To wonder if there are supporters of grammar schools who didn't go to grammar schools themselves

[WildebeestH]

Just that really. The only friends I have who support grammar schools went to grammar schools themselves. I'm intrigued to know if there are many people who support them having not been to a grammar (or other selective) school and if so why?

"And a grammar school class of children who were tutored for years just to pass verbal and non verbal reasoning entrance tests may not actually contain that many creative and original thinkers."

Yeah, they're all mindless robots... but, they're mindless robots with a shed load of excellent GCSEs and A Levels.

It's not right, of course, and it's not the solution. The solution as you say is to remove and deal with poor behaviours. That doesn't exist at the moment except in extreme circumstances.

actually the solution is to provide an education that they can engage with and achieve in. It just might be to think the unthinkable and say there is a group of kids who are disruptive because school isn't giving them what they need and that a different type of education would suit them far better.

I think a different type of education can suit some people better. My less academic child is better now in college where the top end isn't there - she is actually happier, her self esteem has improved and the teachers are more tuned in to those sorts of pupils.

I guess if I had a middle if the road child, comps may have worked out better for us.

"I think a different type of education can suit some people better"

Yep. agree.

No they don't need to be in separate schools. But when the teachers don't teach the A grade requirements because they are concentrating on the c/d in the class (which is the majority) so fair dos, it does make you feel that your child is not being catered for.

You can argue it's a poor teacher, but the teacher is put in that situation with the type of schooling.

What you are objecting to is mixed ability teaching, not comprehensive schools.

I agree Grumble I believe there is a large swathe of our pupil population, for whom, education past the age of 14 is pretty much redundant. They don't want it. They don't engage with it. It's stressful for them, and equally stressful for the teachers having to crowd control teach them.

Yes and unfortunately some comps find mixed ability teaching is one way of allowing choice of subjects. I can see why they do it, but it does cause issues for both ends of the spectrum.

Ive taught classes which were settled, but the top set contained children who wouldn't get a c. It's a big spread to cover.

There are a lot of children who don't engage with school after 14. I agree.

A focus on literacy, numeracy and a skill /trade /craft may be the best path for some kids. Then they have achieved rather than failed, they have got a way to earn a living and if they want to change path later they have the confidence and skills to return to education or training. If there was a system that offered different types of education to different types of children some may end up in wrong type school but a comprehensive is the wrong type of school for some children now. Feeding everyone lobster and saying "but lobster is very good food" fails to look after vegetarians and really fails the person with a seafood allergy.

"A focus on literacy, numeracy and a skill /trade /craft may be the best path for some kids."

Do you think that the grammar school system provides this?

And I agree that lobster is not the right food for everyone. But it does always seem to be the right food for for the privileged children- nobody ever suggests that maybe the FSM children should get the lobster and the rich children would be better off with tinned pilchards!

I think the old national grammar/ secondard mod. system did it better than the comprehensive system. I think the current system with some grammars some places don't work and does favour kids from better of backgrounds. But I do think a system with different types of education could work. If the choice is lobster or tinned pilchards the person with the seafood allergy will still end up dead so we need better choices not fewer.

Well my child comes from what you might say us a privileged background and I think she would have been better catered for in a less comprehensive setting.
School was just too academic for her.

"I think the old national grammar/ secondard mod. system did it better than the comprehensive system."

I think you might be confusing secondary modern schools with technical schools. You are also assuming that it is possible to tell reliably whether a 10 year old will be capable of doing GCSE history.

We had sets in my secondary school - 1 (highest), 2, 3. You could be in Set 1 for English but Set 2 for Maths etc. That worked perfectly.

A better question would be 'are there any supporters of grammar schools by people who think their own child would get the sec mod?'
I suspect that supporters of grammar schools think that sec mods are fine for 'other people's children'. If something is not good enough for your own child it isn't good enough for anyone else's child!
The problems will come when middle class parents with very bright children find that they may well end up with the sec mod- they always did in the past (private schools did very well out of it) . Passing is based on place rather than ability. A pass in one town can be a fail in another. A boy can often get a place with less marks than a girl. Hope that your child wasn't born in a bulge year.
In the days of universal 11+ many families were split. I know 4 sets of twins split.
I can't see why they need a separate building- they are set for subjects. Sad that children are separated from friends and sent to different schools. At my age we all went through 11+ and you can't tell from talking to the person, or knowing their career, whether they passed or failed.

draylon
I agree. I don't really want separate schools but the comp model we have I don't think works in my area. I think it could with much bigger schools. You do loose the comprehensive nature with small schools , the choice, the ability to set effectively, the numbers to run an orchestra. That would be my preference.

We need excellent education for all children.
Luckily all evidence is against and the biggest failure comes for the children from the disadvantaged background - the very ones it is supposed to help.
People forget that we went comprehensive because of the unpopularity of the selective system. Bound to be if over 75% have opportunities closed off to them when only 11yrs- and in those days it wasn't manipulated by all the tutoring.
Of course those who can afford to 'buy' a place like it- a great saving on paying for secondary education!

Going back to selective says to me ' improving all schools is too costly- let's just 'rescue' 25% or less'! Every child deserves the best - and to have the full range of opportunities kept open.

Head As a matter of interest how many in a year group do you consider 'small' ?

DD has ~250 in a year group so y7-11 is 1250 (in Hants state schools almost all don't have 6th forms, but 6th form colleges instead). This seems to be large enough to give adequate choice for GCSEs. The school offers 2 languages and triple science, but also Construction and Beauty.

head the reason I ask is that I've seen on the education boards, especially the primary ones, that what people consider a 'small school' is directly dependent on the range of sizes in their area.

Draylon but is that big? I don't have any others to compare with.

People here call one school 'big' and the other 'smaller' when there is only 2 tutor groups difference, so only 50-60 kids per year. I think that is insignificant when you have 8-12 tutor groups in a year.