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?

I've done this. DS1 is in y8 at a highly academic grammar.

Ds2 is in primary. We will put him in for the 11+ and see how he gets on.

It's a little difficult to compare right now as ds1 was a September baby and ds2 is last week of August... Ds2 is bright but probably not as much as ds1.... However, he is the one I worry least about. He is confident, social, hardworking and gregarious and the local schools are pretty good.

I am happy that I've tried to give them both options and done he best for them as individuals.

Yes I would accept place and no I wouldn't change my opinion.

Puzzledconfusedandbewildered

That can't be true. The top grammar school "only" got 95.33% A/A Grades this year. Presumably significantly lower if just look at A grades. I know that Reading got about 60% A (out of 89.83% A/A)

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/08/26/gcse-results-2016-state-school-results/

Even the private schools don't have that many A. Maybe you meant A/A and not a private not grammar school.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/09/02/gcse-results-2016-independent-schools-table/

I know many private schools boycott these tables. But I'd be surprised if any schools are doing that much better than Westminster.

My DD1 will be sitting the 11+ for super selective next year and hopefully pass. DD2 has only just started school but I cannot see her doing it as well. She is a completely different character. DD1 actively enjoys learning, when I bought some bond books she immediatly wanted to start doing them. DD2 is more creative. I know whT I don't want for Themis going to a school like my niece where she couldn't tell friends she liked reading because they would laugh at her. My oldest deserves to be in a school where she wont be ashamed of wanting to do her best.

I would, but I'd be very wary of a single sex school, having attended one myself.

My DD went to grammar school. She has always been very bright, passed the 11+ easily (no tutoring whatsoever) and did really well. She is off to uni this month. DS has autism, he is bright but doesn't learn in a normal way. I didn't even put him in for the 11+ as we knew a grammar school wouldn't suit him.

Yes (and we are in a grammar area, although DS not school age yet).

For 2 reasons:
1 - because the brightest kids all tend to go to grammars, the local comprehensives in grammar areas are forced to aim low (eg our local has no-one doing Chemistry A-level) and bright kids become bully targets / underachieve.

2 - I was once the bright kid in a rubbish comp, teachers in 2 different subjects just gave me a textbook and sat me on my own and told me to teach myself for GCSE . I'd rather have pressured over-tuition than no tuition.

That said, I wouldn't care if grammar schools were completely scrapped. But as they are in our area we have to deal with the realities of that.

As indeed do the families with children who are keen to learn and achieve, but don't quite make the cut for grammar school, boiing. And the kids who've been dealt a shit hand from day one and have already stacked up 11 years of disadvantage before they even get to the point of taking the 11+. And the kids whose academic talents don't flourish until 13 or 14. And the kids who will never get the shiny grades no matter how hard they try. They all have to deal with the reality, too.

Still, as long as the "bright" ones are ok...

I went to a Grammar school. I have also been to an all girls school, a Catholic school and a normal Comprehensive. I can say in all honesty I preferred the Comprehensive.

My Grammar school was ok. A lot of the time I felt spoon fed though because they cared more about their Ofsted report than the pupil. This could have just been the one I went to, I don't know what the others are like. Some of them ended up going to Oxford and Cambridge, and I was able to go to a good University myself, but I don't think it's a guarantee.

Yes. Both our DDs go to an all girls' grammar.

It's considered 'cool' to be clever. Clever children don't get grief for doing well in lessons from less able pupils. Everyone does the homework. There is virtually zero pupil disruption during lessons. Teachers very, very rarely have to deal with poor behaviour or any truancy. Teachers can totally focus on teaching. Teachers are proper subject specialists (maths graduates teach maths). You don't get uncouth parents shouting and hooting in the reception area. The police are never called into school. There doesn't appear to be any problems with drugs. Every girl I have ever spoken to, at the school, makes eye contact, is polite and articulate.

Exams results are superb.

Why on Earth wouldn't you want to send your children to a school like that?

Because I don't want my children growing up to make cringingly condescending comments about 'uncouth parents shouting and hooting'?

Just off the top of my head...

The disproportionate rate of self-harm/eating disorders in single sex schools, especially amongst high achieving pupils, would be a concern for me, too.

The disproportionate rate of self-harm/eating disorders in single sex schools, especially amongst high achieving pupils, would be a concern for me, too.

I'd love to see a link to back that up. I've not come across it.

No I don't think I would.
What confuses me about it is. If every school has the right to convert to a Grammar school. Theresa May's words, not mine.
Where do all the non academic children go. Not all children are academic. It doesn't mean they don't have any thing to offer.
Are we going back to the class places and dunces cap.

Yes if my DD was offered a place at grammar school when she's old enough I would Absouletly take it.

I went to an all girls grammar school. I loved it

It's nice to know that there is one honest grammar school supporter on Mumsnet. Despicable. But honest.

A refreshing change from the usual believing three impossible things before breakfast "We send our children to grammar school because it's so much better for the less able kids" brigade. Not to mention the "Why on earth would any 10 year old feel like a failure because they publicly failed an exam" contingent!

We have although I don't believe in the system. Virtually everyone does, and with results before choosing and the equal preference system (which I generally think is a good thing), even the faith schools (which I also don't agree with) end up losing the top 30%. Dd scored highly in SATs so going to another school would mean losing much of her peer group. Our middle daughter might not pass as the system 'weeds out' people with SpLDs and she, although very intelligent, is possibly dyslexic so will find a one shot exam difficult. Dd is thriving being in her peer group but I know that it is at the expense of people like her sister. Even if we were fully aware at the time I don't know that we could have decided for dd1 to deny her the peer group that she is in on the basis that dd2 wouldn't get it. Either way it would build sibling resentment, at least this way it is decided for us by test and we will have to manage dd2 as best we can. If it was a truly even choice (fully comp school with maybe setting or streaming) vs our system I would take the comp school for both, but all of the time that grammars exist then I'm not willing to sacrifice dd1 for dd2.

Wellywife you could start here

Not at all. I'm not buying into the whole revolting, selective game.

but BertrandRussell you said that you sent your DD to a grammar. Why did you do that if you are so fundamentally against them?

Isn't the issue secondary moderns i.e. comprehensives minus the grammar school attendees? Surely, after nearly half a century of developing and testing educational theories, the teachers and headteachers who run comprehensives will be able to offer a better education and future to the 21st century secondary modern children than their 1960s counterparts did?
I find it hard to believe that everything hinges upon the most able 10-20% being taught with the majority.

and, after listening to Ed balls on the subject last week, why would anyone ever tell any child that they are failures even once, never mind repeatedly? If that was what happened in the 50s and 60s, then it is definitely not what would happen today.

Vac. Seems to be equally linked to having educated parents too! Not convinced about the quality of that research.

Norhern ireland never got rid of the grammer school system. It's been in place all this time since abolished in England. Yet no one is metioning it on any discussions in england

RubbleBubble00, speakign for myself, that would be because I did not know that NI still had the grammar system. The only things I know about the NI system (please correct me if I am wrong) are that:-

1. Historically, NI children have been much better educated than their English counterparts, partly through quality of teaching provision and partly because of more limited opportunities in NI (so it matters more and therefore parents are more supportive).
2. Education standards have been slipping in NI ever since they started following the english system (national curriculum and, maybe GCSEs too?)
3. Segregated schools, on the grounds of religion, are much more common in NI and going to a faith school is not in any way correlated with the idea of getting a better education.