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 guess it depends on how you define able. Certainly in Kent the test last year was deemed "tutor proof" as they changed the format and crucially introduced English.

But I suppose you could argue that private primaries have loads more time to spend doing comprehension etc and therefore they have an automatic leg up.

Certainly one of the Kent SSs was threatening to introduce their own separate test as prior to it changing to incl English, they were getting Maths geniuses that were barely literate.

I think grammar schools are trying to make tests tutor proof, in the same way the Government are clamping down on tax avoidance !.

The truth is they do not care, but wish to portray that they do for PR reasons and to keep the anti selection lobby a bit quieter .

I have no problem with tutoring for exams. However, I believe that tutoring should be more readily available for those with limited means.

For all I hate the advantage tutoring gives, the super bright untutored child will beat the moderately bright one every time. In my opinion its more that when the untutored child is only very slightly brighter, or equally so, that the tutored child has the advantage

I hate tutoring because it gives the moderately above average a very unfair advantage over the extremely bright child from a deprived background.

Suppose you could wave a magic wand and make all third-party tutoring illegal.

Who is more likely to be able to do a better job of preparing their own child for an exam: the middle class parents who could have afforded to pay for a tutor easily but have outsourced it, or the deprived parents?

That's why the 11+ is immoral. It will always favour the parents of engaged, educated parents. Attempting to pretend there's a way to fix that is delusional.

Nicole you don't need to pay for a private tutor. Any parent can usually access the Internet, with lots of free available 11+ style work sheets. These work sheets show how to work through questions and give hints and tips.

Or for a little bit of money a parent could buy the Bond or Letts work books which are excellent and give very clear instruction.

You could find a tutor who gives small group tuition (groups of 6-8 kids) for the 11+ and it will cost you less than a packet of fags per week.

The help is readily available if you want your bright child to get some preparation for the 11+. That way they're on a par with the bright child who was professionally tutored.

I believe grammar schools actually quite like their typical cohort of pupils. Grammar schools "truthfully" would loathe any student who would disrupt the comfortable middle class and aspirational feel of their school.

I personally don't see anything wrong with this attitude or ethos , marketing a school to their target audience.

"Nicole you don't need to pay for a private tutor. Any parent can usually access the Internet, with lots of free available 11+ style work sheets. These work sheets show how to work throug"

Any parent can't, you know.

I confess that the Kent system is absolutely baffling. If the county wants to keep the 11+ why doesn't it allow its primary schools to tutor for it? That is what used to happen in the old days - the last year of primary school was 11+ practice day in day out until the exam. Hence the lack of outside tutoring, because the schools were doing it, for their A stream pupils. Fat chance of the B stream ever getting to the grammar school.

I wonder why anyone does pay for a private tutor, then?

No. I wouldn't ever assume that a girl who plays in orchestras all round the world would pass the 11+.

I would assume that the child (musical or not) who has been consistently on the top table through primary and has fast cognitive and processing skills to be most likely to pass.

Sadly, occasionally a few very bright kids fail the 11+ for whatever reason. But tens of thousands of very bright kids don't.

And for these unlucky ones there is also the 12+ and the 13+ at many grammars.

Gosh, there's something really repellent about a system that means we talk about 'the unlucky ones' in reference to 11 year olds (and then perhaps again at 12, and 13..)

Because they're too busy to spend the time. Or have zero patience to tutor (us). Or feel their child would work more conscientiously for someone else (again, us). Or they're a bit too lazy to tutor their child themselves (us, yet again).

Of course it's unlucky if a very bright child, almost guaranteed to pass had say, a stinking cold on the day of the test. Or their pet had died that day. And they failed by a few marks as a result.

I disagree whoregasm if I'd wanted to tutor with a grand total of £10, I could have done it. But I can think of countless children whose parents would lack either the ability, motivation or both.

Gosh, there's something really repellent about a system that means we talk about 'the unlucky ones' in reference to 11 year olds (and then perhaps again at 12, and 13..)

I completely agree. What we should be aiming for is an excellent education for all children regardless of their academic ability imo.

Of course it's unlucky if a very bright child, almost guaranteed to pass had say, a stinking cold on the day of the test. ...... And they failed by a few marks as a result.

My SIL. I don't think 'unlucky' is how she sees it. I think annoyed at being denied opportunities stayed with her through much of her adult life.

Yes, that would be unlucky. And it is also unlucky for the children who weren't guaranteed to pass, that they are failures at 11 with doors closed to them, whether they get another go after a year or not. 11 year olds get to be unlucky in so very many ways without a school system that adds another.

I live in a grammar school area, the tutoring going on is mind blowing. No one really talks about it at first meeting but eventually it all comes out even if it's just on a playdate with your chic.

Fwiw - I would have a grammar school in every town. Ramp up the technical colleges to give all a choice. The worst thing Shirley Williams ever did was abolish them (but not for her own kids).

Previous Labour PM's such as Wilson and Callanhan used the privates for their own.

We had a look at the state system when we moved to Bucks. I didn't like what I saw. A rush to make everyone winners and actually not doing anything much right.

So, I have a DM as an ex teacher, went to look at a number of state schools, went to one myself - but I am fully expecting someone to come and say we shouldn't be using the private system because it's not fair on others. Do I think my DS who has just left his private senior school would have done just as well in a state - no, I blooming don't!!

Having said all of that. I had parents who really didn't have a clue, a father who was quite academically minded but wouldn't dream of helping and supporting us. He was too busy carving his own career out and he always came first.

I did ok in the end but cannot play any sports - my son can play lots. His school taught him that. They gave him opportunities I never had and whilst the fees are frightening I really don't regret a minute.

We are talking about individual children and their whole future. It isn't good enough to say that a few will be unlucky. We need a system where luck doesn't come unto it and all have the opportunity to develop at their own rate.
It is luck of birth at the moment. Saying that you don't need to pay for a turtle because any parent can download from the Internet is missing the point. Any parent can't and many simply wouldn't if they could.
Tutoring is huge business and hidden by a lot of people. I smile when someone naively up on forums and asks for a tutor recommendation - I think 'you will be lucky- if someone has a good one they are keeping it to themselves'!

Tutoring really is big business. And i agree with someone UT. If tutoring was banned would it all be equal?

My DS has got a summer job. On another thread someone said it was because I got it for him! Of course I didn't but we guided him on what we thought was the best way considering he didn't want to work weekends. We told him it wasn't an option to have nothing as we live in an area of high employment for temp jobs.

Do I think all parents can do this - sadly not. I had my fair share of temping roles until I joined the big corporate I am with today. Things haven't changed much. Employers are still looking for keen young people who turn up on time and can show some interest in the role (it's general office work so not exciting) but at this stage he is getting the experience. The owner of the company liked him because he said his own sons wouldn't think of mail shoting local companies because actually they like to avoid paying agency fees wherever they can.

But mehitabel don't you agree that it's equally unacceptable for comprehensives to also not cater to the most able? Why is it bad that some children get an unsuitable education because they just failed the 11+ but ok for others to get an unsuitable education cos they never got the chance to sit it? I don't debate for a minute the system is unfair, but I don't think getting rid of grammars will solve it

Lurked. My 9 yr old niece is very bright. She is at a state school and is being used by the teachers to help the less able. Do I think it's fair on her - absolutely not! It seems to be a way of working now and when I looked at our local primary school they mentioned it proudly as being a selling point of the school.

I confess that the Kent system is absolutely baffling. If the county wants to keep the 11+ why doesn't it allow its primary schools to tutor for it?

Because there is insufficient time to teach the curriculum and the 11+, but primarily because there are some children that don't sit the test. What good is an 11+ lesson to them? I'd be mightily pissed off if my child was getting less literacy and Maths lessons and wasn't taking the test, just so Jonty and Hermione had some 11+ lessons.

Hillingdon we've been reasonably lucky in that for the most part my daughters very average state primary have tried to accommodate her but haven't really met her needs, especially since y4 when she no longer had an older top set to work with for some lessons. But we've had one odd exception and the odd supply that have tried the extra ta route. Plus the highlight of a supply teacher who told me my daughter wasn't allowed to do some things. Not because I'd coached her, or taught her wrong, but purely because children of that age don't do that and it makes it harder for staff if a child is ahead. Luckily not an attitude supported by the school.