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.

camel yes but you just said that the top ability will be catered for, so is that not comprehensive?

I understand what you are saying about performance, but given all levels the secondary is catering for its sort of to be expected.

What I'm saying is, if my dc failed in Kent 11+, but I knew he would still be working at the right level at secondary, then he could still get the same grades, as if he went to grammar? Yes the general ethos in grammar would have been different.

But from what you have said he would still have the opportunity to succeed in getting A*s. Which seems to be at odds, with what everyone else on here has said.

(I'm sorry if I'm missing something quite obvious)

If they have such high targets why are they not in a grammar school? If the pupils in Kent have such wonderful schools where many pupils don't bother taking the 11+ and they can do fantastically well in the ones that are not grammar schools why on earth do we get so much fuss on MN and so many tutors? - They can all relax and not bother if they get a place or not!

I appear to be missing it too, Mybigtoe - it is all completely at odds with what anyone in here says about Kent. They can save all that angst - they can do just as well or better, apparently.

So basically you are saying that a sec mod is wonderful if it is very middle class and has parents who are aspirational and supportive? This is the main criticism of comprehensives that is unfair because the good ones are very middle class with aspirational and supportive parent.
Parents are happy to deliberately avoid a grammar school if they live in a 'good' area. Have I got that right?
I still think that if you compare like with like, according to area, then comprehensives are better because they have the top 25% in them.

I'm torn on this subject but I think before grammar schools can either be abolished or increased then there are two issues to be solved.
Firstly comprehensives need to be as capable at providing for the most able. And yes I get that good comps have students getting as but children don't need to be at genius level to be bored following the curriculum for an a. Comprehensives need to be offering further maths/igcse/Latin/whatever interests them etc to stretch students who won't find any challenge in gaining good grades. And with education funding how it presently is, high ability students frustration and boredom just can't be a priority for a schools budget so I don see this happening.
Second issue as previously mentioned is that intake is usually unfairly skewed towards those with the money for tutors/prep school. If grammar schools remain I think ideally tutoring should be banned, unless there's bee sufficient disruption to the child's previous education (eg medical, undiagnosed Sen, lac etc not because 'my precious first borns primary haven't focused on 11plus exam technique). Not sure how that would be policed, other than asking the child themselves prior to interview and perhaps the right to revoke the place if it's later discovered the child was tutored.
As it stands though, if comprehensives aren't going to cater for the top % (as in my opinion many don't) and grammars places are being taken by tutored (and therefore unsuitable children) then the easiest way to solve the problem is to provide more grammars so that places aren't as hotly contested

Comprehensives do cater for the top 25% - Why wouldn't they? I really can't see what difference a building makes. My DSs comprehensive offered all that and sends pupils to top universities. It also catered really well for the gifted and talented. My DS wasn't one of the gifted and talented, despite doing a science subject at a RG university, because there were others who stood out.

Mehitabel. The comprehensive school in Hull where my sister teaches ,does not have many top 25% ability pupils!.

Does this mean it is not a comprehensive school, despite being in an area that has no selection whatsoever !.

This also means the term comprehensive school is open to interpretation.
My DSs school is far more"Comprehensive" in its cohort and outcomes of its students.

However, the only thing that matters is that a school achieves for all its pupils, whether it is a grammar school or a non selective school.

I don't disagree that some do. But many don't. I'm in a fully comprehensive area with some very oversubscribed schools that do cater to everyone. But discounting the odd 60's housing estate these are mainly selection by house price or religion. And their ability to cater to the top 5% is mainly good teaching and ethos, eg gifted provision at lunch etc. the other local comps seem to coast by on the fact there's alway some bright kids who'll get top marks no matter what (and screw the fact they'll have spent 5yrs bored) and focusing their attention on those who'll get 5 c's (and screw those who could get better grades or those that won't get c's).

Sorry in reply to comps catering for all

There's no actual reason why selection by behaviour isn't possible at 11+ or 13+. It could deliver better environments for learning without academic elitism but probably wouldn't be popular.

But you can discriminate against SEN at the other end of the scale? Intelligence is a SEN and ofsted mark schools down for not catering well enough for their bright kids

They are discriminated against through lack of provision. Unoccupied bright kids can be disruptive they can also develop serious mental health issues such as anxiety.

Schools seem to just want to hit the required marks to not be seen as failing and damned are the kids who fall outside the average in either direction

Statemented SEN would continue to bypass the standard admissions process, though, presumably.

So it might increase demand for ECHPs in years 5 and 6 in readiness but that's no bad thing.

gifted children aren't discriminated against but they are treated unfairly at many schools, because their needs aren't as fully catered for as the more average ability child because they are a small minority and if we're talking actually gifted rather than just top 10% are too small a peer group. Hence why any provision for them even at good comprehensives is either outside usual lessons or only a tiny part of class lessons. Which is hugely unfair and why until they are catered for osone form of selective schooling is necessary so there is a sufficient peer group to teach.

Hmmm banning tutoring. Er how exactly? Kind of intrigued as to why when our grammars tell you to familiarise,send you a booklet to do,sell you packs and run VR days.

Little risky going on the say so of a child and when? Morning of the exam,when you already have 100s of kids to process and test? Are we including the tutoring done by educated parents at home? If not it kind of penalises those without educated parents.

And what about the kids who haven't covered the curriculum at school,have had a weak teacher in year 5 or come from a poor primary do they just have to have their hands tied and suck up the advantages those from private and Outstanding primaries have?

I keep saying 'Have I got this right?' Because the argument seems to have moved on. I am not sure that I have it correctly, but it seems to be saying that good schools are selected by house price so that a sec mod in a 'good' area is way better than a comprehensive in somewhere like Hull.
I could see the point of this and grammar schools if they were a level playing field and the bright disadvantaged child stood as much chance as a supported and tutored child- but they don't.
I think that there is quite a good argument for super selective as taking the top 2% over a wide area. They would cater for the truly gifted and not ones like my DS who is academically bright, did a science subject at a RG university but is 'run of the mill' above average.
At the moment grammar schools are no better with the really gifted when they take the top 25% and are even complacent. The one child that I know who was outstanding in Maths ( going to a master class in secondary school once a week from year 5) needed exceptional provision. The grammar school were very unhelpful with 'all out boys are bright' whereas they found a comprehensive who were prepared to give him special provision.
A way needs to be found to have excellent schools in the places where parents are not supportive and aspirational for their children. I can't see why they need to take out the brightest 25% as the only ones worth it- all the children are worth it.

There is no such thing as a tutor proof test - if there was they would use it.

Putting excellent schools into areas where parents aren't aspirational is already a priority and there has been success,coastal areas are the target now. Shed loads of money is thrown at it.

And sorry plenty of grammars cope just fine with exceptional G&T, just because you know of one that hasn't doesn't mean all are failing at it.Sweeping assumption.

Of course they do- the same as comprehensives do in the majority of the country where there are no grammar schools.
I find it very odd that all the best teachers, and the ones that stretch pupils and parents who care are in 163 schools whereas the rest of us have to put up with mediocre!
In the majority of places without grammar schools parents want the best and demand it. I wouldn't send mine to a comprehensive that wasn't going to get the best out of my children or one that would let pupils disrupt lessons. And if there were grammar schools here my DS who wouldn't have passed the exam needs just as good teaching and a similar lack of disruption.

I was talking about the reaction of the one grammar school that he had possible access to- I can't see where I said this would be all grammar schools. It was also the reaction of his local comprehensive - impossible to say what other comprehensives would have said.
My point was that the top 2% need special treatment in any type of school.