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?

MaQueen, why aren't comps also good for all rounders?

If a top set in a comp can deliver a good maths education to a strong maths student who happens to be weak in English , then the same comp can deliver the same good maths education to a student who is also good at English and everything else!

Re the debate about all rounders / verbally / mathematically able. When I did 11+ (back in the dark ages) it assessed both but was not knowledge based. I'm not sure if it was IQ based (I know these assessments are questionable now). It was looking for potential. There were plenty of pupils in my Grammar who excelled at English and struggled with Maths (me) and vice-versa but the base standard was high as PP says. I was in the bottom set for Maths but we all passed equivalent to GCSE C. At the same time I was top set for English and took the O level early. I just can't see that a comprehensive system where parents who can afford to move to get into the good schools (thus favouring the privileged children) is fairer than a system which looked for potential in all children irrespective of background.

"I just can't see that a comprehensive system where parents who can afford to move to get into the good schools (thus favouring the privileged children) is fairer than a system which looked for potential in all children irrespective of background."

Can you explain why there are very few poor or disadvantaged children in grammar schools? Do they have less potential?

Which is why a talented mathematician who failed the 11+ might not be stretched

But isn't that an issue for the sec modern to address not the G school?

They do not have the full ability range
They have a different ability range thats all. Why cant they cater for it.

Bit different in Scotland as we don't have grammer schools, just comp or private.
My parents (Scotland) both passed the 11 plus and went to "senior secondary". Both were the first in their families to go to university. My dad laments the loss of the senior secondary, and as such went me to private school where I could be "challenged'.I did do well, but wouldn't send my own kids private, although dd1 had struggled with being smarter than most of the kids in her class, but now she is reaching 3rd year they will be more streamed. Dad keeps at me to send her private but it wasn't a great experience for me, and I won't do that to her. Although I do feel that comp education looks after the less able kids more than the more able kids. Dd is getting 100% in exams and I don't feel that should be possible!!! But I'm sticking to my guns and keeping her where she is, because in trying to get into the "prestigious" courses the selection committee seem to favour comp kids who have done well vs private kids with the same results.

Some interesting points here .

Even if you prefer to ignore the blatant unfairness of grammar schools, there really doesn't appear to be evidence that they even do what they're supposed to do in terms of improving results or social mobility.

Eolian you said something earlier about ways to improve comprehensives, which is something I am really interested in. What do you think needs to be done?

bertrand
Poor and disadvantaged children have parents that possibly aren't well educated and thus have poor jobs. They are much less likely to have genetic ability (and we know genes have a vast influence on academic ability) to do academic subjects compared to those with different genes.
For example. Brca 1 gene. It's causes cancer, yes, but also makes your brain grow quicker at an early age.

Eolian
I am interested too in your ideas. We seem to have a secondary modern rather than a comp.

Moving for a 'good comp' isn't an education system, though, it is an admission system based on distance. Moving for primary school is very common but I see no one suggesting KS2 Grammars to solve that unfairness.

Some Grammars have distance criteria, some comps admit by lottery.

Maybe, just maybe, one of the factors that contributes to success (higher stats) in London schools is that the socio-economic sorting hat is not so emphatic. In London Georgian conservation areas back on to high density housing estates, I can't think of any schools (popular, high performing schools) near me which have a home-owner catchment that do not also have large LA or HA estates also on their doorstep.

How to improve comps that are not good? I suspect that depends on the factors that are an issue at any given comp. To provide a broader curriculum some comps near us team up: you can do 2 A levels at one and 1 at the other, 5 GCSE's and a BTEC at one and 1 at another, Be based in one school but do Latin at the other. MFLs spread across schools to give much wider choice. But the schools are within 7 mins walk of each other; not practical in a large rural area.

Money! It clearly talks in London schools, fight for good funding everywhere!

Make teachers' lives ones of joy and inspiration in unfolding their subject to their pupils, instead of bogging tnem down in paperwork and narrow prescriptive targets! Respect them, listen to them! (The government, that is).

I don't know, I am not an educationalist, but as the comprehensive model can and does work, let's prioritise fixing the schools that are not. If the schools are good the admissions panic may die down.

"bertrand
Poor and disadvantaged children have parents that possibly aren't well educated and thus have poor jobs. They are much less likely to have genetic ability (and we know genes have a vast influence on academic ability) to do academic subjects compared to those with different genes.
For example. Brca 1 gene. It's causes cancer, yes, but also makes your brain grow quicker at an early age"

Oh well, let's just do admission by genetic testing then. Noting worrying about that at all.................Or by means test. That'll ensure optimum social mobility.

Actually, the most bizarre thing about this is the whole "academic ability " thing. We're talking GCSEs, not the Nobel Prize for Physics! I can see how a child who was capable of doing a maths degree at 14 might need specialist education (I wonder why it's always maths, though- you never hear about 14 year olds going on Oxford to read History) but a need for GCSE A graders to be in a different school to the Cs and Ds? . Nope.

but as the comprehensive model can and does work,

Can't say that on MN! It's Grammar Schools all the way for them!

I happen to agree - my old school is significantly better as a Comprehensive. Some factors are - no grammars or private schools locally to cream off the brighter or better behaved pupils and a balanced intake among the social spectrum. Plus a strong senior management team.

Those are the sorts of things we should be looking at. As some people say, some comprehensives are by virtue of their intake, effectively secondary moderns. (And some MN posters use the term Comprehensive when they really are talking about Sec Mods.)

It's naive to think that fully comprehensive areas are some kind of socialist utopia where everyone is schooled together in harmony. People find other ways to segregate. Where I live (rich commuter town which borders a less privileged area) the middles classes are in private schools or (far larger %) church schools where FSM is 3% (the 2 non selective 'comps' are 27% FSM).

"It's naive to think that fully comprehensive areas are some kind of socialist utopia where everyone is schooled together in harmony"

Yes it would be. Fortunately nobody does.

The fact that the vast majority of 'good' comprehensives are in naice, leafy suburbs where only the wealthiest parents can afford to live, is just neatly swept under the carpet by some ...

The fact that the vast majority of 'good' comprehensives are in naice, leafy suburbs where only the wealthiest parents can afford to live, is just neatly swept under the carpet by some ...

No - I suspect that's a London Centric or South-east view. My old school is in a north Midlands/North West market town. It is in an attractive area, but that's because it's on the edge of the Peak District. I suspect that part of its balance is because there are no 'uber' wealthy areas, and no desperately poor areas i.e. no large sink estates, although there certainly are wealthier and poor areas.

It's not 'fortunately' Bertrand, it's a shame that so many of us put our resources into segregating our kids into private/grammar/church schools. But until the system caters for and manages kids who disrupt and bully others, people with means to escape those children, will.

I went to a single sex grammar school and hated it. I do not support the grammar school system.

Just because a school has creamed off the 'brightest' kids it doesn't necessarily mean that the teaching is better there.

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.

To those who blame their comps for letting them 'coast' it is perfectly possible to do this at grammar school, too!

Spot on. Draylon.

I have done some work with PRUs and they do actually engage some very disaffected young people. Which is good for all of us.

Peregrina; not my experience ! My area of S London is definitely not 'leafy' (marijuana aside) and has a series of great comps. Inclusive, representative intake, good results.

But until the system caters for and manages kids who disrupt and bully others,

Grammars are havens of good behaviour, are they?

TestTube: in MN terms a good Comp is 'leafy' by definition! Personally, I am quite sure that up and down the country there are good comps encouraging their pupils to learn and with good pastoral care. We never hear of those.

Yes Drayton you are very right. I don't think there is any need to segregate ability groups into different schools. But there is a real need to cater separately for disruptive children. As this doesn't exist in the comprehensive system people 'with means to do so' will look to what is available- grammars, private and church. And the well behaved kids from families without those means are at risk of being failed. Even in my day when we all pretty much went to the comp (no grammars and far less private school options) the minority of children with bad behaviour utterly dominated the schools.

I support grammar schools, having not been to one myself.

Both of my dd are very academic and the only secondary school that we are in catchment for is a terrible school with terrible results and terrible behaviour problems.

I'd send them to a grammar in an instant if it meant that they were able to reach their potential.

But there is a real need to cater separately for disruptive children. As this doesn't exist in the comprehensive system people......

That is nonsense - there are about 4,000 secondary schools, most of which are comprehensive - some have behaviour problems, as do some grammars. Other schools have good management and deal with bad behaviour.