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.

My ds wants to be an actor/comedian/comedy writer. I make him look up the educational background of everyone he ever mentions admiring..........

But that's a spurious argument. If a student was actually capable of getting an A in GCSE Maths then they might well look for something more rewarding than a diploma in Social Care.*

DS2 has an A in GCSE Maths, in fact he has an A in all his GCSEs. He would have been better off doing a BTEC in Health and Social care than the three A levels he has just sat. He is going to uni to do a nursing degree in Sept, he has had to fit in school and work experience in order to get on the course. Had he have done the BTEC the work experience would have been factored in.

It's not as simple as Whore thinks it is.

"Your chances of making it in orchestral music, football, ballet are close to zero: you need talent, money and a massive amount of luck. ."

The fact is that a small number of people do make it big in those careers. If you don't try then you will never know. Certainly children can have fun learning these skills. Certainly there are plenty of teachers of these subjects who earn reasonable money. My son's bog standard comprehensive employs dance, music and PE teachers.

My daughter's violin teacher used to play professional in orchestras. She gave it up to become a violin teacher as being a professional musican did not fit in with having children. I don't get the impression that she regrets not becoming an accountant.

"Most of the people playing in the NYO go on to top universities, but few of them to study music; most of those that do won't end up in music anyway. And that's the NYO, 100 or so children per year. There just aren't the jobs to make it a realistic target unless you are exceptional."

I expect that people who play in the NYO have a lovely time for a couple of years. My son would have like to have auditioned for the National Youth Choir, but there was no way we could have afforded the cost or wanted to the commitment of the residental courses.

There are NOT plenty of 10 and 11 year olds achieving level 6 at KS2 SATs! It'a about 1-2% of children.

I thought the same Virginia although on MN everybody has children who have achieved level 6s at key stage 2. I assumed I was the only person who had average children.

gemauve that's why I mean an actual gift that can go somewhere, especially important if a child isn't going to go anywhere academically. But perhaps if you take the child who's not going to join the royal ballet, England cricket team, best ochestra etc and give them a realistic goal of dance teacher/ sports coach/ music teacher they would be more likely to get the academic skills needed, than in a school where their talent is ignored. I'm not thinking necessarily secondary school teacher if they're not up to it academically/ personality wise. But certainly if my childs only skill was dancing for instance (but not enough to be a pro) I'd prefer her to teach at a local dance school than work zero hours in an unskilled job she hates forever. But I agree only a few make it to the top with a stand alone gift which is why realistically it would need to be limited to those who can use that gift in someway for a productive outcome, which for the vast majority means combining it with something else.

My son's bog standard comprehensive employs dance, music and PE teachers.

All of whom have a relevant degree and a PGCE, which they certainly didn't get by spending all their time dancing / playing the violin / etc. They wouldn't be able to teach in a comprehensive otherwise.

that's why I mean an actual gift that can go somewhere, especially important if a child isn't going to go anywhere academically

Most people who teach music have either a music degree or a qualification from a conservatoire which is A Level entry. If they do it in a school they almost certainly have a music degree followed by a PGCE. Sports coaches usually have Sports Science degrees of various stripes, which are competitive courses to get onto.

But certainly if my childs only skill was dancing for instance (but not enough to be a pro) I'd prefer her to teach at a local dance school than work zero hours in an unskilled job she hates forever.

Most people who can teach effectively have substantially more to their name than skills in the thing they're teaching.

One of the problems with education discussions on Mumsnet is that very few people seem able to grasp the concept of a C at GCSE being an achievement. This means that people are perfectly happy to demand an education system tailored to the top few % - it's easy to disregard the huge majority if subconsciously you don't think they really exist. The "plenty of 10 year olds getting level 6 comment just highlights this

Gemauve

True specialist schools tend to have longer day so that they can fit the basics in. True specialist private schools near me have very good A level results. Clearly their children have not suffered for it. I suspect that a gifted musican or actor is probably able to learn faster than the average child. Maybe there is an arguement for only allowing children with good SAT results to follow a specialist path.

Yes - not just on Mumsnet. The Govt always seems fairly shaky on this, too. Like not appreciating that an average is just that, and depends on their being a percentage below average, as well as above. Particularly prevalent in discussing SAT's and berating schools for not getting their entire cohort a level 4 (or whatever it is.) So demoralising for those who are always going to be below average.

yes, did they not say all children should be average or above?!

Gove said that he wanted all school to be rated good by OFSTED, on the face of it this seems like a sensible statement, after all we all want our children to attend a good school. But to be classed as good for progress students have to make more than the average progress, Gove thought that this made sense.

I often wonder if this is true, Gove is lots of things but stupid is not one of them. I could be wrong though.

John Patten, when he was Education Minister in Maggie Thatcher's government, certainly said that half of the country's children had below average results. Really, he should have known better.

I know many people of varying ages making a career in music. Only one of those people has ever played in an orchestra. One of them occasionally conducts orchestras, another occasionally appears with an orchestra which is playing his music.

I also know a few people making a career out of sport, they are none of them stars but they all make decent money and have fulfilling careers.

to be classed as good for progress students have to make more than the average progress - that is average progress from a few years ago.

It's perfectly (mathematically) possible for all children NOW to make 3 levels of progress which would be better than the 2 levels which WAS average.

OFSTED criteria are the same for all types of school too- which means that it's easier for grammar schools to get outstanding than for secondary moderns, because their kids are generally brighter and generally go up the levels more quickly.

half of the country's children had below average results. Really, he should have known better.

What's wrong with that claim? Suppose there are ten children in a room and they get marks of 10, 20, 80, 85, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90. The mean (which is what most people think of as the "average", although the median is probably more useful) is 73.5, so eight of the ten did better than that, and only two were less than average.

Of course, half will always have less than the median, by definition, but the mean and the median are only the same in symmetrical distributions. There's no particular reason to believe that educational outcomes either are, or even more so should be, symmetrically distributed.

The government don't appear to understand 'average' and that most children will be 'average' (even the children of MNetters!) Grammar schools are not for the average, or even the slightly above average, or those that can pass the exam if drilled long enough and hard enough. I think that grammar schools should take the top 2% , it would then be impossible to hot house the child- it would immediately show up. At the very most it should never take more than the top 10%.
If the average in yr 6 SATs is a level 4 you expect some above and some below and if every single child is supposed to get at least a level 4 ( with the school berated if they don't) then the average would have to go up!

I am enormously proud of my DS who got a C grade at GCSE, he worked very hard to get it, when he is dyslexic and struggled all through school. I am just as proud of him as my DS who got the top grade- they both worked hard for it. The C grade was his passport for an apprenticeship - a very technical one that he excelled in and he is doing very well indeed.
He didn't want to do A'levels , or go to university.

I don't see why it is a pipe dream, BabyGanoush, although sadly it appears to be.
We should be celebrating the skills and talents of all children. Certainly we should celebrate the academic, but that is not best for all children and we are wasting so much talent of those who have so much to offer and yet are seen as ' it good enough' or second class.

We do need our doctors, lawyers, mechanical engineers, chemists, etc etc etc BUT the country wouldn't run without our care assistants for dementia patients, firemen, hairdressers, farmers,etc etc etc (and the engineers who do apprenticeships at 16yrs - not to be muddled with the university graduate engineers but still important!)

We will never get this when people are so sneering about hairdressers as if it is a job for those who can't manage anything else. My hairdresser is amazingly talented. She knows what will suit people, she does a cut that just falls into place when washed and she is a business woman who now has her own salon. What is wrong with this? Why should it be sneered at and we get the idea she should have aimed for university when she loves her job and is very enthusiastic and innovative? I think she has done well and yet when I mentioned pupils choosing a route at 14 yrs this was seen as a poor choice.

They all need good schools. They all want quiet, ordered classrooms and they all deserve it. I hate the idea that somehow the grammar schools and the top sets of the comprehensive should get it but the rest don't matter and have to lump it!

If all schools are good that becomes the new average!

Quiet ordered classrooms can only be achieved when children who are unwilling to conform can either be made to conform, or removed.

John Pattern wasn't talking about just 10 children in a room though. I think he was probably talking about primary schools, but was talking about the whole of England and Wales. You would expect there to be a normal distribution of ability, so half would be below average. Needless to say, he didn't last long, and who remembers him now?

But that's the problem bert. That majority are being catered for in lots of schools, and even in schools that are crap by any standards it's not usually the comprehensive system itself that stops the average child being catered for in the individual school, it's leadership, behavior, teaching, pupils etc. But the top few % are not just failed by those crap schools, but in many cases can be failed by otherwise great schools purely because they are in too small a minority to have their needs equally met. And I don't mean genius children doing university level work y7, just those that fall in the top few %. There's a massive gap in not just level but the speed at which they learn between a child who's say top 2% and top 12%. So even if comprehensives all took in a true mixed selection, that's still only 4 children in a 200 intake. Even if you place only top 10% in a class together theres still too large a range in the speed they learn to provide an equal education to the top few in that class. Whereas if the entire 200 intake is top 5% it's far easier to have groups of the same ability.
The most able children don't have any more right to a better education but they have just as much right to an equal education

I don't see your point VirginiaTonic- why should the top streams get this and not the lower streams?

You would expect there to be a normal distribution of ability,

Why? I would expect it to have a long right tail.

I think that grammar schools should take the top 2% , it would then be impossible to hot house the child

The Birmingham super-selectives do take roughly the top two centiles and there's still endless debate about tutoring.