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've just had a look at the facts and figures of the comp my children went to and the local girls' grammar.

At my DC's old comp, 100% of the high attainers got A*-C in GCSE English and Maths. At the girls' grammar 98% acheived the same.

If we are to believe that the 'entire' school is already the 'top set' in a grammar, why are children coming out with Ds and Es?

During this post it has probably come out that I am convinced that a grammar school education , is the best for any academically minded child.

I don't think that is always the case at all and can reference the fact, I choose the local modern school for DS rather than the fore-mentioned Borlase for which he was offered a place. I decided on the local school firstly because DS did not like the look of Borlase or RGS . DS also wanted to be with his peer group and I believe the school will enable him to get the required GCSE grades to move to grammar at sixth form if he so desires.

I allowed DS the choice of schools despite the furious rows with mum this caused. She said that I was prepared to ruin my sons chances just to please my son who at 11 was not old enough to understand why I did not want to go to grammar school.

This proves that although I advocate grammar schools, they are perfect for my two daughters who are not more academic than DS just more focused and suited to a single sex school.

DD1 read this about FOCUS....

He did not want to go to grammar school.

So you are just ignoring 2014 when UK came 6th and 2nd in Europe? Whoregasm
I expect that those scores don't read what you want to hear.
I don't expect that our schools went madly downhill in the last 12 months.
I note that you also didn't like my last lot of data either. You have just homed in on 20th. I think that is pretty good. I doubt that Singapore has lots of immigrants arriving speaking a different language.
I would also hate to have an education system like the Asian ones and don't see any reason to emulate them. We should capitalise on what we are good at, free thinking, invention, artistic expression etc etc. I hate the way that we teach to the test theses days.
I think that you are completely wrong about the top sets in grammar and comprehensives. You seem to completely ignore the fact that comprehensives are larger and so will have similar numbers.

No one has answered my question of 09:19 . I suspect they can't see an advantage.

Similar number to choose from for the top sets that is.
If there is no grammar school I don't know where some of you think the ones that would have passed go. They are all in the comprehensive with all the others and are much bigger. Not many people can afford private schools, not if they have several children.

mehit no one knows what grades your DS got. You say 'top' but what does that mean?

You say he went to his first choice RG university, but that means precious little either.

The reality is that too many comprehensives do not provide adequately for the most able. A top set is not enough (and not all comps set either).
A school is the sum, not only of its lessons, but also the policies made and decisions taken on behalf of the cohort.

And in my experience policies are made and decisions taken which are not in the interests of the most able. Sometimes that is because of the conflict of interests with the majority, sometimes it is lack of resources, sometimes due to ideology, sometimes ignorance.

I thought top was A . I said top.
Surely the aim for every child is to be able to have their first choice- or am I missing something? Why would he want to go to one that wasn't his first choice?

As to sets.
Kendrick, Reading girl's grammar has 701 on roll
Maiden Erlegh, a Reading comprehensive has 1664

Why would there be more in the top end of the grammar ? If you take out 701 you still have 963 for lower sets or are we supposed to think that only 200 are top sets and over 1400 are lower sets. It seems very unlikely to me from the area that it is in.

Do we think that education policy should be geared to prioritise the needs of the most able?

I began to watch The Grammar School, a secret life, and just thought how many sweeping statements they made which were just not backed up by examining the facts. They just weren't all wonderful places encouraging children to strive for the best. E.g. in the seven years I was at my school, one girl tried for Cambridge - she didn't get in. Was she the daughter of a millhand or one who worked in the tyre factory? No, she was the daughter of the headmaster of the boys grammar school. Those who were daughters of millhands/tyre factory workers had mostly left at 16. A couple of years before I joined my school, someone did go to Cambridge (no one ever went to Oxford), but she had been a pupil under a different and I suspect much better headmistress.

When some of us tried a difficult question on an English paper we were told in no uncertain terms that we shouldn't have attempted it - that was for Oxbridge candidates. (Grammar School, don't forget, full of the cream of the crop.)

As for the person on the programme who cried thinking about an inspiring teacher he had, I can't think of anyone at school that I held in such esteem, but I did have a high regard for a couple of lecturers at the FE college I went to, to retake my A levels - I credit them with steering me on the right course later in life.

Was this just because it was a girls grammar school? Not very much was expected of us academically - Teacher training was the normal outcome for most six form leavers, where at the time you could still get in without A levels although the better colleges were asking for them and offering degrees. Was it just because for an earlier generation of women there had been few career opportunities, so many drifted into teaching when they had little aptitude for it? I don't know the answers but I don't think my school was in any way untypical in that respect.

When I think of it, most people I know who have been successful in later life have got there despite their schooling, and not because of it, and a couple of supposedly brilliant people have done - well nothing to write home about.

Very typical of my grammar school , LaVolcan.
By the time I arrived in the 6th form lots who passed 11+ had left at 16yrs and got jobs. That was how it was then.

Exactly whoregasm.
lavolcan yes, I went to one. A not very good one with shite provision for the more able where I still left with very impressive gcse's and a levels. I don't have any gift for languages or a photographic memory so I'll admit I put a slight effort in there. But not because I wanted the grade, that didn't concern me at all. Purely because by the end of y7 to live up to my rep as the cocky kid that when asked the universal teacher question of do you think you don't need to listen/ you know more than me etc, it required learning a foreign language to be equally obnoxious in that lesson too. And it wasn't hard either to know more, top set got the worst teachers of a bunch that weren't great. And when I'd finished my a levels I didn't go to uni because over my dead body was I spending another minute, let alone years bored. Of course uni would have been different but after 14 years of school I had no reason to know it wouldn't be just the same mind numbing drivel. And although it was years ago some of those same fuckwits are teaching there, I checked, and the school still gets the average if you look at a-c's. So I have every reason to believe the rubbish comps near me will still get away with the same crap standards. And I know even the one dd got offered, which is nothing like mine, won't actually cater for her. Even if they live up to the effort primary have put in to catering to a cohort of one out of 30, it's been nowhere near enough so I have no reason to believe being in a cohort of maybe 2 or 3 from 200 will be any better. Or maybe 1 in 200 cos those with the money move to better comp catchments, or move house if they get a grammar place

When I say grammar it would be out of catchment and realistically moving house if you got offered a place

Kendrick, Reading girl's grammar has 701 on roll

As I said, earlier, if you look at its catchment it has something like a 20 mile radius so it's a superselective in practice. If you also look up Maiden Erlegh, you will also see how near it is to Reading University.

But maybe it was girl's grammar schools which weren't very special back in those days? Middle class women weren't expected to work then, so girls grammar schools were really educating us to do nice little jobs which we could do for a few years until our real job of marriage started. To be fair, we did have some decent teachers, but with a weak Head, I think they were on a hiding to nothing.

(But then again, my brother's grammar school, didn't do too well academically, although at least they didn't push lads into teaching if they weren't suited for it. The staff, being men, had had more opportunities offered to them, so those teaching had actively chosen it as a career.)

No, I really don't want the old system back. My old school now has turned into a very successful comprehensive - right across the board, from the academic ones to those who came to the school unable to read. It's not in a particularly affluent area either, but neither is it a severely deprived area. I would like to see more effort put into finding out what schools like that do, so that weaker schools can be brought up to the same standard.

Lavolcan. It was probably because back then "nobody" from outside the private/public schools were getting in to Oxbridge.

I bet only about 10% actually went to any University at the time you are talking about. You got to do A levels most only did CSEs.

I am chuffed though today because I have Passed my first OU module .

I know its 20 years to late, but even my mum has congratulated me.

Sunshield, - to some extent yes, not many went to Oxbridge, but then again I did know a couple of girls from better grammar schools who did. What particularly infuriated me at my school was that the teacher who chalked us off for trying a difficult question was an Oxford graduate herself. Nice bit of encouragement, hey? We did have a couple of girls who were certainly of Oxbridge standard, but did they get the encouragement? No.

So good riddance to grammars like that, is all I can say. I don't recall any big campaign to keep it open when the Comprehensive system came in.

It appears that the grammar school era was not the 'good old days' then.
My brother went to a boy's grammar and they had many leaving at 16 yrs too. Not many went to university. All you could say is that the boys had more choice than nursing, teaching and secretarial.

There were more decent choices at 18 - it was possible to get articles with a Solicitor, or an Accountancy training contract, so University wasn't as de rigueur as it later became. But guess who got the Solicitor's articles, yup, the boys - with the exception of one girl whose father was a Solicitor so she was taken into his business and qualified.

It infuriated me at the time, and then the 1970s feminism movement came along...

Growing up in the 80's in Northern Ireland most of us sat the 11+ some passed and some failed. I got a 3 which meant I attended a secondary, along with a fair few of my class (we lived in a lower working class area). However the few that did pass were able to attend the local grammar and to be honest both sets of kids did quite well. The system here has changed now in that if you wish for your child to go to a grammar they need to sit an entrance exam. These entrance exams are different for Catholic/Protestant schools so if you wanted your child to have the opportunity to go to either they have to sit two exams (5 papers in total I think).

Every year the schools "pass line" changes depending on the average. Therefore the local grammar could ask for 92 and above one year and maybe 110 the next. Therefore it is pretty standard here to pay for coaching. One friend commented that the coaching simply puts your child at an even starting line with the other kids rather than putting them ahead.

I feel that this really has increased the pressure on kids here. Before they were expected to sit 1 exam and now in the worst cases they have to sit 5.

We are very lucky in that most of our secondaries are excellent for example in my town the local Catholic secondary out performs both the girls and the boys grammar. However some of my more honest friends have whispered that it's the "friends" thing that encourages them to seek out the grammar schools.

Even though there are issues with this system I still prefer it to the English comprehensive (worked in a few comps in London) which do seem to fail a lot of kids. When the time comes for my DS I probably will encourage him to do the exam simply for the fact that he would have a wider choice of GCSE subjects to choose from.

I don't think anyone has the right to complain about the performance, or lack thereof, of their child in school.

It is a parents responsibility to educate their child. You cannot abdicate that responsibility by palming your child off on someone else, and if you do, you definitely have no right to complain that that person didn't do your job for you to your standard. If you can't be bothered taking responsibility for your child's education, don't complain when someone else does it to help you out.

I don't think you should extrapolate from London to the whole country because the situation is very different elsewhere. Having said that, aren't London schools now supposed to be doing well?

DS had a bad day on his sats and so probably would have just missed out on a grammar but fortunately (slightly also by design) we live in a comprehensive only area. This meant that by half term the senior school had realised and moved him up to the top set - which is rather a different scenario from potentially ruining the rest of his life

I think the best system would be a fully comprehensive with no grammar or private schools or free schools etc and then LA allocates places by lottery so that all schools have top achievers

LaVolcan - I agree that London is probably a special case. I found that teaching in the Comps meant I had 3 lesson plans for every lesson (Sen,middle and G&T). It was a struggle at best. I found it was the "middle" kids who lost out mostly. I believe that streaming works as fewer kids fall through the cracks as each lesson is tailored to the classes needs.

However as I said I'm based in NI and it's a completely different system here which has its own evils. I wish that we could have extend the primary/entrance test age to 14 as I feel kids would be better placed to cope with the exam stress rather than putting them through it all at 10/11.

I think that London is very different and I wouldn't want to live there with children,( but then I wouldn't want to live there at all.)

Yes living there was a learning experience although I really enjoyed it but had no kids so it was a pretty carefree existence! My cousin settled there and has just had a little boy so I'm wondering what choices she will make when it comes to his schooling. They are on pretty good wages but I don't imagine it would even come close to cover what some schools there charge!