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 agree that there is an argument for top 2% schools. I don't personally agree with it, but I understand it. But that's not what most people mean when they talk about grammar schools.

I think the term average becomes a relative term, it relates to your own circumstances and the people you know or socialize with.

It is therefore not surprising that on a site , that has many posters way above average intelligence or at least with high academic qualifications , that ideas of what average is out of sync with reality !.

I agree that a C grade is an achievement for many kids. However, we are kidding the children concerned, if we let them believe that it is more than the basic "minimum" required today.

Philoslothy. What is required to achieve a G in English ?.

A G grade in GCSE English cannot be a requisite standard to hold down a job .
I doubt someone with a G grade in English could fill in an application form for a job or college course.

I agree that there is an argument for top 2% schools. I don't personally agree with it, but I understand it. But that's not what most people mean when they talk about grammar schools.

Outside Kent, Buckinghamshire and the Wirral it's precisely what people mean by grammar schools. 2% is roughly the level most super-selectives end up selecting at, and outside those three authorities all grammars are super-selectives.

When people talk about "bring back grammars" they're talking about Kent-style 20% grammars, but their perspective of what that means is distorted by the fact that if they're under fifty-five, they'll have had no dealings with anything other than super-selectives.

Mehitabel6, my pint wasn't that lower streams don't deserve quiet ordered classrooms, but that they are harder to achieve when they contain children who are not pre-disposed to conform to this environment, either through their ability, needs or social conditioning.

Gemauve there were old style Grammars until at least 1978 in some areas. So a bit younger than 55 to have had dealings with them (my own school converted from a standard old style Grammar to a comp the year I went there - we were the first comp year and for a good chunk of my time there the teachers carried on as they aways had - old style grammar).

Gemauve there were old style Grammars until at least 1978 in some areas.

OK, 45. Very few parents of children now entering secondary school will themselves have attended old-style grammars.

mehitabel nothing sneery about either hairdressers or anyone studying it. Or any vocational course. But I reserve the right to sneer at any school leadership/ethos that believes a child struggling academially should be shoehorned onto as many vocational courses as possible (gcse or otherwise) regardless of whether that child has a genuine interest/ ability for that vocation just to bump up the schools results. Oooh aren't we great, look what % of kids got 5 GCSEs or equivalent. Don't look too close though. Whereas a school that allows a child that will benefit to take one or two relevant to them vocational subjects, alongside support to get the best basic academic GCSE grades they can ( even of that's a few f's instead of g's) should never be sneered at
Also agreed on the 2%.

You missed Trafford which as over 30% of its pupils educated in grammar schools, yet achieves very well with its non selective.

Has over 30% of its pupils. . My Cousin who lives in Cheshire East, says some parents even send their children to Trafford's "Modern" schools over Cheshire East's Comprehensives !.

You missed Trafford

No I didn't. They're super-selectives which each run their own exam, so applying to more than one involves taking more than one exam, and they admit the top n qualified applicants. It's not a grammar/secondary modern system as in Kent, because there is no authority-wide exam administered by the LEA.

Does that mean that if a child does not take an exam for each of the grammar schools ineffect they have not failed the 11+ ?.

I suppose the benefit of schools having their own exams means that only children who have a realistic chance of passing need to to take the exam .

However, despite the schools having their own exams, over 30% of Traffords pupils are educated in its grammar schools !. They cannot therefore be "super" selective in nature....

However, despite the schools having their own exams, over 30% of Traffords pupils are educated in its grammar schools

A lot of them come over the border, so a great deal less than 30% of Trafford's pupils are educated in its grammar schools.

Gemauve. I said that some point up-thread my cousin sends his girls to Altrincham Grammar over the border from Cheshire east.

same point ! Dyslexic Hour Sorry......

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.

Mehitabel, just because your hairdresser owns her own salon and is doing very well, that doesn't make hairdressing a well-paid profession. The careers service website reports that fully trained hairdressers can earn between £14000 and £20000 a year.

I've taught kids who did the 'hairdressing' route at 14 (college placement and work experience alongside the core GCSEs at school). They didn't get much beyond washing hair and sweeping the floor, and creating 'mood boards', because they were 14. They were funnelled into this route because they weren't particularly academic. There were similar options for construction and nannying, all low-paid jobs (go on, tell me Prince George's nanny makes a fortune as if it makes a difference). If you start selecting kids for these jobs at 14, you can be sure it won't be the kids of the middle classes going down these routes. So we'll be grooming the kids of the poorly-paid into our poorly-paid professions with the argument that 'the country needs hairdressers'.

It's like Brave New World. The Gammas being fed the message that being a Gamma is great and that's all they should aspire to be.

Op - re G grade. I used to teach either first or second top set, alternating with the bottom set, in Yr 10, teaching them for the 2 yr GCSE Lang and Lit GCSE's. All ability Inner London comp. Two or three to Oxbridge every year.

My bottom sets, around 13 of them, were doing v well to get an E. Occasionally, I had a D, but that was usually an ESL candidate. I only had a couple of G's over 10 or so years, but they were certainly employable. One of them found a niche in a residential care home where she was a valued member of staff.

The top 2 sets were in classes of 32. (A hell of a lot of marking!) I think it made a lot of sense to have a small bottom set rather than a small top set of the top 5%. I could tailor the course to their ability, lots of individual help from me, and they weren't disrupting the tier above - 3 equal sets of roughly the bottom 40-10% in ability.

These are perfectly 'normal' functioning members of society. Just not v good at reading and writing.

"It's like Brave New World. The Gammas being fed the message that being a Gamma is great and that's all they should aspire to be."

I don't know which side of the selective school debate you are, but when I use your argument to against selection at 11, I get howled down by the "Nonsense, nobody thinks that about Secondary Modern schools- it's on,y your own inferiority complex that makes you belive they do" brigade..........

And one of the highlights of my time with them was when I showed To Kill A Mockingbird. No way we could read the whole book - we focused on the trial scene. I realised I had a class full of Mayella's.

Against selection, Bertrand. It's quite clear that the alpha stream leads to higher paying, higher status professions. It's not an inferiority complex to judge the monetary value of one type of education over another and find one significantly lacking.

And no amount of trotting out 'My hairdresser is Nicky Clarke and my uncle is a poor academic' is going to change that fact.

But I don't think that's a problem schools can change. Road sweepers will always get paid less than barristers. What the comprehensive system can do is make sure that everyone capable of being a barrister is given an appropriate education. Not shunted off to the discard pile because they had a bad day when they were 11 and are only average at sums.

Extreme examples, but there's a lot of wastage in the middle range. And technical education was miles better even 30 years ago.

Outside Kent, Buckinghamshire and the Wirral it's precisely what people mean by grammar schools. 2% is roughly the level most super-selectives end up selecting at, and outside those three authorities all grammars are super-selectives

Are you suggesting Gemauve that all 15 grammars in Lincolnshire are super-selectives?

Berks grammars aren't super selective. They take the top 25/30%. And they're not even oversubscribed. There are more places then children who pass and apply.

Well 1 of the 4 grammars is normally not oversubscribed.

Brilliant - if there are only 4 grammars in the whole county then there will be perfectly good leafy comps too, which might explain why they aren't oversubscribed.