The other thread will no longer accept messages but I wanted to make some more points

[fivecandles]

Lequeen, I do find it utterly bizarre that, as a parent, you or anybody else, would accept that if your child missed getting into a grammar school by a couple of marks you would be perfectly happy to accept that meant your child was not academic and therefore should pursue a more vocational route whatever that means.

One of my dc would almost certainly fail to get into a GS. This does not mean I think she should take up a hairdressing course and stop learning GCSEs. I see no good reason why she shouldn't get a good academic education with as much support as possible and go on to university. She has suggested she might enjoy primary teaching and I think she'd make an excellent teacher. The idea that she shouldn't be able to go to university or learn languages and should settle with her lot just because she's not ever going to be a nuclear physicist is absolutely staggering.

I also find your idea that it would be better to segregate underperforming students into an entirely different school for their self-esteem staggering.

Why can't you just be honest about it lequeen. There are no advantages whatsoever for the majority of pupils who do not get into the GS. All the advantages go to the kids who DO get in and these are the pupils who are already doing well (and the research indicates most likely to be well off).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that privileged and clever kids don't deserve the very best education and I absolutely agree that they should be challenged and supported but this can and should and is being done in the same school as students who are struggling academically and are likely to be from very different social backgrounds are also supported to achieve.

'filled brim-full with motivated, focused kids who all want to strive academically.'

Thing is, kids aren't born that way. It's our job to do our best to encourage those attitudes.

I love doing that as a teacher. And I love the fact that I've learned a lot and enjoyed being with kids who may never fit your description but nevertheless have loads of things to offer to other kids and society as a whole.

I feel a bit sorry for you tbh that you can't appreciate that.

'Normal life for our friends, families and their children is working hard at school, going on to university and having a professional career of some sort...'

I'd really like my kids to be able to mix with a range of people and to value people for their own qualities and not purely on how hard they've worked at school. Normal life whatever form it takes does involve meeting and being able to get on with a wide range of people.

I've also taught/ met an awful lot of high achievers who go on to have very disappoinint adult lives. Once they aren't getting the strokes for receiving A grades in exams, how do they cope?

'Being academic certainly isn't everything.'

Hmm, because if you read back your posts, that's not the impression that you give.

You are advocating a system which divides children purely on that basis.

Must go to bed. GOt full day teaching tomorrow and wouldn't want to seem anything but highyl motivated and striving for academic success

LeQueen - you could also add that they have been deprived of the vocational training that would see them earning as much, or more, than university graduates with joint honours in poetry and needlework.

Normal life for our friends, families and their children is working hard at school, going on to university and having a professional career of some sort...

This is normal life for the majority of families in my area and so it is reflected in the comprehensive schools.
Having mulled it over LeQueen I don't think that we differ so much.

I lived in a grammar school area. When my DS was 7yrs old I was already looking into private education, I had been to a private schools fair and spoken to someone at my preferred school and they had sent me a video-my next step was to visit. I had decided that DS was either a borderline pass or borderline failure. The secondary modern had a bad reputation and I only had to see the boys coming and going from school to know that he was going there 'over my dead body'. I wasn't enamoured with the the grammar-it got the results- but pastoral care seemed pretty low on their priorities and I would also have felt it hypocritical when I hate the system. I had decided that if I worked full time I could just about afford to go private.

I then met DH2 and wanted more DCs-there was no way that I could afford more than one lot of school fees.

We moved:schools were the first priority in the move.

Your big mistake is to think that, the so called comprehensives, in a grammar school area are typical. They are not (they can't even be comprehensive with the vital top element removed).
If all the talent in the town has to go to the comprehensive, unless they pay, it raises the standard.
Our town has 4 comprehensives. A few send their DCs to the next town with a Cof E comprehensive that comes extraordinarily high in the league tables. The all girls one generally comes very high in the league table. The boys and the 2 mixed vie for position, but you always find all 3 printed in the Times best school list-although lower. They can't compete with grammar schools-they have to educate all.
Many people who could afford to pay (if the situation was similar to the one in your area) but they don't. They can get the results for free. I used the money for other things, French exchanges, skiing in Canada, a trip to Russia, outdoor activity centre holidays -all through the school.
DCs are aspirational-they have their sights set on good univerities-they are not going to be upset by a few idiots, who are losers in life. They have weeks where the really high achievers go to the activity centre. There are things for lower groups too.

I can understand why you don't want your DCs to go to the local comprehensive (secondary modern) but I can't understand why you equate this experience to the rest of the country.
I also think that it unfair for you to patronisingly say that it is OK for the less academic because 'they have different strengths which will be catered for' when it isn't good enough for your DD. If it isn't good enough for your DD it isn't good enough for anyone else's DD.

These threads are always the same.
Parents saying that they aren't impressed with schools.
Teachers teling us what a fabulous job they are doing.
Why such a disconnect?

Yes. I always find it most odd that posters who state they have personal experience of a poor school are swiftlt told that this is nonsense. That most schools are great...I mean, how on earth does that help those children in the poor schools?

The reality is that the majority of poorly performing state schools are not in grammar areas.

Sorry but the assumption in all these threads is that all non-academic kids are disruptive, I think that's a highly suspect and snobbish way to think.

We live on the border to a grammar area, although our schools are comprehensive, and could have tutored our kids through the 11+ but chose not to because (1) although DS1 would probably have had a good chance, DS2 is borderline dyslexic and definitely wouldn't, and (2) the schools didn't have anything like the enthusiastic teaching staff and facilities of the comp (albeit not our nearest one) that we managed to get into and (3) sending them for an hours journey on a bus every day when we had good schools nearby was madness.

We are really pleased with the school, they set for most academic lessons, and DS1 can be in top set for science and middle set for maths, being pushed where he excels and getting the help where he needs it. DS2 is towards the bottom in his sets (although since he only started in Sept he will be re-assessed) and he does not come home telling me that everyone is disruptive.

I love that everyone has the same chances to improve and not be stopped from truly reaching the top even if they weren't excelling at 11.

I know we're lucky and there are plenty of awful schools around but they're not awful because they're comprehensives.

I went to a true comp in the eighties. No grammars at all. (Lancashire).

The standard was not high, expectations were not high. University was not put on the horizon. Teaching was poor (v little music, lots and lots of sport, science teaching pretty patchy) and lots of infighting between teachers. Lack of decent leadership. Smoking by pupils tolerated on school premises. Uniform rules not enforced. Very, very uninspiring place. I was in the top sets but actually came out with very mixed GCSE results because of bad teaching, bullying and the prevailing atmosphere that the slackers were cool and revision was sneered at. There was no orchestra, no school plays, no drama club. I hated every minute. There was streaming, via an exam during the last few weeks of primary school. Once put in a 'band', there was no moving. Everyone stayed in the same band until GCSEs.

It may not be representative of comps today but when I hear of these marvellous comps today with streaming to suit all academic levels, with dedicated teachers and excellent facilities and extra curricula activities, I cannot help but feel doubtful. Sorry, but that's how it is.

(If I were in England), I would investigate local comps for my Dc, but I agree with a PP who said there seem to be lots of teachers defending comps and lots of parents who have direct experience of comps who are tearing their hair out.

I would have to see things had radically changed since my day. Even though morally I can see that the comp model is the best.

I haven't read the previous thread so I apologise if I am repeating things already said.

Grammar schools clearly do not take the most intelligent children. Some of the children who get in do so because they are diligent and have worked hard throughout primary school and in the run up to the 11 plus. I have no issue with this.

Grammar schools put children in a bubble. This is perhaps one of the major reasons why parents want their children to attend them. There are serious problems with the behaviour and attitudes of many adults of all class backgrounds in our society. They pass these attitudes on to their children and teachers then have to go along with these attitudes to some extent in order to placate the client group of parents and children and because school management makes them do so. It is not the responsibility of children to resolve social problems created by adults - intervene with the parents, school managers and teachers instead.

There are serious problems with comprehensive schools. This is not caused by grammar schools but by other factors - a major one being position in the league tables being seen as more important than the future of the children. My local comprehensive school makes children do their GCSE subjects in one year - so they do one third in year 9, one third in year 10 and one third in year 11.

It is obvious (and shown in research) that a child taking a GCSE at 13 is less likely to get a high grade than a child taking that exam at 15. It is also obvious that if you stop a child studying, for example French, for two years then make them study it in one year, they are unlikely to catch up and get a high grade. The school just wants lots of Cs. It does not care (or maybe doesn't know) that it is wrecking the university chances of many pupils.

I went to a comp in a grammar area. We were able to do multiple languages, 3 Sciences etc. The reason children don't do this now is because schools are chasing Cs by pushing children towards easier qualifications. This is not the fault of Grammar schools.

It is pointless comparing comprehensive schools now with the first comprehensive schools. After the 11 plus was abolished, schools for children with behavioural problems were still widespread - the most challenging children were not in comprehensive schools, now they are.

As for my personal situation, I have one child in a grammar and one is very likely to end up at the comprehensive. I am still glad that one of my children will get a decent education. If there was no grammar, the comp would be no better - I would just have two children being offered a poor quality education. Although I suppose making vocational subjects compulsory would at least mean that I might get a new set of furniture out of it.

LeQueen I agree with a lot of what you've said - far too much to type out.

Just want to add, I don't see why the superbright kids who are focused and hardworking should be 'shipped' into the local comp/secondary modern in order to raise standards - our DC do not exist in order to create social reform.

These kids have a great attitude because that's the norm amongst their peers. Their great attitude would soon be challenged at a secondary modern/comp, and their education would be adversely affected.

Yummyhoney, I think that is precisely the point - it is not the job of hardworking children to create social reform.

I don't believe that most of the adults on this thread work alongside colleagues who are highly disruptive. That kind of 'inclusion' is something that only children are expected to put up with - it doesn't happen in the adult workplace.

Again with the highly disruptive children being found purely in the lower ability grades ??

I don't believe the highly disruptive children are found purely in the lower ability grades, but I do believe that there are no disruptive children to be found in the top sets of the grammar schools - certainly the Superselective grammars.

I have 2 DDs in Superselective grammars and I have never heard of a single incident of disruption - it is simply not conducive to that environment.

People may not like to hear it, but in these grammars the kids work extremely hard, have a great attitude towards learning and homework and are very, very well behaved to boot. (Possibly because an extremely high number of them are children of immigrants, who place a very high value on education/discipline - certainly the number of white British children in grammar schools, across the country are a tiny minority - with the Asian children being the majority - and that's a fact.)