore if you are receiving adequate input to get you into it.

Also not sure about the idea of potentially leaving it each year and the potential stress this might bring.

49% A*-C w. Eng and maths isn't bad when you only have 14% high achievers.

No, indeed - yet it's been dismissed as a poor alternative, upthread.

I'm honestly not sneering mehitabel but in many of the links you posted the comps were in affluent suburbs. So their children are selected on the ability of their parents to afford homes in those affluent suburbs. In much the same way that grammar schools tend to select children based on the ability of their parents to pass on (possibly) academic DNA and lots of educational input e.g. they are educated enough themselves to help their child prepare for the 11+. Or they can afford to pay for professional tutoring or the Bond books etc.

Sorry, meant to add neither method of selection is 'fair'.

And both are totally unnecessary. There is no need for selection.

Given the state can't wave a wand and abolish the difference between rich and poor, the least it can do is not make it worse.

"Also not sure about the idea of potentially leaving it each year and the potential stress this might bring."

In most comprehensives setting in individual subjects is reviewed at least once a term. The threat of being moved down a set keeps children on their toes. Why is it such a bad thing to move under performing children to a lower stream? Surely its utterly miserable being in a class that is too hard for them. If you don't move a child down then how can move a more deserving child up a set?

"Also not sure about the idea of potentially leaving it each year and the potential stress this might bring."

That's what setting means. It happens in grammar schools too.

Setting is done in individual subjects though, isn't it? The grammar stream is all subjects, and very public.

49% A-C isn't good*, though is it? It's hardly leafy comprehensive standards.

I think only 49% is pretty poor. It means that just over HALF of the pupils aren't getting even a semi decent clutch of GCSEs.

And you don't know how many of those 49% mainly got Cs either. A grade C at GCSE is nothing to write home about. Especially if they only had 5 GCSE subjects to revise for.

The girls school that the "academy" replaced always did better than 49% A-C.

However, what i think goes on in Sevonoaks is that you have a prosperous town that is surronded by grammar schools and private schools. The academy is a "Comprehensive" because of there being no grammar in the town. However, i suspect a large number of the towns children are being educated privately if not at the grammar schools. This is similar to what happens in Knutsford in Cheshire which is demographically similar to Sevonoaks. Cheshire East is a comprehensive area yet very large number of pupils in Knutsford and surrounding areas go to Altrincham grammars or are educated privately. The result is that Knutsford Academy located in a town with £3-5 Million pound houses only gets 58% GCSE similar statistics to Knowle Academy.

"49% A*-C isn't good, though is it? It's hardly leafy comprehensive standards."

But a "leafy comprehensive" is going to have rqther more than 14% high achievers in it's cohort..........

"And you don't know how many of those 49% mainly got Cs either. A grade C at GCSE is nothing to write home about. Especially if they only had 5 GCSE subjects to revise for."

A C is bloody fantastic for some children. And the 5 is just a measure- most, if not all will have done more than 5 GCSEs

I think only 49% is pretty poor. It means that just over HALF of the pupils aren't getting even a semi decent clutch of GCSEs.

In the days of the full 11+, less than 20% of population even took O Levels. Nostalgics for the past handily forget that.

And you don't know how many of those 49% mainly got Cs either. A grade C at GCSE is nothing to write home about. Especially if they only had 5 GCSE subjects to revise for.

Very very few students will sit 5 GCSES. If those students manage 5 C grades they have probably done well.

A grade C is something to write home about for some students.