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,

I don't really understand that point, atourch.There is no exam you have to pass to be entitled to NHS treatment, is there? Unless you are talking about compulsory admission to hospital under the mental health act, perhaps? A different kind of assessment from the 11+, hopefully.

No but people can still use the system better if they know it.

Do you think so? I don't know if that's true. But even if it is it's overcome to a great extent if we offer the best healthcare possible to whoever walks through the door. And that's the same with schools.

Yes, but I don't believe (imo obv) that is possible. If it was we would have figured it out by now. Not great but hey.

I'm not so pessimistic. Grammar schools have been practically unheard of in most of the country for years and many many children have continued to get a good education made even better because it is less tainted with the divisiveness and angst associated with the 11 plus lottery and the disgrace of funds flowing only to a small minority of children. Some have not got a good enough education and some schools need to be much much better, of course. But that does not mean we need to return to an anachronistic and fundamentally unfair system. Look at Scotland. No grammars at all and one of the most envied education systems in the world.

Yes, but choice is the important factor surely? If all of the other counties don't have them and their education is better, then you can live there. Many people deliberately move to grammar areas to allow the possibility of what they see as a better education.

I agree Scotland has done something very right, but whether their changes would work for the rest of the country, and on a much larger scale therefore, is hard to predict. I think we are lucky in this country to have a variety of choices for schooling and healthcare. I for one don't want to narrow the options for people further ( esp in these days when everyone is screaming at politicians to leave them to choose how to bring up their own kids however they see fit).

"That boy/girl who's parents are on benefits who gets into Oxbridge and makes a huge change thanks to being given a place at a grammar"

Well, if a child who's parents were on benefits managed to get into grammar school you might have a point. But....

Actually I live in Kent and two of my friends kids (both families ARE on benefits and one a single mum, shock horror) have got in. They are happy and feel they have had a lucky break and given their kids the best start they could hope for. If you don't feel this way then opting out of the test is always an option.

I am very glad to hearb it. Their experience in by no means the norm, however, as witnessed by the % of FSM children at grammar schools.

I am sure it isn't the norm, sadly.
However just that small percentage makes it worth having for me.

What I would really like to see is any proof that selection provides a better education for all children.If it is better,then results from Kent should prove that as we have had a selective system for so long,and it should be reintroduced nationally.If not,then perhaps we could get a comprehensive system like everyone else. That'd be nice...

scummymummy,you sound very well adjusted,and free from the angst and worry that hovers over the move to secondary school for many of us!

But no two children are the same. You cannot possibly use a one rule for all attitude unless you want a purely fee paying/non fee paying system with no structured tier system in lessons where kids who really don't want to learn can disrupt kids that do. Or kids that do well make kids that don't feel terrible because they sit right next to them in class, rather than being specifically catered for in a stream.

unfortunately you've fought some ideological battle
with your son as the casualty, and upset at perceived failure
frankly bizarre to complain about an exam your vehemently oppose,and get all tell me this. you didn't have to pursue 11+ but you did

It all makes depressing reading. 40 years or so ago it was much fairer (even though I could still write an essay on the unfairness at that stage) but reading all this makes it quite clear that today's parents need to be clued up early and have a plan of campaign early on. They may have a bright child but they need to bear in mind that other bright children are taught exam technique, practise until it becomes second nature and have speed. Parents will spend a huge amount on it, some even sending their DC to a private school for primary, because it is an investment- once they have the place they save an enormous amount and no one takes that place away. They don't say ' sorry, little Johnny at the High School has come on in leaps and bounds in the last year and is performing much better - he needs your place. Little Johnny is stuck because 2 years ago he didn't do as well. In a comprehensive he moves up and if a child isn't coping they move down. You can wait until they are 14 before you decide whether they can do 3 sciences- you don't have the outdated view that they can't because they didn't perform well 4 years before.

I worked out that I failed 11+ because I was too conscientious. I was told to leave questions if I couldn't do them and then go back if time. My interpretation was to have a go first and then leave them. I can see now that it should have been an instant decision and a question of doing all the ones that I could do first and then go back.Speed is the thing. It does however irk me that the same marks would have got me a place in the next town and that I missed it by 2 places. It isn't quite as irksome as knowing that someone else got the place because their parents spent more on it!

I do get fed up with people telling seeker 'you pursued the exam' - she lives in Kent! She has a bright DC. The moral seems to be that you spend money preparing the bright DC because everyone else is or you say 'I'm not playing' and settle for a school he didn't want in the first place. I can't see the difference in people thinking 'he isn't so bright he failed', 'he isn't so bright his parents didn't let him try' or 'his mother didn't let him try because of her principles' - in all ways it leaves him going to a different school than his friends.
It would be different in the Reading area. Only a handful would opt to take the exam. Everyone would know that some of the very brightest in the
class wouldn't take it because they know they can get a first class education at the comprehensives.

I do find it interesting that people are so wedded to the concept of grammar schools that they are prepared to stick their fingers their ears and go "lalalalalalalala" whenever anyone tries to talk about how operate in reality, rather than in some mythical golden age when the child of an illiterate street sweeper could access the sunlit uplands of academe through the 11+. I suspect these people either have a very blinkered view of their own world, or don't actually live in an area where selection at 11 happens. (one of my main detractors on this thread actually comes from Scotland- where I don't think they have ever had selection at 11- so obviously arguing from a position of great strength!)

Even before you consider any other impact, just consider the fact that the average amount of FSM children at grammar schools is 2%- against a national average of around 16%. That alone should give anyone pause- unless the view is that poor children are innately less clever than richer ones.

The mythical age of the street sweeper's DC is still the old chestnut put forward by those who want to save grammar schools when they must know that the DC hasn't a hope in hell! (and if he did they would pay even more to get the place for their own DC!)

poor children being innately less clever...I know people who believe this.

as generally more intelligent people are more successful in life, and richer...? and intelligence is hereditary, so their (rich) kids are likely to be intelligent too.

not sure I believe in that.

also, I do not believe clever children are entitled to better education.

a good education system would get the best out of ALL kids, regardless of their innate intelligence.

I suspect there are a smattering of DC coming from disadvantaged backgrounds for who getting a place at grammar will make a huge difference.

But the majority will be middle class DC who have been well prepared for the exam.

Which must mean that the top % have not been creamed off. What have been creamed off are well prepped middle class DC. Which makes me wonder why you think your DS needed to go there to be with his academic peers seeker.

It is a complete mystery to me why you put him in for it in the first place. You say you had no choice, yet swathes of children in Kent choose not to take the test. Most children don't attend grammar. And of those that do, by your own account, won't be the brightest, just the most well to do and best prepped.

Actually, poor children don't have to be innately less clever to be at a disadvantage. It's equally likely that they tend to fare less well on IQ type tests due to a more impoverished upbringing with less 'enrichment' activities. There's a study that showed that even by the time they start school at 4, the very poorest children are a year behind the richest, in spite of no ability difference being evident between the two groups as babies (quite how you determine the ability of a baby I'm not sure) which suggest very much that its nurture not nature and not therefore innate.

Wordfactory- could we more away from the ad hominem? I have answered your questions on this and other threads. You don't believe what I say. That's fine. Move on.

What we are talking about now is whether the system is one that, as many people seem to think, is one that should be re introduced more widely, and whether it is of advantage to anyone. Apart from the educated middle classes seeking to avoid paying school fees.

Jesus Christ Seeker! Just stop with this crap ok. wordfactory is totally on the button. Your behaviour could be under the dictionary definition of hypocritical. It is utterly incomprehensible to anyone with a smidgen of sense. You are utterly unable to mount a coherent defence of your position because it is impossible. Your dd attends a grammar ( presumably you have been supporting the school all this time in your middle class way) , your son flunked ( even though he is supremely able, lest we forget) the test. You think it is all terribly iniquitous but are a victim of the system. Now he has to go to the school type that the vast majority of children attend and still you bleat on. Stop posting on this topic please because honestly your behaviour is really the worst type of middle class guardian reading hyprocrtical angst claptrap.

We are tryng to argue here that the system is unfair.

people are kdding themselves if they ever

thourght it was fair
that everyone receives same standard education.

Theres so many divisions

cathcment area
north,south-im from wales which does worse than england
selective
private
faith

the list goes on.

At primary-wealth buys you a good state school you have to live within so many miules chosen highly subscribed schools here.

if thats not possible then many opt for faith school which we did as the community primarys received the worst sats.

we have no state grammar here-we have a private one.
not sure how it varies from other indepndants in the city.
some of the acdemies including the 2private that went state have a %intake based on ability, entrance test and rest banded intro postcodes I think.

I would imagine a small private primary class might better prepare kis for 11+. states dont coach in verbal reasoning.

both me and hubby went to bog standard comps near to where we lived. we both ok but had to work at it not naturally bright.
I guess for some parents tutoring kids themselves may seem daunting.

Its not just the grades they get.

its the ethos ad education of school.

my ex went private and he did many sports and trips abroad a state would never have done.

I think in the good old days poorer kids could get in.
now its manipulated by middleclass but in all fairness the systems exist in middleclass areas kents hardly deprived.

Im sorry seeker hes dissapointed I do hope he does well and makes new freinds.

my dd and her best freind from nursery went different schools but they do rainbows together and have playdates.

I watched last years year 6 must have gone to like 10diffrent schools in reality especially in urban areas freindship groups are split by schools its ineveitble.

Told dh that freindship wint be main decider when we apply. it will be best school for dd.

we do argue over should we send all our 3kids to same school as what if one does better than the other and feels that child had unfair adavantages but seeing my elder 2they very diffrent so god knows what we do.

Bamboostalks-and your opinion of the % of FSM children at grammar schools?

Appalling ok. I think it's appalling. I am allowed to think that and express my coherent views because I live in GSA and I chose not to send my bright child to one because I am not a hypocrite.