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 they generate a disproportionate amount of interest on here because a discussion about them is, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, a discussion about comprehensive schools, which are, after all, where the vast majority do send their children.

The reason that I can't stop posting, when really I shouldn't waste time on it, is the really patronising way that 75% of children are written off. That and the fact that apparently those who are wrongly placed are 'unlucky' and you have to expect a few to be 'unlucky'.

I completely agree.

Me three. That I "participate" in it doesn't mean I back it, or think it's a fair or just system. It absolutely stinks, no matter which way you cut it.

What gets me LaVolcan is that we are only allowed to compare grammars with bog standard comps. The moment you mention a leafy area it is dismissed. It is only fair to compare the best comprehensives with grammars because they have a similar intake.
What we should be doing is getting schools like the best comprehensives in all areas not 'rescuing' the most able and leaving the rest to manage as best they can.

And me, in case that's not obvious!

If I lived in it, I don't know what I'd decide - I'm very glad I don't have to!

If it was a burning question I am sure that more would join in - especially as it is on AIBU. I suspect that more than 75% wouldn't want grammar schools because they want their children to have all opportunities past the age of 11yrs.

Indeed. Most people with average children know the system stinks. A few are deluded about their often PFBs abilities. It's only people with bright kids that like the system. And they are the vocal ones most often.

I have one of each. I'd still scrap it tomorrow if I had the chance.

I would scrap it tomorrow too!

I have one who would have probably passed .
One who would definitely failed.
One who would have been border line.
I would hate to have had them divided - they were all able to go to the same school and it catered for their very different needs.
It was very difficult for the 2 sets of twins that I know where they were separated - despite being very similar in ability.

I've got 2 bright children. We could have chosen for our children to do the 11+ because the next county is a Grammar school area. We decided not to.

An excellent education should be the right for all children not just the most able. I'm another who scrap this ridculous system if I had the chance.

It's great that you feel your able children were well served by a comp hormonal.

But that simply isn't the case across the board.

If it was there wouldn't need to be a widening access scheme. OFSTED wouldn't have had to introduce measures to start checking the most able were performing to their potential etc etc.

The fact that students from comprehensives are under represented on the most selective courses at the most selective universities would not be the case, would it?

But let's not change a thing, because, everyone seems perfectly happy with the status quo.

It's not fair to compare good grammars with bog standard comps, but neither is it fair to compare bog standard secondary moderns with great comps. I'd love all comps to provide an equal opportunity to all abilities but even in fully comprehensive areas that's just not the case in practice, so I fail to see why scrapping selective education will magically improve the comprehensive system, when we all agree the majority of children are already at them. Getting rid of the reasons people want selective education, and improving the comprehensives first is what needs working on, not abolishing selectives

But let's not change a thing, because, everyone seems perfectly happy with the status quo."

No, everybody is not happy with the status quo. But the answer is not a system which is damaging to individuals and to society. As the grammar system is.

It was very difficult for families in the 'good old days'.

I lived in a small close of families with mainly professional parents.
To give some idea.
Me fail, brother 1 fail but pass 12+, brother2 first yr of comp but took 11+ in case not ready - pass.

Other houses.
DS pass- girl twins both pass.

DD pass, DS fail but private school.

DS pass.

DS pass DD fail.

DD pass DD fail.

DD fail, DS fail.

DD pass DD pass.

I would much prefer one school for them all than to have to mark some as failures when only 10/11yrs old

" fail to see why scrapping selective education will magically improve the comprehensive system"

I don't think it anybody is saying it will, are they? They are saying that it'll improve things overall in the selective authorities to scrap selection...........

Scrapping 163 schools won't make any difference- it just shows how negligible they are.

But theres very few fully selective authorities, for many discussing grammar schools it's a question of a remaining grammar in a comprehensive area or an out of catchment place in a neighbouring authority

I'm not sure that measuring the academic ability of an eleven year old is any great predictor of ability at 23 or whenever your brain stops developing! I think this is why the system was discredited.

With one child finished and one at the end of year 9, I could add plenty to a discussion about WP etc, though I don't think the fact that a politically motivated ofsted under this government telling us the brightest are being failed = the brightest being failed!

The number of grammar schools is small but they are over represented on the most selective courses at the most selective universities.

For their many ills, they do seem to provide a good grounding for the most able pupils.

This is, I'm assuming, because they don't have competing interests. The resources can be aimed at, and policies made which are of benefit to the most able.

As an example, there will be no discussion in a selective school as to whether triple science is offered. Yet this is the case in some comprehensives. And that can never be right for the most able. Yet it might be the right decision for the whole cohort in terms of resource allocation.

I am sure that the ethos of a grammar, coupled with the boost you get at 11 by being a success, is very good for promoting application to successful universities.

I'm not sure the fact that this is an outcome of that system means the system is a good one though.

As an example, there will be no discussion in a selective school as to whether triple science is offered. Yet this is the case in some comprehensives. And that can never be right for the most able. Yet it might be the right decision for the whole cohort in terms of resource allocation.

Really? 100% of the pupils at our local girls' grammar don't take triple science at GCSE. 100% of the most able at my DC's comp did.

nit I don't much trust this government either.

But I do think the expansion of OFSTED criteria was in response to the situation where schools were being judged solely on how many got 5Cs and there was little motivation in terms of league tables to keep a check on the most able. In fact, too many schools were putting these pupils in for early GCSEs and far too many to ramp up the number of passes; not good.

It's a very difficult circle to square.

I'm glad I'm not a HT.

hormonal I'm talking about comps which don't offer it at all. To anyone.

But theres very few fully selective authorities

absolutely lurked and a rather basic point that sometimes gets missed. Even somewhere like Lincolnshire there are districts - eg Lincoln the single biggest population centre; Stamford arguably the most affluent and middle class - that do not actually have any grammar schools. "Meh" gave the example of an excellent non grammar - William Farr - which strangely manages to be excellent whilst in a grammar school area.

Around 3200 state secondary schools in England, yet getting on for almost 2000 of them won't have had a single student apply to Oxbridge in the last application cycle.

Hants is a fully comp area and yet still a massive disparity in performance between leafy Hart, Winchester, East Hants, Eastleigh, and the presumably far less leafy Gosport, Rushmoor, Havant, and with Basingstoke being little better. Seems despite protestations to the contrary in fully comp areas leafiness does still matter.

why is it that despite the fact it suits my child, I can acknowledge that the current system is unfair on some children, and yet the response is well my childs comp suits my child so it can't possibly be unfair to anyone else?

Oh yes, the fact that the measure is 'A* - c' doesn't allow an easy way to see if the most able are achieving as highly as they should (although that's the same for all schools, I suppose?). But the fact that the measure is a bit weak does not = bright children get failed, does it?

Putting in early is a tricky one, because I suspect (and indeed have heard) that doing maths early is a good thing when private schools do it, as it stretches the most able rather than being a suspicious way to mess with the stats.

nit no doubt you will argue will take issue with everything I bring up, what with you really liking comps and really disliking me .

But do you really believe that there are no problems at all with provision for the most able in comprehensives? That everything is as it should be?