Those of you in favour of grammar schools, come and tell me what to say to my Ds...

[seeker]

He woke up crying in the night because the reality had just hit him that he won't be going to school with his close friends in September because he failed the 11+ in September. "I can't be very bright, can I mum, or I would have passed" " no, it was just one of those things-you're going to a good school, you'll be fine" "I know- but if i was clever I'd be going to school with X and Y" "You are clever- look at your SATs-you'll be in the top set at the high school because of those" " it's not SATS that are important, though, it's the 11+"

Do you want to have more kids feeling like that? Then campaign for more grammar schools,

Therefore everyone is basically taking it as read that even the brightest children need coaching theses days- what hope is there for the bright child from the really disadvantaged background?

None, of course, exoticfruits, because of all the people jostling about, not wanting to become one of the disadvantaged. It's all part of the philosophy that you deserve it if you are disadvantaged, or you wouldn't be disadvantaged, would you?

Exam technique is one of those things, a child either can or can't. I do find it very unfair how this system works, but there's other systems all over the UK which parents play, either buy renting/buying in a 'outstanding' catchment area, or going to church every Sunday. The children from disadvantaged backgrounds miss out on these schools as well.

And it's not enough to have one or two advantages, you have to make sure you have a colossal advantage over as many people as possible, just to be on the safe side.

There are also parts of the UK where parents don't feel the need to pretend to be religious or rent/buy in an "outstanding" catchment area. Has anyone studied these to see what they are doing right?

That's one of the arguements against grammars Exotic.

There is a lot of free material on the Internet that patents can use to do work to prepare their children for the 11+, so I don't really think that anyone is priced out of it. But on the other side, parents who aren't clued up or motivated won't find the free material so their children will be at a disadvantage.

Personally, I thnk those children would be at a disadvantage anyway if their parents aren't willing or able to look up free stuff on the Internet, no matter how bright they are, and other children shouldn't be denied what they need because of a few disengaged parents.

What annoys me is the then hypocrisy of those who want to save grammar schools because ' it gives a way out for the bright child from a disadvantaged background'. It did at one time. Now it is a way for middle class parent to secure a first class education for free. Of course it makes sense to employ a tutor for a few years because it saves a fortune in school fees. The whole system stinks!

There's a lot of crap spouted about the Disadvantaged Intelligent Kids from The Wrong Side of the Tracks.

Yes, without parents who know about coaching and can afford coaching and can find a decent coach, the Disadvantaged Bright Kids will miss out on a grammar education.

But this omits to consider the Disadvantaged Unbright, the Middle Class Unbright, the Ultra Rich Unbright.

It is really sophistry to say 'we don't coach because bright children should be able to get in otherwise the system is so unfair.'

The System IS unfair to the less bright. Let's not forget them.

Back in the early days of grammar schools lots of children from poor families got a place - not now.

If you had a lousy education yourself, failed the 11 plus and have absolutely no confidence in your own ability to help your children with anything academic and don't have an internet connection, I fail to see how that is being disengaged, rather than unfortunate or, at the unkindest, inadequate.

I always hate the attitude that bright children deserve a way up and out but the message to the less bright is 'know your place and stay there'! Everyone should get an excellent education.

A grammar school is seen as a 'free private school education', I agree with you there, exotic.

Im very much in favour of grammar schools, although I would prefer a nationwide system where there were enough places for the top 5-10% rather than the Kent system or the SSs that don't have enough places. But I'm not in favour of them because of the 'they give a bright but disadvantaged child a way out' arguement. I think education in any school should be able to do that.

I'm in favour of them because I don't think every child fits in the same box and it seems like madness to try and educate them all in exactly the same way. Some children just cannot thrive in an environment as comprehensive as a comprehensive, my ds is one of them.

Yes I'm in Kent Cecily, I'm only 30 mins away from Seekers area.
I chose not to put Ds2 in for the test, like the vast majority of parents.
Ds1 took the test and was a high scorer but even he had some tutoring. Even the brightest need technique, help on how long to spend on each section etc. We wouldn't go into a exam or interview without some preparation so why would you send your child in with no idea of what's coming?

Exotic

EXACTLY!

It's not unfair to the less bright if they are still getting an education suited to them.

The message is not anything to do with less bright people having to stay there at all, it's about educating individuals in the way that suits them best.

I don't understand how the state thinks children in Kent do well with grammars but abolished them where I come from in about 1970. What is so special about the genes of the Kent children that they get a different kind of education from the comps of Newcastle?

The other interseting issue is the new survey showing inner London comps have really pulled themselves ahead and you are now likely to get 2 grades higher in GCSEs in inner London than say Hull in comps.

You don't need hours of expensive coaching... East Kent is not super selective. Just some bonds practice paper you can get from whsmiths or download for free.

Agree Ingles.

Parents who use any form of tutoring seem to be criticised for it, but it would be almost cruel to a child to put them through it without any preparation. It's seen as buying an advantage, but I just can't go along with that when there is so much free material available.

There's no grammar schools here either, Xenia. There is a private grammar school though.

Outraged,

But the point is that there is a huge overlap at the 'bottom' of grammars and the 'top' of secondary moderns - those children SHOULD have an identical enducation because they are of equal intelligence and have equal potential.However, on one day at the age of 10 they scored one or two marks less or more than each other, and so they are sent to wholly different schools.

So in fact, with a divided system, a whole bunch of children who SHOULD be in the same box and SHOULD be educated together are separated into institutions which probably don't meet their needs particularly well - the grammar schools are designed for those brighter than this group, and the secondary moderns are designed for those less academic than this group.

And the problem occurs whether it is a 5% / 95% split, or a 50 / 50, or a 25 / 75 - you are still separating children, at the dividing line, who have the same ability and same potential, into different institutions.

There are a very, very few children who are of a level of ability that is so 'outside the norm' as to be ineducable in a mainstream school - at both ends of the ability curve. Special schools, which take a very, very tiny percentage of children, currently serve one 'end' of the distribution. A 'special school' model of 'of too high ability to be educated in mainstream' is probably defendable, for 1 in 10,000 or so children, referred to such a school via statements of need on the basis of full professional assessments in the same way as special schools are...but not for 5, or 10, or 23 children out of 100.

Fair enough Ingles2 but I got the impression upthread that most children in Kent did take the test.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos - are you suggesting that the top 5-10% of children are different from the remaining 95% and are thus a special case, whereas the remaining 90-95% are sufficiently similar that they can all be educated together and still get a good deal?

I don't understand how the state thinks children in Kent do well with grammars but abolished them where I come from in about 1970. What is so special about the genes of the Kent children that they get a different kind of education from the comps of Newcastle?

Xenia, you must know that this was determined by local rather than central government, surely.

And those children can have an identical education, it would just be in a different building. I think it's better to have the dividing line set higher rather than lower because it almost ensures that adequate education for the more able is provided in other schools.

As long as each child recieves an education that meets their needs, then I don't really see the problem.

No one complains about PRUs, and there would be a big arguement for providing more PRU places. Children who need that type of education should get it and children that are better suited to a grammar education should get it. Being bright deserves as much attention and resources given to it as being disadvantaged, or having SEN, or anything else.