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.

Well I disagree with private even more so at least I don't need to ask any 'silly questions' about those

So to all these posters who seem to be so knowledable re grammars what exactly are they providing that other schools don't?

As far as I can see they get the same funding if not less due to more money being spent on those who need it more elsewhere.The teachers are all trained in the same colledges( at ours they seem to even have the same teachers as I know a few that have flipped backwards and forwards as regards jobs) and they still aren't getting the numbers into Oxbridge they should compared to private ie private school pupils still proportionately have bigger numbers than they should in comparison.

So what is it that is the golden ticket exactly? And what is upper middle class?

As far as I can see having visited several diff secondaries recently and very likely going to have kids in both grammar and comp the only difference I can see is a whole lot more studious kids who frankly deserve the grades they get as they earn them.

Oh and Gem plenty of schools send kids to comps and grammars as most counties aren't like Kent.

Like many our grammar has no catchment boundaries so kids come from hundreds of different schools.The rest go to hoards of diff comps who don't even notice the 1 or 2 missing kids they might have had.

Aaaahhhh is that how it works then?

Comprehensive schools are in areas where there are no grammer schools

In areas where there are grammer schools they scoop the comprehensives top set, and leave the rest of the sets and those children who just missed out in the secondary modern

Is that right? So do the secondary modern still set? They must do...

How do you know if your school is a secondary modern or a comprehensive? Does it depend on the county?

Who thought of this stupid system?

Not necessarily.

The town our grammar is in has several comp alternatives but due to the huge area kids come from they don't lose a top set but just 1 or 2 kids.

They probably lose far more to the all singing comps down the road parents buy their way into via property. But I guess that is ok.

Dammit...thought I had it then

In 1955 I passed the 11+ I grew up in a council house in a NE pit village. I was an only child and lucky because, unlike most of my friends, I had parents who believed in education as a way out of poverty for girls as well as boys.
Going to grammar school transformed my life. I went to college, got a degree became a teacher. By the time my own cd were 11 our area had no grammar schools but both did well at the local com, went to university etc just like I did. However they didn't start in a council house in a pit village. Their mum was a teacher not a market trader; their dad was a university lecturer not a disabled miner. They grew up with books, music, museums and Shakespeare. The grammar schools advantaged them too because of their parents.
Taking away grammar school opportunities gave working class children the biggest possible kick in the teeth. Not all dc are academic but those that are get very little help now unless they are also from middle class homes.

I don't think the grammar system is great as I said before, it was a good idea in the beginning, but it's just for people who have money or time to tutor their dc for the 11+.

But you can have a comprehensive school instead of secondary moderns. My dc goes to one that was outstanding, then after offsted changed the criteria. It's now good with some outstanding parts (they are working hard to gain outstanding again) , the six form is still outstanding.

From what I know about grammars in bucks, they all vary in quality, some give a very unique style of education, others are bog standard what you would get from top set comprehensive. Only difference is the top set pupils don't have to mix with children that maybe don't view education the same, and yes there is a bit of 'we are better than you ' so gives those grammar school pupils extra confidence sometimes arrogance.

My point is if Kent can't reform to full comprehensive system, then at the very least, why can it not offer a comprehensive education for those who didn't pass the 11+? like so many in Buckinghamshire do?

As I said before there are lots of bright children that don't pass, they would make the top set, plus all the later bloomers have somewhere to move upto.

SayThisOnlyOnce I'm anti the grammar system. I live in Kent. I can't afford private. I have one academic DC and one not. The academic one is about to go to a SS, and fuck knows what we will do with the other one, need to decide in the next year.

should we get rid of Oxford and Cambridge too? Priviledged kids have a higher chance of being admitted than state (even grammar school kids) with the same results.

By priviledged I mean independent schools

Maypolist. You are quite correct by saying should we get rid of Oxford Cambridge or come to think of it any Russel group University !.

The reason being its not fair to discriminate at 18 "what about those who bloom at 30" ?. The people who suddenly become academic around or develop in to brilliant business people.

Why should they be discriminated against because they did not get As at A Level. Most of the people I know who did not get As at A level have achieved far greater than those who did !.

This of course is "Bollocks" in the same way saying that because someone is not as academic as someone else at 11 , the academic one should not have the opportunity. The test or selection process is about where that child or person is at that point in time, not where they will be in 10 years.

Now you are both talking bollocks,

Why should we get rid of Oxford and Cambridge? They take the best from all over the country - lots of them from comprehensives. All my friends who have children who have been have been at comprehensives. If there are no grammar schools they do just as well. I really can't see why the top stream only does well a separate building. It doesn't make sense.
Those who 'bloom' at 30 or later go off to university later. I can think of lots of people who have done that but it doesn't stop the majority going at -18 yrs.

"What about those who bloom at 30". Well they can go to University at 30 can't they. It's a nonsensical comparison.

@Saythisonlyonce: I would make same decisions as you. Doesn't mean I'd be happy about being forced to.

No those who bloom at 30 can't go later what a ridiculous thing to say.They will be paying or saving for a mortgage,will get zero help with childcare and have bills to pay which would never allow for course fees or the loss of one income. I'd love to do my Masters but won't have a hope in hell.

And sorry it is widely known how there simply aren't the right numbers from comps in Oxbridge schools. Hoards of state kids( grammar and comp) are excluded for a huge variety of reasons.

Selective education is worse for social inequality than a comprehensive education. All the international evidence clearly shows this.

Those who keep banging on about opportunities for poor kids are just sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring this.

You can't promote grammar schools based on some ideal which simply doesn't exist.

Selective education is worse for social inequality than a comprehensive education. All the international evidence clearly shows this.Those who keep banging on about opportunities for poor kids are just sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring this.You can't promote grammar schools based on some ideal which simply doesn't exist.

Well said.

These threads on MN get a bit tiresome with posters talking from their experience, which is often either out of date ie they went to a grammar school in the 70s etc and there was a wide mix of backgrounds, or people that don't live in selective areas but have one grammar that doesn't affect the other schools.

I am from Scotland, and it has taken me until now to get my head around the English education system. i think it to me so long to understand it because, looked at from the outside, it is a truly bizarre way to organize things and I couldn't believe that such an unfair, inequitable system actually existed. It looks to me to be driven by fearful middle class parents, desperate to ensure that their children are in the right circles, mixing with the right people, and accessing a whole heap of advantages on top of the ones (money, material wealth, educated, successful parents, etc) that they already have.

I went to a secondary school in Scotland through the 80s. It was big, took children from rural areas, to leafy burbs, to tower blocks. It provided AFAIK a good eduction and opportunities for everyone, whatever their abilities or interests. Plenty of us went on to Uni, plenty didn't. But the opportunity was there, and no selection at age 11 was necessary.

And again- what are these advantages?

Grammar schools don't get extra money,often they get less.There are often bigger classes and they often share teachers who have taught in both.All teachers are trained in the same colledges.

I do think that grammars often get less money. There's no denying that DD's grammar school is getting decidedly crumbly and parts of it look quite run down, despite the picturesque wood paneling in the entrance hall and the beautiful mature trees which surround it.

Similarly its sports facilities aren't that fancy with quite a hotch potch of equipment and a gymnasium which has seen better days. It's school teams are quite successful but the girls who really excel (like DD) and play sport at county level tend to play mainly for non school related teams with better coaching and facilities.

But just down the road from her grammar is a brand spanking new build academy with facilities and sports hall/gym which make your eyes bleed.

Grammar schools don't get extra central funding from the government because they tend to have very few pupil premium students. The grammar school that my son attended had woeful facilities and poor teachers. It did benefit from a quite wealthy PTA but I don't imagine that made up for PP funding but I could be wrong. I knew people who were very open that they had saved themselves tens of thousands of pounds so they had no issue with donating to the PTA in quite significant amounts.

Grammar school pupils also tend to cost less to educate, little need for intervention groups or payment for specialist provision. My son had a significant level of special needs and we paid for most of his provision myself.

I don't understand why what would be top sets in a comprehensive need a separate building, as a grammar school.
While I can see that the difficulties of timetabling might make it difficult to be in a top set for one subject and the bottom for another ( not my personal experience ) it doesn't stop a pupil moving up or down e.g. DS moving from 3rd to 1st Maths set in a year. Had he been at a sec mod he would have been in the top maths group from the start, with nowhere to go, and he couldn't have ended up at a RG university.