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,

Chandon-you say- "Outraged, I don't agree, I don't think she would have started this thread in that case."

If you can be bothered you can search my posting history, you will find that I have been absolutely consistent on this subject since before my children were of secondary school age.

And I am not expecting your heart to bleed for my child- as I have repeatedly said, he will be fine. However, my point in starting this thread was to say that a clever, confident, well supported child has been more badly affected than I though by failing the 11+- and if he is crying in the night, I shudder to think what th effect would be on a more sensitive, less grounded child. And I worry about the collective effect on a cohort of being labelled as failures at 10. And I find it profoundly depressing that people are enthusiastic about reintroducing a system that so labels the majority of children.

Clearly there are large numbers of people commenting on this who have no idea how the system in Kent works. Firstly it's an opt-in test. My DD took it in 1997 and there were only 6 from the entire school who sat it. It really isn't the case that everyone takes it and you have no option. As for tutoring, most parents do what we did and go to WH Smiths for the practice papers. They aren't that dear. I didn't know anyone who had paid for an actual tutor. We didn't start them until the summer holiday before the test either, not years and years in advance.

I'm a bit confused too that Seeker is going on about only having 2 schools in her town, when her DD goes to the girls equivalent of the boys grammar my DD went to for 6th form - in a very large town with a whole range of different schools.

I worked in a Kent High school for just over 1 academic year. In that time we had 2 boys transferred from our school to the grammar, one in Y7 and one in Y8, so it isn't true that it is set in stone.

Somebody was going on about campaigning for change. Several people have tried over the years but the parents don't want a comprehensive system. If they did I'm sure it would have changed. They didn't get anywhere near enough signatures to even force a ballot, that's how interested the parents of Kent are in changing the system.

There are several wide-ability schools in Kent calling themselves Comprehensives. Parents who don't agree with the system choose them.

If you put your child forward for selection, you can't gripe when the selection process gives you your least favourable outcome. Especialy when the given option is 'a good school'. Because if you were really against selection, then you would choose the 'good school' option that is free from selection in the first place.

The high school is non-selective, there was no need to enter the Kent Test in order to go to that school. You chose the selective route.

Parents have the option of not allowing their more sensitive, less grounded child to take the 11+ if they fear he couldn't cope with being put through it. Like you say, your bright ds will be fine at the good school you have been offered, so there's no reason why another child shouldn't go straight for that option.

I'm still interested to know why you are convinced that only middle class children benefit from grammar school, and how you define middle class.

Oh, and if you live in an area where the only state schools you child could go to are a grammar and a high, it is impossible to opt out of the system. Apart from, ironically, going private!

The system hasn't entirely been "hijacked by the middle classes* though, Seeker. Your son is middle -class and he didn't get in.

But seeker as so many of us have pointed out to you on so many of your threads, it is you who are labeling children as failures. Not us, and not the system. I do not believe my DS is in any way a failure for not wanting to sit the 11+ or for choosing to go to the comp.

It is difficult seeker. I concede that you're utterly consistent in your posts. But your actions (in opting in to the system) aren't consistent with your declared position of principled opposition to the system.

Surely it's possible to opt out by not taking them to sit the entrance exam in the first place?

It may be impossible to opt out of the system, although I believe you have more scope for choice than you are prepared to admit, but it is not impossible to opt out of the 11+. Plenty of people do.

Proper genuine die-hard principle would necessarily involve not sitting your DC for the test.

Seeker, Gah. You can live in Kent and not opt to sit the Kent Test. And you can still get to go to what you yourself describe as a "good school".

It's like the five stages of grief:

You opted for him to sit the test.
You didn't get the result you wanted.
You appealed with the support of your head (I see upthread).
You still didn't get the result you wanted.
Any chance of ACCEPTANCE any time soon?

Well, I know a lot of grammar school kids. I have seen children going to grammar school from our primary school for 9 years now. And I can only remember a handful who have not got parents who are graduates, professionals or in white collar trades.

And the FSM indicator, much maligned on here, must at least be taken into consideration- 18% at our primary school, 2% at the grammar, 20% at the high school.

"The System" is selective education, not grammar schools on their own. Seeker is educating both her children within the system.

My mum is strongly anti selective education, and I did not take the 11+ (in Kent), although I was pretty likely to pass the test (although I appreciate that there can be some surprising results, like seeker's son). I did go to a Catholic school though - so my mum isn't anti all selection...

Is it remotely possible to discuss the issue, not me? Or is that too hard?

My DHs niece and nephews are definitely not privileged middle class. And they all go to grammar schools in Kent.

seeker - but you and presumably your bidey-in are graduates and your son didn't get in. So for every handful of one type, there are perhaps a handful of surprises in the other direction. It shouldn't be too surprising if the educated and motivated parents produce educated and motivated offspring.

littleFrieda- I am fine with my son's school.

What I am not fine with is the system. Would you care to address any of the points I have made about that, or are you just going to carry on telling me I am only opposed to the system because my son didn't get into grammar school?

Maligned by me seeker tbf, not by too many others.

Plenty of my DC friends' parents at their non Kent super-selective aren't graduates, though plenty are.

I live in an area with a good comprehensive school. I found out the other day that 25% of our primary school children go elsewhere for their secondary education. They either go to the neighbouring counties under subscribed grammar schools or into private education. So even a comp isn't really a true comprehensive at all.

I get fed up of people saying that our comp is rubbish because only 70% of pupils get 5 good GCSEs including Maths and English whereas the grammar schools are close to 100%. You are not actually comparing like for like, if you took yr6 levels into comparison you might find that there isn't such a difference.

I don't see the point in grammar schools. A good comprehensive should be able to cater for all.

Seeker, you are steadfastly refusing to address any of the points anyone else is making so I find your insistence that other posters should address your points (which seem to boil down to your DS didn't get in, everyone else is a failure, and anyone who isn't on FSM must be privileged) a little bit surprising.

Seeker - if you are fine about your son's school why did you put him through a process which you abhor and why did you appeal? It doesn't make sense.

But you don't know all the parents Seeker, as you say you are middle class, maybe you haven't come across the parents who aren't. I find it hard to believe that you know the occupations and incomes of enough GS parents to even come up with an anecdote, let alone data.

The FSM thing does deserve consideration, but in my opinion, not a huge amount. Grammar schools are state schools, parents who need to use FSMs have as much right to apply for GSs as anyone else. If they don't, that's own to them, not the system.

If anything, the FSM arguement completely falls apart in a system like Kent's, because children do familiarisation papers at school so don't need parents to do it, and parents will come across the information about GSs at the same time as they do the HSs.

I do sympathise with your DS seeker because no mother would like the idea of a young boy waking up crying, but I would ask you to respond to the question of how you square your principles with entering your DC for the exam?

The FSM thing is relevant if coaching (even coaching at home) comes into the equation, because coaching costs money.

It isn't as simple as saying 'well, families with FSM can apply'. If the chances of success increase many-fold if children receive coaching, and FSM families cannot afford coaching, then allowing such families to apply does seem rather 'scraps from the rich man's table' to me...