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 don't think that anyone is disputing the fact that comprehensives range from excellent to dire. What we need is to improve the standard of the poor ones.
I get the impression that all grammar schools are thought to be good.

The one thing that I have got out of this thread is that education is unfair. It really doesn't matter if you have a comprehensive,or selection, the 'haves' get the best and the 'have nots' get the worst.

There are no problems with the provision for the most able in good comprehensives. There is a problem with provision in some comprehensives.

But theres very few fully selective authorities

According to wikipedia there were 83 counties in England excluding London Boroughs. A trawl on the 11+ page shows that there are 26 counties with grammars, including the London Boroughs, so I would say that there are an awful lot of authorities with non-selective schools. The preponderance of grammar schools are in the south of England.

But that's OK because we northerners are too thick to go to University.

I don't think that anyone is disputing the fact that comprehensives range from excellent to dire. What we need is to improve the standard of the poor ones.

This has always been the case - grammar schools ranged from excellent to dire. Secondary Moderns also ranged from excellent to dire.

The 'have nots' get the worst in all systems. I don't think there are any easy answers, but I think trying to get children switched on to education or not switched off at primary school or earlier is probably more important.

word that seems very personal and extreme, and I don't think that's what I said or meant to imply!

I can't see that telling them they are failures in year 6 is a help!

I guess most of this is going to have to wait for another thread now...

Oh come on!

You've taken issue with everything I've ever said on MN including the vocabulary I've chosen and even my use of italics .

I'm a big girl, I can take it . I am, as one reviewer said 'a writer who is impossible to ignore'.

If there is another thread I shall sit in my hands and keep repeating 'do not get involved'! Thankfully my children have all passed through - the sort of comprehensive that some people don't like to think exists because it is nothing like the ones they see on TV.

Are you 'starting wi' me?'

Seriously, I am not sure what this is. I haven't taken issue with you because of any other reason than that we disagree quite strongly on the one issue we both post most about! I have no personal problem, and I think we've also agreed on the odd issue too over the years!

Well anyway: I'm always going to disagree fairly vigorously with certain POVS. For what it's worth, I think that the syllabus for English lit in particular is fairly abysmal and I think that lots of things could be better in lots of ways, but I see those things as problems at a level above, not in, schools. I have my eyes open and critical in life, when I'm watching their dance shows or hearing about school. I just still think the comprehensive model is the best.

I mean whether I'm watching dance shows or hearing about school!

Well that's nice to know nit.

I always assumed I drove you crackers!

Well I agree actually nit.

I think the comp model is very effective at educating the majority of pupils.

And though I don't think it is as good for the outliers, I can see why it makes no sense to tailor things to the smaller groups.

Anyone who occupies an essentially opposite position drives me a bit crackers! That's natural isn't it?

I always meant to do a thread when my eldest left state comprehensive: maybe I'll get to it if I'm really looking for a displacement activity next week.

Is she waiting on her A levels?

Yes .. I think she's managing just to have a lovely time and not think too hard right now, and I'm trying to follow suit!

A lot of parents are complaining that their child's school did not provide a sufficiently satisfactory or challenging education to meet their child's need. One has to wonder why the parents do not choose to provide an alternative, yet complain that the people they have elected to give their child to, does not do their job for them well enough.

Who do you mean ellie, and what alternatives do you see them rejecting?

Because ellie I have to go to work and regardless of what I do at home after that it's still 6 hours a day in school. And while I've nothing against home ed, I believe my daughter gains from the social aspect.

If schools can't cope with challenging the child I don't see how a parent can manage it in all subjects. The best thing has been seeing my children flourish with enthusiast teachers who are experts in their subject.

The problem lies in the fact that those with poor schools have no alternatives.

And ellie to be fair I in no way think my dds teachers aren't up to their job, the only reason they can't provide for her how I'd ideally like is because in a practical sense they simply don't have the time to cater to the needs of a small minority.

Thank you for watching.