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.

In answer to LilyTucker universities have mature students- they always have.

Blimey I never knew that.

How many can actually do it though particularly now property,rent,food and childcare is so expensive and fees have to be paid for.

Mature students are plummeting for the very reasons I mentioned.

You do have to move them - my son was outperforming most of the top group- he had to go up! It would be a mad world if he was told 'sorry, you were not doing very well aged 11yrs but we are keeping you in that set!
Why not move one down if they have someone who is doing better?
That is precisely what I have against grammar schools- a lot are drilled for the test and find it difficult to cope but they keep the place. Highly unfair when they are being outperformed by some who failed the exam.
I agree that being a mature student is more difficult these days, but people still manage it.

Numbers are plummeting and frankly any student going to uni these days is going to need the back up of a supportive,solvent family.

These days competition is so high there is little difference between those that get a place and those that don't.All are at a high standard so I don't buy the myth that hoards struggle once there. Also very few kids will be amazing at everything so naturally you will get those not lightening hot in every area.

I know quite a few, personally, who struggle once there and have to have extra maths and English.
I think that anyone should think seriously before going to university.

If there is little difference between those who get a place and those who don't - and it has always been the case that a line is drawn between two pupils of equal ability- it shows the unfairness of selection.

Wow you know a lot about other people's kids,you sound a little over interested.

Ours has a fab ethos based on max effort and making sure you achieve what you are capable of,for some that will be A* and for others it will be a B.Both may well want to put extra study in.< shrugs>

Nothing is fair.

Better comps in expensive areas certainly aren't and kids able to breeze off to uni effortlessly because they know mum and dad will pick up the tab whilst others who desperately want to and should go can't isn't fair either.

I was a teacher so know a lot about other people's kids. Am I not supposed to be interested?
Life is never fair. At least you can give opportunity to late developers.

I hate the idea that targets are set in stone. Why not change the target?
My son had a lowish target aged 11yrs 6 minths but by 12 yrs he had a high target.
Grammar schools change targets. My brother went in at 12+ and a year later he was in the express stream.
I am sure it works the other way too.

Flexibility is the key.

The fact that they can't change them down doesn't mean that they should deny those who need them changed up by selecting them for the wrong school at 10 yrs of age.

My point is that a comprehensive allows for flexibility and changed targets upwards. The sec mod system gives them a top ceiling that they can't get past. The 10yr old who fails the 11+ is going to find it very difficult to get the target changed to all A* GCSEs because he/she is in the wrong school. They can't be in the right Maths group because they are in the wrong school. In a comprehensive they simply move up and get the right teaching.

And you would have to move the pupil down if they didn't understand the work- regardless of targets. They can't be set in stone. The 10yr old that seems destined for high grades may be very different by 14 yrs.

Then why are people saying secondary moderns in Kent aren't comprehensive? If they can still offer and education for every level student?

I only know what I have read on here about Kent secondary moderns, and that they were not comprehensive.

Mehitabel. I have to question your ascertion that children educated in secondary modern schools can not have tagets of A* or level 8/9 at GCSE.

This is certainly not the case at DSs modern school. The average grade for 'High' Abilty students at GCSE is B and lots of students there get A and above grades. The school has suggested that DS who is Level 7 in Maths/English at the end of year 7 that targets of A or level 8/9 in most subjects are appropriate at this early stage.

I had a grammar school education. I didn't want one for my DC.

The grammars that have survived outside of Bucks and Kent are quite hide-bound.