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.

People privately educate their children because they are sick of the continual dumbing down of our children by the public school system.

I think the poster who wrote this can't live in the UK. A certain social class in the UK would never educate their children in a state school because that's where the servants and estate workers send their children.

There are people like that lavolcan but it is far too simplistic to say that that is what motivates all private school parents.

The reasons for choosing private school are numerous (and often set out on MN) and one of them is definitely to secure selective education.

WordFactory I didn't say all parents by any means would choose private schools for this purpose, but it would be interesting to know which of those parents choosing, say Eton, are from families where the sons have always gone to Eton. [And the gel to a little private school - thinking of your Princess Di's.]

I feel its sad that Latin cannot be offered as a class to any child who wants to do it via video conferencing. Inspite of lots of fancy techological advances education is delivered in the same way as twenty years ago. (With the exception of interactive white boards.)

Would it not be cool for a child to be able to recieve an interactive lesson via video conferencing if they were a mathematical genius. All the seven year olds who are capable of GCSE maths across the country could learn together. We could offer more choice in schools for subjects. If a child wanted to GCSE polish they could learn via online interactive lessons.

I feel said that MFLs are seen as being only suitable for the more academic children. Maybe that was the case when language learning was all about solid wodges of grammar, but not now. Some people have a better ear for languages than others, and I am not convinced that it relates to academic ability.

I feel sad - that should say! Pity they don't have an edit function.

Learning a language to a good standard is hard work. Frankly a lot British people cannot be arsed.

MFLs don't relate to academic ability- otherwise children who come in from elsewhere without English wouldn't pick it up so quickly in the playground.

lavolcan I don't know Eton much or parents there, but at DS school, the parent cohort aren't what people necessarily suspect.

DH and I are not alone in being first time buyers . And the majority of us don't have servants or estate workers! Though there might be one or two.

What I do know is the the super selective nature of the school, is a huge driver that puts bums on seats. It was certainly one of the main attractions for us.

That's my point gemauve it's not just failing the 11+ that limits your subject choices, that happens anyway.
To add to what wordfactory said that's certainly been my experience of why most choose independents. I've definitely witnessed far more social snobbery at my daughters state primary than from any private school parent or in any other more socially exclusive environment

Setting is not the same as streaming and all children are not in the top sets for everything. I had a term of teaching the top 18 in year 5 for Maths and Literacy. The core came to both, but there were a significant number who only did one.
I do get muddled as to what people mean when they talk about 'our public school system' - I never know whether they are talking about state schools or our public schools as in Eton and Harrow.
A lot of people who would like to send their children to private schools simply can't afford it. This is probably why they are so keen to have grammar schools back- they see it as private without the fees because 'of course their child wouldn't be the one in the sec mod'.
Families can't choose Eton 'because sons have always gone there'. The days of putting their name down at birth are in the distant past. They will have tough competition.

Point taken re Eton, but let's face it, I don't see Prince George and Princess Charlotte's parents considering the local primary schools when the time comes.

"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?"

Hormonalhooker the entire school is essentially the top set because 98% of EVERY pupil taking GCSEs in the grammar gets at LEAST 5 GCSEs grades A*-C.

So, granted that 2% might have got an E or a D in something. But conversely, a large percentage of ALL grammar pupils also get a straight run of 10 or 12 A*s too. Not just the small group of high achievers who manage it in a comprehensive.

And, personally I would always prefer to send my child to a school where only 2% of ALL pupils don't get 5 GCSEs grades A-C. As opposed to a comprehensive where (quite possibly) 30% or 40% or even 50% fail to get 5 GCSEs grades A-C.

I wouldn't want my child at a comprehensive school where only a small percentage of children were as clever, or more clever than her. I would want her at a school where EVERY child in the school was at least as clever as her, if not more so.

"the entire school is essentially the top set because 98% of EVERY pupil taking GCSEs in the grammar gets at LEAST 5 GCSEs grades A*-C."

Sorry, that should read "...because 98% of ALL pupils taking GCSEs in the grammar get AT LEAST 5 GCSEs grades A*-C"

"mehit I don't see any evidence that doctors from the comprehensive system are 'better' at communicating than those from selective schools."

Exactly.

On this thread, and many similar ones, we are constantly told that the top sets in a comprehensive have little contact with the less desirable elements in their school e.g. the disruptive pupils, the ones who don't want to learn, the trouble makers. They're safe in their little ivory tower of academic excellence just the same as any grammar school in fact.

So, assuming a doctor would be in the top sets in their comp, how would they gain lots of experience of lots of other pupils in the school who were different to them, not as academic, not as focused, not as well behaved in lessons etc?

"I wouldn't want my child at a comprehensive school where only a small percentage of children were as clever, or more clever than her. I would want her at a school where EVERY child in the school was at least as clever as her, if not more so."

Educational apartheid is only good for those children on the grammar side of the dividing wall.

We shouldn't design an educational system whose primary function is to boost the educational opportunities of those who are already the most successful, at the expense of everyone else.

Schools are like any other communities - they benefit disproportionately from the input of their brightest and most ambitious members.

Also especially as in comps they apparently set for most subjects, so your potential doctor would likely be in the top set for all subjects? So, they would get very little social interaction with the rest of the pupils in their school.

At grammars they only tend to have sets for Maths and possibly English because they have already been streamed into the top 5%-20% just by gaining entry into the school. So all other lessons are taken all together as a group.

I disagree. My child shouldn't be used to provide a good educational example to disaffected pupils. It's not her responsibility to help to support and improve their academic performance.

The trouble is we all extrapolate from the schools we know.....

I am still not convinced that the grammars are taking the top 20% if we are to believe all the talk about tutoring which goes on on MN.

A good comprehensive would do extra curricular activities where there are opportunities to all mix together.

Children fail 11+ for all sorts of reasons. My cousin deliberately failed because he was at a very small primary and wanted to be with his friends. He had to do evening classes and OU later. My BIL failed because he was in and out of hospital and wouldn't take anything educational seriously. He had to work up from the bottom in a career - he is now at the top. My friend failed because her father was in the forces and she had been to 4 or 5 different schools, my brother failed because he was a late developer.
When I did the 12+ one girl came in distraught because she had just seen a dog run over, I have no idea how she did but she wasn't in a fit state to take an exam.
Life would have been so much simpler for all had they not needed an exam but found their own level later.

I still don't understand how you have more of your own high ability in a grammar school. If Maiden Erlegh has 1664 pupils, in a catchment are where many parents work for the university, then a huge number are going to be of the top ability- far more than a small grammar school.

nicole maybe.

But NI does better in raw numbers of students getting 5 GCSEs than the UK.

And NI is selective, whereas most of the UK is not.

I went to one, albeit back in the 90s when there wasn't so much tutoring and just the one verbal reasoning paper. The catchment was county wide (Essex) and admitted less than 90 students in a year. That's less than one pupil per comprehensive being funnelled off. It was the absolute making of me- I'd have been lost at my local comp- which was neither dreadful nor outstanding. I flourished because of the small class sizes and the high level of expectation. When the time comes for my girls, if I think there is a chance that it is the right thing for them, I will put them in for the 11plus, and yes, probably tutor them for it too, because competition is so fierce. If there were more Grammars and better comprehensive secondaries where we live the competition might not be so stupidly fierce. And for the record- I wouldn't have gone private if I had not made it to grammar, and neither will mine- we can't afford it. Which is a shame as the local private school has brilliant pastoral care and their pupils seem like kind, confident kids- despite not having a great academic record at GCSE or A level.

Also even if the grammar system was abolished and my daughter was sent to a comprehensive, how could she be an example to other less able pupils. How would her being in the comp make her any kind of positive role model to children who need some inspiration or who could benefit from rubbing shoulders with the academically gifted?

She would be in all the top sets. Rarely rubbing shoulders with the less able. They wouldn't be in any of the same academic lessons together. They would never sit next to her in a lesson. Never watch her at work.

Because comps carefully set and make excellence provision to stretch and challenge the most able. Definitely making sure that the academically able aren't held back by slower learners, or the children who simply don't want to learn.

That is what comps do isn't it?

Same as whoregasm my childs education is not about sitting twiddling her thumbs to improve everybody else's prospects. I wouldn't dream of expecting people with children in the 0.01 range to sacrifice their education because you know it's better for my child to be with children that are far more able than her. So why should in turn my child be expected to do the same for those less able than her? It's morally no better than the crap teacher that uses them as ta's, you're saying they and their education are less worthy than their peers.