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?

I like the governments option to sit for grammars at 11,14 and 16 too.

And how would they select at 14? A 14+? I bet the tutoring industry is bloody delighted at the prospect of even more cash.

There are multiple points at which a child could access a Grammar NOBLE...also l would much rather my less academic child was being tought well in a comprehensive suited to their needs, hopefully with a less stretched teacher.

This highlights a part of the problem, the parents inability to accept that not all children are academic, nor should they be pushed to be.

It seems parents are often the ones upset by the idea their child may not be grammar school material, until as parents we stop looking at what we want our Dcs to be and start looking at what they ARE, we cannot see what is best for our children. The academic ones and the non academic ones

not all children are academic,

But the 11+ can't tell which are not, so why base a school system around the supposition that it can?

This idea that in comprehensive all classes are mixed ability from mini Einstein to Jo Blogs on P scales is just not true.
Same on class sizes (though they're growing due to money being spent on land for free schools that don't exist, grammar school plans to appease the affluent middle and cuts to state educatoon).

It's been the plan all along. Run the state education system (and NHS) down so people have issues, then carve it up and give it to your mates/restructure it in a way that benefits the middle and upper class. Refuse to help failing schools, then fail them and give them to massive academy chains.
Talk down state secondaries as being rubbish, full of awful behavior, say the brightest can't ever get challenged enough (because that will get those who think their kids are gifted annoyed) and then offer a divisive solution where in the name of 'doing the best for their kids' said affluent people can tutor their children away from the horrors of inclusive education.

Are you only happy to accept it because you assume it wouldn't beyourchild?
Pretty much.

The arguments go like this:

1. Paint a stereotypical and non representative picture of comprehensives
2. Tell yourself that YOUR child is so amazing thay they couldn't possibly thrive in such a mediocre environment with other children
3. Therefore we need grammars
4. If anyone asks about the children who don't make the cut then just say but SOME comprehensives are good/ a well ran secondary modern could be fine... but only for other people's kids.

"No one is proposing going back to the archaic grammar versus sec mod system"

Aren't they? What are they proposing, then?

Always amuses me how often you see grammar threads and how quickly people decide that if THEIR child doesn't get into state grammar then they'll pay for their child to go private.

Because these people defend grammars but know really they can buy their children out of the system.

What gets left is all the kids who didn't get into grammar and whose parents can't afford private.

I teach in a comp which gets excellent results so under Tory plans would probably convert to be a grammar school. This would mean that three quarters of the local kids who currently walk/scoot/cycle into school would instead have to get a bus out to a different school, while kids who could be going to their local school are bussed past them to come to the one I teach at. This seems to me to be a totally bonkers and rather expensive state of affairs. And the poor kids who currently go to my comp and get good results will mostly be shuffled elsewhere.

Same noble.
I think that's why I feel so strongly about it.

Improve comprehensives, look into different pathways (like some local comps near me do. E.g. from y10 some do EBACC others take a more vocational route), improve struggling schools so you don't have schools in an area struggling to keep staff.

I can't see a single benefit of grammars that couldn't be achieved by improving comprehensives. (Unless you are the type of parent who only wants their children to mix with affluent middle class children, but then I'd think you were an insufferable snob)

Multiple entry points?

Seperating a 14 year old from their friends RUINS THEIR LIVES! Ok, the teen view is somewhat melodramatic, but can you really see them being happy to wave goodbye to the social structures that are so important to them.

And how would these new 13/14 entry places be managed? A league table and some are relegated? That will extend pressure and tutoring right across the 3 years,

A new 13 plus schools admissions round? Oh, joy. )and huge expense), leave it to 'just work out'? And some years there might have been places But no vacancies are occurring, so sorry, in this cohort your child stays in the secondary modern ...

If so much engineering (tutor free tests -sic- , compensating for factors of poverty and disadvantage included) is required to compensate for flaws and gaps in a system of educating children in a different school , surely it signals that the system is not fit for purpose.

Yep, multiple entry points to the grammar is an admission that the 11+ doesn't work. The whole thing should be abandoned rather than desperate attempts to fix it.

And what I find particularly frustrating is the complete refusal of the grammar school supporters to even take on the elephant in the room that is the socio-economic divide in selective education, and even still talk about social mobility as a benefit of the system. There is one poster who cheerfully admits she doesn't want her child mixing with the plebs, and that at least has the virtue of honesty. Others deny the divide exists-because they know a single parent nurse whose child goes to a grammar school. There are even the "Well of course there aren't many disadvantaged kids in grammar schools -they are disadvantaged because their parents aren't very intelligent so they aren't very intelligent either" Mention Pupil Premium children, and they suddenly start pointing at faith schools or muttering about leafiness.......

This idea that in comprehensive all classes are mixed ability from mini Einstein to Jo Blogs on P scales is just not true.

But according to Ofsted seven years ago, 60% of the secondary lessons they observed weren't set. So no, not all, but perhaps the majority nonetheless (assuming things haven't changed much, of course - but no one seems to have any figures on this).

So telling parents who complain about the mixed ability teaching their children are experiencing or have experienced that they shouldn't be concerned because it's not true that all classes in comprehensives are mixed ability is actually a straw man argument, in the light of the figures above.

What are the options for improving this situation? Should smaller schools be offering less choice of options? (something I think might be a reasonable approach). Should the government force schools that don't set because they believe mixed ability teaching is better for the lower attainers to do so? Are there ways that we could mitigate the problems of wider sets?

But does it matter if food tech or drama or music aren't set?

Is that any different to separating them because some aren't "religious" enough for church schools?

Yes it is different, but also bad. I'd ban those too.

Anyway, we're not in the 50's/60's anymore. The alternative isn't a crap sec-mod these days. The alternative is a comp, and given how so many people claim comps are just as good, how can it mean "failure". Things have moved on in the last 50 years!

These are the words of somebody who knows nothing about the education system. The alternative is not a comp (even if it decides to call itself one). Comprehensives are schools which take the full ability range. You can't have those in a grammar school system.

And the 'comprehensiveness' of a school merey describes its method of intake. It doesn't tell you whether the school itself is good or bad. So 'many people claim comps are just as good' is an utterly meaningless statement. Each school is different.

Your paragraph about privilege and tutoring is utter nonsense too. No, a very low ability child will not pass the 11+ however much tutoring they get. But for the huge swathe of kids who are borderline ability-wise, tutoring and parental help will be what makes them pass or fail.

Add to that the fact that kids have good days and bad days, good months and bad months. They progress in fits and starts, regress a bit, catch up a bit, are affected by which teacher they have that year etc.

I do think the comps offering needs to be improved, and then you won't get the desire for other types of schools. I think the desire for them is really only because parents don't feel they are meeting the needs of their children. And some comps don't so it's natural that they seek alternatives.

Well don't vote Tory if you think schools need to improve. We can't improve in the current climate of severe underfunding and experienced teachers leaving in droves while recruitment targets are missed by a huge margin.

But what is also evident from this thread is that a lot of parents want grammars based on their experience of schools from 30 years ago.

If you wish to achieve in music yes I think it does matter.
Imagine trying to teach someone grade 1 and grade 4 at the same time.

Similar problems still exist.

Without meaning to sound patronizing, and in the spirit of "defining our terms" we all do know what "comprehensive" means when applied to a school, don't we? It simply means a school which takes children of all abilities.

And some years there might have been places But no vacancies are occurring, so sorry, in this cohort your child stays in the secondary modern ...

Or boot some of the lower achieving ones out of the grammar to make way for those who pass the 13+? I can't see that being popular with parents.

Head but music lessons aren't about trying to teach someone grade 1 and grade 4 at the same time. You know there's more to music than learning to play an instrument, right?

And we're talking KS3 here.

Grammar schools don't set for music. Or anything in my experience except Maths...........

Yes. But it's an academic subject and should be given the same respect as science or geography.
It was taught mixed ability in ks4 here.

I have a friend with DC at private primary....They get an excellent all round education, its a wonderful highly regarded school in an area with many many excellent private schools. People travel quite a way for it.

They are also however - being prepped like mad for exams. Friend is always being kept abreast of dc progress, attainment...in year 4 - scholarships are already being spoken about - who in class has a shot....what they need to do. Its all open and transparent.

Cue me....casually asking DD teacher ( good state primary) " Do you think she is showing any Grammar 11+ potential........" I was subjected to a short - patronizing speech about how she felt Grammar system was bad, encouraged snobbery....etc etc etc.

One set of teachers is actively working with parents in friends school to get the dc to test levels. The other lot - working agaisnt the parents....because of personal beliefs. Driving it underground and into the hands of tutors.

And people wonder why FSM dont get a shot at the 11+