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 did go to Grammar but probably would have been okay anyway. But both my DF and FIL were what Grammar schools were really for. Both from very disadvantaged families (shoes with cardboard to cover the holes level) but both won G school places and hugely improved their lot for the next generation. I am torn but still think that was really what it was all about.

That may have been partly what it was about then, but I don't think it is now.

Yes and No.

My father went to Grammar school in the 50s and it completely transformed his life. It enabled him to leave his life of inner city poverty, have a fantastic career and later on pay for my private school fees.

So it was brilliant for him, but I do think Grammar schools belong in the past. I'm more in favour of having all abilities in the same school with very strict streaming. No hard working child should have to put up with constantly disruptive from kids who don't want to learn. So, whilst I'm not convinced about selective schools, I do believe in a level of academic segregation within schools so that every student can reach their potential.

No the unfairness in comps isn't easy to sort out which is why it hasn't been. The richest families buy the best places.Only a complete lottery system could sort it out which will never happen and many parents would hate.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39076204

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39327149

GrumbleBumble: my Dc's comp delivers a full range to a full diversity of interests.

And allows cats to have a try at rabbit food , and vice versa, should they fancy it, or their tastes change.

I have bright kids in top sets at a comp. They don 't need to be in a seperate building in a different uniform from middle achievers to get a good education.

Just as teachers are able to teach at different levels for yr 7 and 11 they are also able to accomplish teaching advanced sets and support sets at different speeds and levels.

Quite skilled, teachers.

Perhaps it's the professional training.

Just as teachers are able to teach at different levels for yr 7 and 11 they are also able to accomplish teaching advanced sets and support sets at different speeds and levels.

When they are allowed to do so. When the school is large enough to support a range of sets in all subjects. Unfortunately, many of us have children in schools where that is not the case. That isn't an argument for grammar schools: it's an argument for those who are fortunate enough to be able to send their children to schools that use setting well, to stop patronising the rest of us.

testtube that's how it should but in my comp everyone got bird seed! (with a side order bullying if you decided to try eating it). We were setted for some subjects after the first year but not all of them even at GCSE depending on which options you'd picked and how they fitted into the timetable - if 30 kids had opted for third block chemistry then we were all taught together. One of my teacher never in the 5 years we were in the school even looked at the top sets homework let alone marked it because we would pass any way. The strugglers left as "failures" because they weren't offered vocational options and weren't supported, the academics were left to get on with it and not pushed or challenged. I personally don't think one school with one common aim (e.g. 5 GCSE s at a-c including maths, English and a science) can suit everyone.

I can see that a wide range of provision in a good comprehensive school relies on a critical mass of students.

I know not all comps deliver a good education. But if scale is an issue, how does splitting them into yet smaller units, by ability, help?

No the unfairness in comps isn't easy to sort out which is why it hasn't been.

I didn't say it was easy. I said it was possible. Not by changing who goes to which school, but by improving the schools themselves. There are lots of ways to improve schools, but the government doesn't listen.

Grumble; is that how it is now, though? DH went to a terrible comp, but what went on there in terms of behaviour and abuse of education just would not be allowed now.

Same with my sister's comp.

They would be declared 'inadequate' or 'in need of improvement' which is translated as 'replace the Head immediately and get it sorted ',

Still not saying all schools perform as they should, but it just isn't the same as 'our day'. Or are there areas of the country where it is?

I have a family member who teaches in a school where the whole LA was put in special measures, and where the intake is low ability / lower aspiration. Even his school is not like my DH's or my sister 's old comp.

testtube to be honest I have no idea. - I don't have senior aged kids. I know there are failing schools, I know there are areas where people lie about their address or their reglion to get into a "good" school but I don't have any experience of what life in a crap one is like. Most people think its OK for only kids who are really good at ballet to go to ballet school or only kids who are good at drama/music/dance to go to stage school. So it appears that its OK to select on talant (even though a high % of boys in football academies don't make it professional footballers) but not OK if the talent is for academic subjects. So llamas can get llama food but cats can't have cat food.

Really? Out of our 3 local "good" comps we have friends removing their DC from two because the behaviour is so bad in lessons it is making them stressed,1 has below the national average progress 8 scores and a friend's bright children have spent the past 2 years under challenged with year 7 being a waste of time.

kesstral I agree with you.
When they are too small, there isn't the numbers to do anything with.
As one teacher said to my DD at parents evening "don't try and go ahead, I want to keep you all together"
Or the head of science who said no, we don't let students do three sciences and maths A level - it's too hard.
Excellent teachers might be able to bridge the gap. or push harder. But most don't.
DD3 is at the school - she's aware that she needs to do very little to come top of the class in tests so it does make her very lazy.

I went to a horrible comp in 80s (non grammar area) that is still the local school to us. I have such terrible memories of it that I wouldn't send DD there and we paid for her to go private after state primary, even though I'm sure it's very different now. Having said that I don't think it's the high-low achievers that need separating, it's the good-poor behaviour kids. That is what they need to focus on. It's a 2 prong strategy that's needed, keep comps but set according to ability, offer more non academic subjects for some and remove those who won't behave.

GrumbleBumble - the ballet comparison really doesn't work let alone the llamas and cats . Do you think all kids who are talented at maths are also great at English or MFL? Do you only get into a grammar school if you're an all-rounder?

How many children go to ballet or music school? I think it's only the really talented ones - not the 25% or so who go to the Kent/Bucks Grammars. I don't doubt that those grammars have a small percentage of children who would benefit from a highly selective education but I doubt if it's really the whole 25%. Nor do I think there is much difference in the abilities of those who are near the borderline of the pass mark for the grammar and those who just miss by a few marks. But they still get sorted into sheep and goats. Yes, some places have 13+ systems but it's only the odd one which gets moved at that stage.

Actually Eolian I would hazard that the majority of pupils at grammars are good all-rounders. Hence their excellent GCSE results in all subjects.

To put it in some sort of context, DD1 is at a grammar but genuinely doesn't consider herself particularly good at maths at all. She would probably describe herself as being middle-to lower half of her class. Yet, her average maths grade works out at a 7/8...which I believe is an old fashioned A-/B+ ?

But, this is because she compares herself to girls who just get straight level 9s, time and again, without breaking a sweat.

My dd is similar in that she is outstanding at literacy-based subjects and comparatively weaker at maths but actually still able enough to be in the top set in her comprehensive.

However, I have taught many many kids who are very good at maths but poor at languages and English. In a comprehensive they would be able to shine at maths while being in a lower set for MFL and English. Whereas if they failed to get into a grammar school, their talent at maths might well be wasted.

But if they were so strong at maths, presumably they would make it into the top set at the comprehensive?

I think grammars are appropriate for strong, academic all-rounders. And comprehensives are better for children who have academic strengths and weaknesses.

You did not get into grammar school but you are obviously intellignt and motivated so should have done, but you did not come from the background that children go to grammar school from. Your own children, because they had a motivated and intelligent mother who understood the system did

My DF dp were working agaisnt him to get into G, they couldn't understand it - he got in with no support at all. I think there was a more rounded view of ability back then, because teachers could put forward dc they thought could make it and you had a more holistic approach to it all, rather than the one test.

I have been to state, private and G and it was a wondrous amazing place. If I had gone sooner my life would be very different now, because I was fully supported in the G, I had a very tricky family background. This was ignored in previous schools but they picked up on me pretty much straight away and tried to support me. It was too late by then but I did better in exams than I would have done in the other two schools.
I was carried along on the tide, and was lifted higher.

I personally think we need different classes for the kids who want to learn and the kids who don't, and a very different approach for each

I agree. It also needs to be fluid, when I was going through trauma at home I didn't want to learn I wanted to enjoy myself in school but over all I love learning and was a good student when things were calm at home. There are many different reasons dc dont want to engage - bored, dont understand what they are learning, bad teaching, disruptive peer group, but also dc who simply need more support because they do actually want to learn they are having a very hard homelife.

I think grammars are appropriate for strong, academic all-rounders. And comprehensives are better for children who have academic strengths and weaknesses

I agree.

But I think we need specialist teams really focusing on why some comps are failing those who show promise in some subject areas. I guess in a G what your getting above all else is a guarantee that your DC will for fill their potential - but not so in too many comps.

Its not good enough that schools get inspected every so often and require improvement.

I have bright kids in top sets at a comp. They don 't need to be in a seperate building in a different uniform from middle achievers to get a good education

your very lucky then, many of us do not have that option.

Do they need to be in a separate building?
No not really, but there does need to be enough kids to play in an orchestra - which at my kids school there isn't for example.

For comps to work, they need to be sizeable - so you can stream / set and offer lots of choices.

But you don't have grammar schools and comprehensives. You have grammar schools and secondary moderns. If the brightest are being creamed off into a grammar, how can the other schools in the area be comprehensive? They do not have the full ability range. Which is why a talented mathematician who failed the 11+ might not be stretched.