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.

This is hugely reminiscent of a certain grammar school-obsessed poster that I thought had been banned

the thing is the 11+ isn't a FAIR way of assessing ability is it - it's skewed towards the middle claaaases and parents who can afford it hot house their kids through it

bright kids don't get the highest marks - because their parents didn't send the to a tutor every Sat for 6 months

I think streaming based on continuous assessment in schools is fine - I think selecting kids based on their ability to pass one skewed exam which some are tutored to pass and others not is not a fair way to do things

I am glad my eldest chose to go to the local comp and not sit the 11+ (which was an option due to the neighbouring authority and we considered due to her intelligence and struggles with the basic levels in year 6 - she wanted to be pushed) - she's doing brilliantly

I am very sorry if my poor use of grammar is upsetting some posters.
I have not been previously banned Teawamuta .

I do wonder if my children are disadvantaged by our school system

No grammer school where we live...will a future employer/university think that my children weren't "clever" enough to get into a grammer school

Local school offers 8/9 GCSEs, I've heard that others offer 12+...will a future employer/university think my children could only pass 8/9

Different exam boards seem to offer "easier" exams/more coursework...will a future employer/university think that my child's achievements are worse than another's even though my child's exam was "harder"

Sometimes I think a bit of continuity would be helpful, one exam board, the same amount of exams taken, no grammer schools or one per town

Mostly I think "meh"

YANBU OP, they were great for social mobility in their day. I got three years out of mine before it was made comprehensive and those years on top of a great primary school were the making of me.

They should have left grammars alone and reformed secondary moderns.

They were ruined by rich champagne socialists Shirley Williams and Anthony Crosland. I think the left establishment resented the poor making social progress.

I don't understand why secondary schools arn't comprehensives?

We are also in Buckinghamshire, and the local upper school is pretty much a comprehensive With 6 form too
But I read on here about Kent and other areas that this isn't the case.

We had to relocate to bucks and knew nothing about the grammar school system here, but we checked out what would be the alternative if dc didn't pass the 11+. We were pleased to see the upper school was better then the comprehensive dc would have gone too if we, hadn't of moved. So we saw it as win win situation.

Dc Didn't pass, we didn't tutor (didn't have time even if we wanted)

The school Has sets and dc is in top for everything, the work he does in those sets are the same as the grammar school, I know this as I have friends with dc at grammar.

So if they're a lot of bright pupils who for what ever reason miss out on a place at grammar, then shouldn't that mean there is enough going to secondary to justify teaching more 'like' a comprehensive, the same as the one my dc goes too.

I think the original idea of grammar schools was a good one, but unfortunately now it is all about the tutoring, so yes the vast majority who go now are from parents who pay out shed loads on prep /tutoring or hours sitting with there dc going over and over practice books and papers.
Its not really a lift up for disadvantaged children.

The children who benefit most from the most academically rigorous education and structured environment are the least academically able. They are the ones who need the best teaching from the most skilled teachers. The most able can succeed academically regardless of the teachers.

^ this, this and a thousand times this

Oh, and when I looked round the nearest grammar school the work on the walls and what topics they told us about was exactly what I remember doing at school (comprehensive)

Comprehensive means all ability.

In Kent, certainly, the non grammars aren't all ability as the top 25% are missing.

One of the difficulties with the grammar school system is the quality of the other schools in the surrounding areas. We live in a state grammar school area, rural location and there are no comprehensive schools within a 30 mile radius. You have Grammar schools and Secondary Moderns. The Secondary Moderns do not achieve good GCSE results (on the whole), not surprisingly given the cohort they start with. They also don't have academic sixth forms so you have to go the Grammar school for that.
Not good if you would rather send your children to true comprehensive schools and they would rather do that too. I have 2 DC at the Grammar school and one hates everything about it but knows they get good results. Realistically they have little choice living where we do and moving is not an option.
We did not know the school system when we moved here when they were babies.

But that's my point, lots of very able high achieving, bright children can and do fail the 11+ for many different reasons, so a comprehensive school is justified. Like the school my dc goes to.

Sorry that was for rash

Mybigtoe - great if you have a non selective option that meets the needs of the just didn't pass/borderline child, or the should've passed and didn't child.

Many, many secondary moderns in Kent abysmally fail this group.

rash I know, but that's what I don't understand, if bucks can do it, why can't Kent?

Are all the sec moderns in Bucks acceptable then or just in your area? Geographically Bucks has much more borders with comprehensive areas. I wonder if that makes a difference?

Grammer education works in northern ireland. It's open to anyone who can pass they transfer test (old 11+) it's not dependent on background or primary you went to, it's all on the test mark. There are grammer schools avaliable all over northern ireland so it's not geographical. Some of high schools need improving but some are amazing and offer an alternative style.

I'm looking at a map of Bucks vs a map of Kent and I'm thinking about being in the centre of the county, away from comprehensives, and from an entirely visual perspective I am seeing a county that is long, thin, and looks like comprehensives in neighbouring counties would be easy to reach.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe there are some upper that are not so good , but I think they all have sets and work with every level child like a comprehensive, (I'm not a hundred percent on this but it's what I'm lead to believe)

rash I don't know anyone who goes over the bored for a comp , I'm sure there are people who do, but as I said, as far as I'm aware most uppers are comprehensive in there education.

*Boarder

At least two of the 5 superselective grammars in my area have just introduced a quota of places reserved for those pupils eligible for Pupil Premium/Service Premium. They also have some places reserved for children living within a certain distance of their admissions point(s). But most of the places remain available to whoever passes the 11+ with the highest mark.

Given that the grammars round here take a fairly small percentage of local children, our comprehensives actually do pretty well in terms of results. I wouldn't be horrified if my DD/DSs went to one of them instead of a grammar.

Grammar schools no longer give a 'leg up' to bright children from any background. They give further privilege to those who are already privileged.

I understand this point, but think there should be ways of tackling this problem. The entry criteria don't have to be the same as 50 years ago, they could be refined and updated according to modern methods, taking into account each child's opportunities so far etc.

If we can't find a way to select on ability, then selection will only be about money, i.e. only available to those who can afford private school. This gives those from lower-income families no chance of a selective education, instead of at least some chance. And that means we continue to have Old Etonians and similar in so many of the top positions in society, instead of a broader social mix.

"The children who benefit most from the most academically rigorous education and structured environment are the least academically able. They are the ones who need the best teaching from the most skilled teachers. The most able can succeed academically regardless of the teachers."

I disagree. The most able may still do fairly well despite an average-performing teacher, but nonetheless could achieve really outstanding results with an extremely competent teacher. Don't they deserve to reach their full potential too? An able student may get by regardless, but it's equally likely they could become bored and disillusioned if they're not being encouraged to reach the best levels that they can.

Not one child in my DSs large Kent primary that passed the 11+ this year did so without a tutor. The idea that a grammar education is available to all is laughable.

Of course there are poor, switched on, ambitious parents who don't pay a tutor and can get their DC in using one old WHSmith paper, but they are the exception.

These days, it's about how much time and money you can chuck at it.

I lump time and money together here, actually. Child Genius the other night was a good example, where parents give up their jobs to devote themselves to their chidrens education. They may not pay for a tutor, but they are giving a huge amount of their time.