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 do think there is a fundamental flaw in a system that relies on a pass/fail test that has such an enormous bearing on the rest of a perspn's life at the age of 11.

'Shed loads' of money isn't necessarily the answer. It depends what they do with it.

"I wouldn't send mine to a comprehensive that let kids disrupt lessons".

Err lucky you that can engage in selection by money,you clearly have the means to live in an area with decent schools or to pay for travel further afield.

Many parents have zero choice as regards which comp they send their kids to and are stuck with it.

And as regards all the best teachers being in grammars that is just ridiculous. How on earth do you get the stats to back that up.I know of several who have taught in both within the sae area.

That is the major flaw christinarosetti. It is so unaccurate as to be practically useless, except as a very rough divide between the top and the bottom. To then make predictions for how they will do 5 yrs in the future and say that it can't be changed is madness. I wouldn't object if they selected at 14yrs with the pupil having some say in what sort of education they wanted academic, technical or practical.

I think you missed my point entirely! My point was that it was ridiculous - meaning they don't!

My other point was that in good areas, without grammar schools, the comprehensives give an education equal to grammar schools.

"n Kent, 50% of level 5 students who are FSM are not entered."

Out of interest, what does that mean in actual numbers?

I think you are missing where I am using irony, LilyTucker.

"I wouldn't object if they selected at 14yrs with the pupil having some say in what sort of education they wanted academic, technical or practical."

If the education available at 14 did properly differentiate then that might be an option. Sadly, this government has chiseled away so much at vocational education that it is now practically non existent-becuase of the middle class sneering at "hair and beauty" and the ridiculous emphasis on schools forcing kids into academic GCSES in a unthought through Daily Mail pleasing persuit of "academic rigour"......

It would need a whole new system of education to go with it.
I would like to have that choice at 14yrs.

I agree that it isn't a possibility at the moment.

The university technical colleges and the studio schools are offering what you describe in some areas, Mehitabel (by the way, love your username - one of my favourite books). It's worth looking at them if they exist in your area.

I always have a horrible feeling when reading this sort of discussion that we're missing the main point, which is that the expensively educated are getting on with running the country, arts, sports, etc while we debate types of selection and whether comprehensives are really comprehensive. Even in grammars the students are competing against those who have had a lot more resources thrown at them - especially regarding careers advice, which is in a woeful state.

IMO the main issue is the system has become so complex to navigate in England. An Australian friend is utterly baffled by it. I keep trying to explain the more illogical aspects of it and she is and I realise some of it is indefensible.

I agree Phineyj. We have this debate when the sad thing is that you can look at the baby and parents and make a very educated guess at their life chances and this shouldn't be right. Swap the babies and you get a different result! We must miss so much talent across the board.

(I chose the name just after reading the book)

So what do the people who think selection at 11 is reasonable think of the King Solomon Academy which has 75% pupil premium, 46% FSM and last year got 93% A*-C in English and Maths and 75% Ebacc? The average grade of a low ability student was a B-.

The entire school is geared towards preparing all students for university, regardless off background. Would you look at those results and argue that it would have been better for those kids to select hairdressing at 14?

I was being ironic CamelHump as already explained to LilyTucker - I hadn't realised that people didn't get irony.
For the second time - of course the best teachers are not all in grammar schools- that was the very point that I was making!

I think that it can be done noblegiraffe which is why I back comprehensives.
I also don't know why people are so down on hairdressers- I would love to see your high powered woman going to work without a good haircut!

Some children are not academic - why not choose alternative routes.

We need the cleaners, car mechanics, cooks, plumbers etc etc etc - the high powered academic can't manage without them.
Useless everyone aiming to be a surgeon when they can't do operations without nurses, cleaners and admin staff.

I see. So you think it would be better if those 75% of kids who got the Ebacc at the KSA had been funnelled into construction and hairdressing instead?

From the KSA results, it would appear that far fewer kids are 'not academic' than usually supposed.

It is about priorities. My priority was to secure the best possibly education within my means for my children. That's what being a good parent is about. I can't change the system or the world but I can make sure my children get as much out of what exists as possible.

FWIW we sent our dd to a high performing sought after small cofe comprehensive that had a spectacular reputation. It had also had new management a couple of years before my daughter started. It went from having an incredible ethos to an ethos of "this is just a comprehensive" where nothing was done to deal with dreadful behaviour because those responsible for it were from deprived backgrounds and therefore allowances had to be made. That is what is wrong with the comprehensive system as I have seen it: it supports a culture of excuses and all too often the political belief system of those in charge (which admittedly is often not the same as mine). In other jobs it is more usual to keep ones political views to oneself but this appears not to be so in state education in the UK and I find it disconcerting.

We moved our daughter after Year 8 due to disruption and her increasing unhappiness. Only English and Maths were set. There was no setting for any other subjects except that later on the top half of the cohort did triple rather than double science.

What we saw was a system that supported the gradual sink to the lowest common denominator rather than a rise to the highest which surely would have been better for those with least support.

Our daughter would probably have got into a grammar school in Kent btw where it's the top 25%. She stood no chance for somewhere like Tiffin where it's probably the top 0.5% and which I question in the context of ethos nowadays because it has been infiltrated by a "Tiger Mummy" culture in a way that is quite extreme and cannot be healthy.

Overall there is something that is wrong with the way education is structures in the UK and it seems far wider and broader to me than the grammar/comprehensive debate. As it stands, too many schools seem unfit for purpose and are not places I would have been happy for either of my children to experience.

In my heart and if I am honest if we had not been able to fund independent education I think we would have moved to Kent. That might not be the palatable opinion but until there are improvements across the board then Kent, in my opinion and I might be biased because I went to grammar school there, provides far better options than elsewhere.

I've read a bit, Camel, and it's a small school, which helps. 60 per year group. They have a long day and lots of homework. Each child is taught a string instrument to orchestra standard. But when you read that each class is named after the university the class teacher went to, and each year group has a week-long residential trip to a different top university each year, you realise that the culture is very different to a bog standard comp.

These kids would normally have been written off, certainly by a selective exam at 11. How aspirational could a secondary modern be when its intake have already been labelled academic failures?