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 with the comments of Sir Anthony Seldon on that last report.

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

meh respect your argument but none of the data backs that up. I think we'll just have to agree to fundamentally disagree on this specific point.

The data has nothing to do with it. If your child is in the top set - taught with all the other top set pupils, the fact that the school takes in those who are way below average and possibly have learning difficulties does not make any difference to them. I got my O'levels in a sec mod. The O'levels stream had about 25 of us, all well taught and all got good results. The fact that there was a stream that were doing CSE's and a stream that wouldn't get any qualifications had no bearing on our school experience - we were not taught together.
What possible advantage would my DS have had if I lived in Reading and he got the bus to Reading Boy's Grammar?
I would have sent him to Maiden Erlegh,so that he could walk, and stay with most of his friends. As I said he got top grades at his comprehensive and went to his first choice university (RG one). He was not remarkable in any way- the top set ones all did similar.
There is more to a school than results. Most of you seem set on data and league tables etc. I look at them when choosing a school, and the Ofsted, but take both as a rough guide. I base it on a visit on a normal school day and whether it would suit my child. I am looking at extra curricular, pastoral care etc etc.
Can anyone give me a good reason as to why my son, who got top grades, first choice of university and had similar friends needed to go to a grammar school? What would have been the advantage?

I would agree with Seddon too.

It might make a slight difference which school a bright child goes to, but is it really important if you get 11 As or 9 As which is the sort of difference the two schools might make?

If you consider the catchment area for Kendrick's which goes from Wallingford in the north down to Windlesham, near Bagshot, then takes in parts of High Wycombe, it's a pretty wide area, much of it wealthy too, so I would suggest that this counts as a superselective school, rather than just the local grammar for Reading.

Interesting information from that link. So we're second in Europe. I think we're the only country to academically select at 11 in several counties and we also have the highest percentage of independent schools too.

I wonder if that has any bearing?

Oh right, that second link is the one I have seen. So we're actually 20th in world rankings when it comes to maths and science at 15. Really not that great considering Estonia whips us hands down but we're the 6th wealthiest country in the world.

I think 20th is pretty rubbish. And actually the grammar and independent sector in the UK aren't going to get us higher up the rankings because they comprise only about 7% of pupils I think?

So the vast majority of pupils are in the comprehensive system in the UK and yet we're only 20th. Despite being the 6th wealthiest country in the world.

Something not quite right there. Presumably this means there are certainly some excellent comps but the majority of them really are pretty damned poor.

the majority of them really are pretty damned poor.

No, actually, a good number of them are bloody good - they are taking children who 50 years ago would have got nothing exam wise and getting them to have at least 5 or more GCSEs and having opportunities opened up to them which would have been closed.

And yes, I did send my children to comprehensives and I think they got a better education than I did at a rather mediocre grammar school - which was long on pretence and silly rules and short on academic standards.

I think that 20th is excellent considering that we are counting everyone - all those with learning difficulties, all those with English as a second language ( many arriving recently) and those with totally dysfunctional families. Those in independent schools and grammar schools are negligible in the results- accounting for less than 10% of UKs school children.
As LaVolcan says, these are children who would have been working down the pits etc 50 years ago with no qualifications at all.
I think we should celebrate that we are actually doing better than most of Europe.
I see no one has answered my question.

Your DS didn't need to go to a grammar Mehitabel, because you are lucky enough to be in catchment of a good comprehensive.

"Your DS didn't need to go to a grammar Mehitabel, because you are lucky enough to be in catchment of a good comprehensive."

As are most people.

Except those of us who live in selective LEAs......

We go around in circles. I say that my DCs went to a good comprehensive and that is dismissed because they were lucky in the catchment. Lots of comprehensives have good catchments - in fact the majority.
Anyone would think that grammar schools were bursting at the seams with those from disadvantaged backgrounds!
I don't see why we can't compare like with like. It is only fair to compare a comprehensive in Winchester with a grammar- they have the same type of pupil. I can't see why we have to take a comprehensive in Hull as a comparison.
Even with the bog standard comprehensives we are doing well in World league tables- nothing like the 'bottom in Europe and worse than some developing countries' that we were told this morning!
For those of you who love their data try this table

I have remembered that the only boy that I knew of at Reading grammar was expelled for drug taking! He got in with the wrong friends at grammar school- grammar schools have them too!!

I am also not 'lucky enough". I failed 11+ and worked jolly hard to get where I am today, so that I do get choice of a good comprehensive.

Not saying you are lucky, but your child is. It was you that asked if your child would have been better off at a grammar rather than his comprehensive so I'm not sure what you are getting riled about?

Very interesting findings on league tables here and you should at least read it before you dismiss it because it by the NUT!

I am greeting riled about comprehensives being lumped together as bog standard.

people can only speak bout their own experiences though. Coming from a very poor area I would find it hard to comprehend how good a good comprehensive can be, or a grammar, or private for that matter.
However, I believe there are good schools, I just wish we had some

Oh right, not by me. In fact I'm not sure there is any of that on this thread, which I must say, for an education thread on MN about selective schooling has been refreshingly free from frothing loons.

I'm well aware how fantastic a lot of comprehensives are, my nephews both attend an excellent one. I wish we had them here.

"I believe there are good schools, I just wish we had some"

Can you explain what's wrong with yours?

I'll tell you what's wrong with our comprehensives from a personal view point. None of them we'd get into on catchment have a big enough cohort of the top few % to offer that group an education that offers challenge or inspires a love of learning to them in the way it does to a less able child. And they certainly aren't the least favoured ones nor the worst, which as well as behavior, and bad leadership seem to promote low aims. Sure I know without a doubt that even if dd went to the worst in our area in some subjects she'd get the same grades, but I'd rather she got them without dying of boredom along the way, learning to entertain herself by being badly behaved, learning to think everything in life will come easy or even worse learning to think she's superior. And that's ignoring the fact that for some children being one of that minority can lead to social issues. I'm also putting aside the issues she'd face at some of the worst ones. The one she got offered by the lea offers a brilliant education to all from the least able to those who with hard work and good teaching can get a*s. But anything above that and there's little on offer. And my child is not in anyway a genius, children who can get the best grades in their area of ability with little or no effort aren't all that rare in my opinion. I've heard rumours the new GCSEs system is supposed to be harder for top level, but I'm not gambling my childs education on that hope

The new gcses are harder for every level. At least the new maths ones are.

Meh if 'the majority of our comps have good catchments' then why is it that we only come 20th in the academic league tables when we are also the sixth wealthiest country in the world.

I would hazard that our catchments are generally more affluent and nicer than Estonia's for example? Yet Estonia beat us hands down in maths and sciences.

And only on Mumsnet could the UK coming 20th in academic world rankings ever be seen as 'really good'. It's not. It's crap. We're should be up there in AT LEAST the top 10.

I have to agree with you lurking.

It's very likely that at a standard comprehensive our DD would probably get decent GCSEs. But I think it would be a very different learning experience and environment to the one she has at the grammar.

She would be top set for maths at any comp. But a comp top set for maths isn't quite the same as the top set in her grammar. In a comp they have to accept all comers, and then stream them. Their top set will be the best mathematicians in the whole school.

So their top maths set is going to have a much more diluted ability standard than in a grammar top set.

Because at DD's grammar the 'entire' school is already the 'top set' and then they stream them even further. So the grammar top sets are the top 5% based on ability compared to say the top 20% based on ability in a comp.

WhoreGasm - surely it depends on the size of the comp and the pupil ability profile? [uses new knowledge]

If it's a comp with 2000 pupils, of which 15% are high ability?

I wonder how many of you who are offering opinions on what the Comprehensives don't do have any first hand experience of them, let alone experience of a decent cross section?

We are told how wonderful the grammars are, and if comprehensives are good, then it must be because they are in a leafy area, so they are really grammar schools in all but name. In which case they should be able to stream their top sets into those of the top 5% of ability and the next 15% of ability, as a grammar school would.

At the same time we hear of the frantic tutoring which goes on to get into a grammar school, with some children getting in only because they are heavily tutored. Are these heavily tutored ones really likely to be in the top 5%, or more likely something like the top 40% or so, so probably good candidates for the second set in a comprehensive?

I visit loads of comps as part of the widening access scheme for Oxbridge.

I can only say that provision for the most able is consistently inconsistent.