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.

The 4 grammars are all in Slough. Virtually all on the same road. And they have no catchment so people can get into them from west London or reading etc.

The rest of Berks doesn't have grammars.

4 grammars in one town and none in the rest of the county? That explains it! I expect the one that isn't oversubscribed probably isn't that good. As mentioned lots on this thread, being a grammar doesn't make a school good. [see Chatham grammar in special measures]

Reading has grammars. A lot of the top end don't apply because there are good comprehensives nearer their home.

Reading only has two grammars - both single sex, so only one choice of grammar per child. It does have some very good Comprehensives nearby.

I spent part of my secondary schooling in Berks and just checked my leafy comp, 84 % A*-C.

So that'd be why the grammars aren't full, because the alternatives are excellent.

"So that'd be why the grammars aren't full, because the alternatives are excellent."

What's the school the low ability kids go to like?

I can't see why you would travel into Reading if you have one of the excellent comprehensives on your doorstep. E.g very few in Wokingham even bother to take the exam because they are well served with comprehensives and Reading has comprehensive schools like Maiden Erlegh.

The low ability kids are all in the comps, BertrandRussell- they don't contaminate them!

Unfortunately it is not to do with ability - it is to do with parental background and Reading has poor comprehensives too.
This is what needs addressing- we need good schools for all, regardless of parental background.

what is the ability profile of the comprehensive that gets 84% A*-C?

Maiden Erlegh in top 10% of non selective school exam results.

Where could I check that Bertrand?

It's quite possible some parents don't want low ability kids contaminating their high ability kids. Just like some parents of low ability kids resent higher ability ones. ( not aimed at anyone on here just an observation in rl). But certainly for me it's one of the main drawbacks, however if it's the only way she'll get an appropriate education then so be it. I'd like her to continue to have class mates across the ability range, but not if that means she has to learn mainly at the rate of a lower ability range.

Pupil ability is 28%. No idea what this means.

Rash- look at the DFES league tables 2014- it'll tell you there.

Got it, thanks.

Low attainers 9%, Middle attainers 51%, High attainers 40%.

How typical is this split for leafy comp? How does this compare with typical sec modern?

Well, our secondary modern has 39% low attainers and 7% high attainers.......

And that, of course, is the difference between a leafy comp and a Kent SM.

No- that is the difference between any comprehensive and any secondary modern.........

meh but surely you are not suggesting that the performance of Maiden Erlegh, even just the high attainer chort, is truly on par with either of the two grammar schools in Reading? Exam results are a pretty crude measure but we have to go with what the DoE provides.

Maiden Erlegh - undoubtedly a very high performing school , although with a clearly very leafy middle class intake (less than 5% FSM, 46% high attainers, 41% middle attainers) performance stats here

www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=136637&superview=sec

Kendrick School - Girls Grammar, even lower FSM, no surprise there, but 33% EAL

www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=136448&superview=sec&qtype=LA

Reading School - Boys Grammar, virtually no FSM , although EAL virtually the same as Maiden Erlegh

www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=136449&superview=sec

Value added for both grammars also higher at KS4

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong but I'm not convinced the actual published stats - crude measures though they may well be - actually support the counter argument.

An even cruder measure, truly at the very end of crudeness, is Oxbridge application and success. Both Ox & Cam publish it by individual school, here's the Cam figs going back to 2009 www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/apply/statistics This does also back up though some comments on the thread about less than stellar GS, but not as far as the two Reading GS go who clearly outperform ME by some distance. To reiterate an ultra crude measure, but no other Unis seem to publish data at that level.

Just looked up DSs "modern school" (guessed statistics beforehand) 65% GCSE, 7% Low ability 60% middle 32% High 6.3 FSM .

If the child is very bright it doesn't matter whether they go to a Reading grammar or Maiden Erlegh- they will do equally well in either.
The grammar will choose all the pupils by exam and there would be something badly wrong if they didn't get good results from all. Maiden Erlegh can't get top grades from all pupils, but it doesn't have any effect on the teaching or results of the top.
My bright child didn't have the choice of the grammar in our area but he didn't need it. He got top grades and his first choice of university. Had he gone to Eton it would have been the same- it was his first choice and you can't ask more than that!

If our comprehensive system is so good and doing so well then why are the UK's average literacy and numeracy levels so far below the rest of Europe and even many developing countries?

I have no idea where you get your tables from- maybe you are going back some years.
see here

Or this year here
Slipped to 20th but still high ranking in Europe and I would hate to have an education like Singapore.