to ask would you send your eldest Dc to a grammar school?

[var12]

Hypothetical question... if there were grammar schools in your area and your DC1 was offered a place, would you accept it?

Also, I think it's worth bearing in mind that the children Maqueen referred to earlier - the ones whose parents "couldn't care less about education, or homework, or exams..." - by definition have no spokespeople in discussions like this. That doesn't make them unreachable, or unteachable, nor does it mean their needs are less important than the "grammar stream". It does make them a lot easier to ignore when coming up with vote-grabbing education reform policies, though.

maqueen - your school sounds way better. I wish I'd pointed the boys at the grammar route. I have let them down sending them to a comprehensive.

My last post was a bit bitter with the system that discriminates against the most able, and thinks it is right to do so.

Val your post:

Are you saying that because they pass exams eventually? (BTW some become so disillusioned that when the exams finally come along, they have no habit of working, or really just can't bring themselves to start caring again and fail)

Is this how you believe the academically gifted currently are educated then? Because the majority aren't being educated in grammar schools right now.

I can't believe you're denying this is an option. Where do you educated academically gifted economically limited children?

1. Create more grammar schools
2. Carry on as they are now.

Don't correct, most don't have grammars. Instead they have comps where, on the whole, the very, very brightest aren't properly catered for. Not in the same way, they are challenged at a grammar.

See my above post re: top set at a grammar = top 5%, .....top set at a comp = top 20%.

That's a huge difference.

Dontyoulovecalpol - so you think passing exams equates to education?
I can tell you that learning what's needed for an exam is only a tiny percentage of what could be done. If you think that this is all that schools should do with the top set and who cares if it only uses 10% of their effort, then you are right, comprehensives are the answer. However, i think its a dreadful waste to leave a child doing busy work year after year.

No var. you are the one talking about exams, that's hot
Post quoted. I've not mentioned them

No var. you are the one talking about exams, that's your
Post quoted. I've not mentioned them

Yes and no it wouldn't change my mind about them if my child didn't get in. Not all children are suited to it.
One of my friends moved to any expensive area in the grammar school catchment area but is realising that her eldest son is unlikely to pass and too early to tell with her youngest.

var - that's not comprehensive education, though. It may be what is happening in far too many schools at the moment; but it's no answer.

You haven't let your sons down, by the way. You've tried to do the best for them. If they are being let down by the system, that's something else. Something to fight about, for sure - but not something to beat yourself up over.

DC1 passed 11+ with top marks. As this was back in the late 90s the HT got to comment on each child's suitability for Grammar. HT had a score to settle with DC1 she marked suitable for High School. With that note no amount of appealing had any effect. DC1 went to independent school on the strength of the 11+ marks, on a Assisted Place, for which I am eternally grateful.

Having not learned our lesson, we listened when they said DC2 wasn't suitable for Grammar because of SEN (aspergers, dyspraxia). He didn't take the test and went to High school, which turned out to be a good fit.

While DC1 wants to be the same as everyone else, DC2 doesn't give a shit about anyone else and is happy in his own little bubble, so was top sets G&T (until he went to Grammar for 6th form and found he hadn't been taught half the syllabus).

DC3 and DC4 went to Grammar. DC5 wouldn't pass the test thanks to dyslexia and other SEN. Even with that in mind I still think there should be Grammars.

multivac - thanks. I agree its not "comprehensive" but, then, IME comprehensive is a misnomer. Its the reality of the Comprehensive system, rather than adhering to the small c meaning.
calpol - tbh I am struggling to understand why you think the most able are catered for in comprehensives. I tried to prompt you into explaining by asking if you thought it was about passing exams. TBH I am out of guesses. Tell me, what do you think constitutes education and what's your evidence -anecdotal or otherwise - that backs up your assertions that the more able receive an education within the comprehensive system.

What if your child has to go to the secondary modern because others get the grammar school places. Will you all be as happy then when he/she has a limited curriculum and not the best teachers and is unlikely to have post-16 and university opportunities?
In the school where I worked only 15% of a year group would have passed an 11+ on average. Yet because we kept them and worked so hard with them and all children, with amazing staff, 75% got 5+A*-C including English and Maths at GCSE and 35% approx every year left Sixth Form to go to university. Take that top 20% out and the best staff and then the sixth form would be too small to exist, some GCSE courses would not run so the curriculum would be compromised. No one would be doing any better.
Life isn't segregated. You don't sit somewhere else on the tube because you pass an exam at 11. It is ridiculous.

Var I don't know what you're talking about. I've come to the conclusion you are mixing me up with someone else. You're asking me to explain things I haven't stated.

So the problem with comprehensives is some of the parents who aren't motivated and don't care. And grammars will give children a leg up, children whose parents can't afford fees and so on.

But those children whose parents don't care: they haven't a prayer, have they? So we just leave them where they are, because their uncaring parents won't be making the effort to support them in applying for the grammar, but make sure they're never allowed anywhere near anyone with a different attitude?

Something about that doesn't sound quite right.

Life isn't segregated. Really? No 5 star hotels? No business class lounges at airports? No executive toilets? No prohibitively expensive restaurants or shops? No houses in areas you couldn't possibly afford? or on the other side, no pubs in Glasgow that would be unhappy should a non-Celtic supporter wander in.

If you think grammar schools are not about passing exams you have a big shock coming.......

Var Well, yes, quite

And, I'll add...jobs for the 'boys'...the old school tie for network...certain golf clubs...theatre or concert seats...shops selling plus-size clothing...private medical care...private dental care...Fast track theme park passess...

No, 'life isn't segregated' at all, not one little bit...

"Life isn't segregated"

No everyone can walk into a high paying, intellectually fulfilling job can't they... Of course life is segregated, that's why people who know this (doesn't everyone?) fight so hard for their children's education. I have to say reading this thread I'm bloody glad I can afford to educate my children privately and therefore am not at the mercy of the state system. I realise that is a terrible state of affairs but because the world we live in IS dog eat dog I will continue to work hard and do my damndest to give my kids the best start they can get. As will every single parent out there I know but some have a lot less choice sadly.

BR of course grammars are about passing exams. We send our DDs to a grammar to get loads of excellent GCSEs, in an academically focused environment with virtually zero pupil disruption/bad behaviour.

No other reason really...

They already had good social lives and did plenty of out of school activities. We'd already got those bases covered.

But life is more segregated if you start at the top or the bottom, it shouldn't be. Its also far easier to be in the top end of the segregation if your parents started there, far easier to get by, not on your own merit but because of the cultural capital you and your parents have.

Life is segregated, but the barriers shouldn't be insurmountable for the majority.

I asked a while ago if anyone can think of a "failure" quite as irrevocable as the 11+. There aren't many important things that you can't have another go at.

And we do that to 10 year olds??

I thought grammar schools were all about 'networking' and socializing with the with 'your' kind of people and thus keeping your child away from those who will do you no good !

Anyway your child will soon enough meet the rest of the 'world' , let them be blissfully unaware that the world is not full of 'nasty' unintelligent and skint people for as long as possible !

I think thats private schools sandy.

Actually both my parents came from working class backgrounds - and indeed one of them from poverty. Through grit and determination, and grammar school as it happens, they managed to be in a position to send my sibling and I to arguably the top private schools in the country. We were clever enough and hard working enough to pass the entrance exams and interviews. There isn't a day goes by when I'm not grateful for that.

That was in reply to smallfox2002