To think that the decision of the education secretary to sanction the proposed grammar annexe will lead to a number of grammar schools applying for annexes.

[sunshield]

This is a conterversial subject, particulary on mumsnet about whether grammar schools aid social mobilty. This however is surely a victory for the parents of Sevonoaks. They have campaigned for at least the same opportunity of grammar school education as other towns in a selective county.

I personally think it is fair and correct, that parents are able to ask for a type of school they believe to be in the interest of their children. That includes selective, academy or religous schools.

I am wondering though whether now that a way of getting through legal problems about expanding selective schools, there will be a flury of applications from other grammar schools.

We should definitely not have any more grammar schools. It's absolutely right that only children whose parents can afford private school should be able to have a rigorous, academically-selective classical education. It's not as though we want clever children from poor families to join the elite.

No doubt said tongue in cheek Manatee, but I think there's an element of truth in this.

I'm in Bucks which still has plenty of grammar schools and, from personal experience, they are not entirely the preserves of the MC (although maybe 3 are but that's due to their location). They are mostly a good social and cultural mix that prepares the kids for real life (unlike private schools, IMHO) plus offer a great education. What is not to like about that?

Here in Bucks the level of education across the board is higher than many other counties because grammar schools lift the standards of all schools. We even have an "all abilities" school where they take different percentages of kids at different levels to avoid the problems with the non-grammars having low achievement.

In the 1970's/80s there were plenty of opportunities for social mobility because there were so many grammar schools -just look at who were top politicians in the 80s - large number from grammar schools. But look at what we have now - the privileged few.

When there were grammar schools countrywide they provided opportunities for social mobility for everyone. Now only a select few have that opportunity if you can't pay.

I really hope that this decision does pave the way for more grammar schools then we might be governed by people who know how the masses really live.

I should declare an interest because I went to a grammar school but I went to one that had a 2 mile catchment area and there was no tutoring. I disagree with super-selective grammar schools with huge catchment areas where you have to get tutoring to get in. And my old school is now one of those (presumably an unintended consequence of league tables).

BUT why do we think it’s ok to select kids on faith (or rather their parents’ faith ) but not ability? I just don’t get it. I am much more strongly opposed to state-funded religious schools than I am grammar schools. It really annoys me that there is a good comprehensive school down the road with great MFL capability but my son who really likes languages can’t go because we’re not Catholic. For goodness sake.

That said, I’m happy I live in a non-selective area where we didn’t have the stress of the 11+ and my son has gone to a good non-faith comprehensive where the majority of kids reach their potential and if they’re Oxbridge material, will get there regardless of not being at a private or grammar school. I’m not really sure why this can’t happen everywhere and why we need separate schools to have differentiated teaching.

Whether this opens the floodgates, not sure. This is a bit of a special case. But given population growth, I think the existing grammar schools should be able to expand.

There is a really good comment on one of the Guardian pages:

There is a blind assumption in this country that grammar schools are better than comprehensives. The reality is, grammar schools were dumped because they were failing and failed the country. The grammar school myth is based on the results of direct grant grammar schools, which made up less than 10% of all grammar schools. In the other 90% of selective grammar schools, 40% of pupils only got 2- O'levels, mainly at B and C grades. Exactly the same as the comprehensives that replaced them but the comprehensives didn't have selection, which means, comprehensives performed better!!!!!!!!!

Exactly so and the second sentence should be highlighted - they were failing the country, and failing the Middle Classes too. Which is why Maggie Thatcher got rid of a lot of them.

The decision to dump grammar schools was taken in the 1960s when maybe they were failing to deliver, but education in general has moved a long way from then - if you look at them now, selective schools do achieve considerably better academic results and, in many cases, better sports results.

They do not now reinforce class divisions (as originally believed when Labour introduced the law to phase them out) but give opportunities to anyone bright enough to gain a place.

That's not to say I don't value "non-academic" subjects or vocational courses but why not allow the "academic" kids to reach their full potential?

They do not now reinforce class divisions (as originally believed when Labour introduced the law to phase them out) but give opportunities to anyone bright enough to gain a place.

I am not sure how anyone can state that, when you only have to look at MN to see the heavy amount of tutoring which goes on for the remaining GSs. I can't imagine anyone on the minimum wage finding the money for regular tutoring for 3 years or so.

But yes, education has moved a long way since the 60s - we no longer let children leave school at 15 before they have had a chance to sit for qualifications for which we only expected 25% to be eligible, so why bring back a model which was based around that premise?

Better sports results? Why? Does being academic go with being sporty? (Not in my case, it didn't.)

Ok, so do those on FSM dominate the top sets of the local comprehensives/secondary moderns?

Ok, so do those on FSM dominate the top sets of the local comprehensives/secondary moderns?

I think that's the wrong question - if Grammar Schools were really the vehicle for social mobility then they would have the same proportion of children on FSM as the Secondary Moderns do or at least be in the same proportion as the the general population.

(But that's why Thatcher got rid of loads of GS's - can't have working class children from a rough council estate taking the places when nice MC children fail and have to go to the Sec Mod.)

Its only the wrong question if you believe that social mobility can only be measured by number of children at a grammar on FSM.

Many grammar schools are full of working poor, lower middle class children, second/third generation immigrants who aren't on FSM. Do we have a measure of those people?

So the stats show that children on FSM tend not to be in the top sets of comps? So seeing as the majority of schools are comps - why aren't we loooking at comps as part of the problem? They clearly aren't the solution either.

But do they fulfill their potential in comprehensives?

No, I'm guessing.

So the suggestion is that a system that allows lower middle class and upper working class children mobility should be abandoned because it does not do enough for the most disadvantaged children?

I sincerely hope grammars become far more widely available again

It is about what happens to those children who both qualify for FSM and are very academic as well. The ones who qualify for FSM and who achieve the very highest academic levels at the end of primary school have poorer outcomes than children who achieve exactly the same academically but who do not qualify for FSM

If those poor dc are in a primary where the 11+ is not even allowed tp be mentioned, how do you propose those dc enter it?

Not rocket science is it.

LET priaries point those with potential at grammars that will do more to even up playing field than anything./

helmet

NO need to guess google it and you will find numerous reports showing that comps fail higher ability sudent

If selective education was so very effective, then wholly selective LEAs would have significantly better results than wholly comprehensive ones. They don't.

I was a FSM kid from a single parent family and we lived on a council estate on benefits. Thanks to grammar school (and frankly to the fact that I received a full grant) I was the first person in my family who went to university and now earn more than I could ever have imagined possible.

However the school I went to was very snobby and middle class-dominated - probably more so than a private school. I could never invite my class mates home to our crappy little house as most of them were bussed in from wealthier areas. I was very much looked down on by them and estranged from my friends who went from my deprived-area primary to secondary modern.

No idea what the solution is, but the current system of cramming kids to pass entrance exams and sending everyone else to second rate schools seems like grammar schools in all but name....

If selective education was so very effective, then wholly selective LEAs would have significantly better results than wholly comprehensive ones. They don't.

West Kent has the best private secondary school in the country, the best state grammar and non-selective secondary schools in the top few percent.